There was a blog post over on 'Beggars All' today, where a guy who calls himself Rhology challenges the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. There are a few reasons for his convoluted conclusion. For one, he doesn't fully understand the Catholic teaching on the matter of Transubstantiation, even though he cites the Council of Trent. This is the common problem with today's pop-aoplogetics world; people love to cut and paste a few quotes from here and there, yet they never read anything in depth to actually learn anything about the subject they are commenting on. He, like so many others on the internet display a lack of ability to actually reason an argument through logically. Of course, part of the problem is that people won't do the research necessary to actually present a coherent argument. It wouldn't have taken much research to clear up this confusion for him, but as we know, it is the mission of the folks at 'Beggars All' to lead people away from the Catholic Church at any cost, including the cost of actually researching the topic they post on. I will post the conclusion to his blog post below. Rhology never puts two and two together to grasp that Christ is present in his entire person, not just his human nature alone. He also fails to understand how Christ is actually present in the sacrament itself. If we spend some time reading through the Summa Theologiae we see that St. Thomas gives us a perfect rebuttal to this conclusion. If you want to read the entire post, you can find it here.
From Beggars All,
"Thus the red candle/light that one often sees perpetually lit on the altar of a Roman church - one or more transubstantiated hosts are still there. The real and substantial body of Jesus Christ is enclosed there. In many hundreds or thousands of churches across the world, simultaneously.If we go to the Tertia Pars of the Summa, Question 76, St. Thomas explains how Christ is present very clearly. I recommend that anyone who wants really understand how Christ is present in the Eucharist read all of the articles under Q75 and Q76.
So, taking the doctrine that CrimsonCatholic has expressed and applying it consistently across the board, we run into a serious snag in the doctrine of the Eucharist. It would seem that, if transubstantiation is true, then the RC position leads to a denial of the true human nature of Christ, because the substantial, real human body of Christ is simultaneously in thousands of different places, thus applying a divine trait to Christ's human nature. Not Chalcedonian at all, then; more like Monophysite."
As has been already stated (Q[75], A[5]), after the consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of Christ's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of Christ is in this sacrament "by way of substance," and not by way of quantity. But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quantity; as the whole nature of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole nature of a man in a big or small individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the whole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration.
As was observed above (A[1], ad 3), because the substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real concomitance, consequently Christ's body is in this sacrament substantively, that is, in the way in which substance is under dimensions, but not after the manner of dimensions, which means, not in the way in which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the dimensive quantity of place.
Now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every part of the dimensions under which it is contained; just as the entire nature of air is under every part of air, and the entire nature of bread under every part of bread; and this indifferently, whether the dimensions be actually divided (as when the air is divided or the bread cut), or whether they be actually undivided, but potentially divisible. And therefore it is manifest that the entire Christ is under every part of the species of the bread, even while the host remains entire, and not merely when it is broken, as some say, giving the example of an image which appears in a mirror, which appears as one in the unbroken mirror, whereas when the mirror is broken, there is an image in each part of the broken mirror: for the comparison is not perfect, because the multiplying of such images results in the broken mirror on account of the various reflections in the various parts of the mirror; but here there is only one consecration, whereby Christ's body is in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: Number follows division, and therefore so long as quantity remains actually undivided, neither is the substance of any thing several times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ's body several times under the dimensions of the bread; and consequently not an infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is divided into parts.
Reply to Objection 2: The determinate distance of parts in an organic body is based upon its dimensive quantity; but the nature of substance precedes even dimensive quantity. And since the conversion of the substance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the body of Christ, and since according to the manner of substance the body of Christ is properly and directly in this sacrament; such distance of parts is indeed in Christ's true body, which, however, is not compared to this sacrament according to such distance, but according to the manner of its substance, as stated above (A[1], ad 3).
Reply to Objection 3: This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising from dimensive quantity. But it was said above (ad 2) that Christ's body is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive quantity, but by reason of its substance, as already stated.
32 comments:
Rhology never puts two and two together to grasp that Christ is present in his entire person, not just his human nature alone.
Oh, so when Christ says "This is My Body", He meant "this is My Divinity"? Why didn't He just say that?
Once again, St. Thomas answers your question....
It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body," or, "This is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind...Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance. For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this sacrament concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself."
You know, "the entire Christ" was also in the Incarnate Christ, and He, self-limited to a human body, was never multilocational. Even now He's not multilocational, but at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. Once again tradition finds its correction in Scripture.
And again, St. Thomas refutes your argument. Please learn what the Church teaches before your come up with these lame arguments. They have been refuted time and time again. Do you actually think that the Church hasn't dealt with these arguments before?
"Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but "sacramentally": and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above."
St. Thomas- ST Q75, A1.
"Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place
But MY body is really and substantially in the chair in front of my PC.
And yours in front of your own PC.
Hence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but "sacramentally"
So NOT really and substantially. This sounds virtually identical to my Baptist church's doctrine.
It's hilarious how under pressure you've retreated from your Church's teaching to sthg far more defensible.
Rhology, you can keep playing games with terminology all day and night. St. Thomas has put you and those like you in your places as outsiders to the true Christian faith. He has refuted every argument you have brought forth thus far, and yet you bring nothing to the table in way of rational argumentation. I have not retreated, and it is plain to see that you have no interest in understanding the Catholic church's teaching on the matter. We already addressed the fact the Christ is present substantially in the Sacrament, in His entire person. Take the time to do some real research on the subject instead of heckling from the peanut gallery. It is clear that St. Thomas is entirely clear and consistent in his analysis of the subject, and he is also consistent with Catholic teaching on the matter. Are you even reading anything that I posted, or are you just content to look ignorant to everyone who stops by this blog post? Saint Thomas clearly states,
By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein it is not said: "This is My flesh," but "This is My body." Accordingly, when our Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed," there the word flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the bones or the like.
"Reply to Objection 3: As has been already stated (Q[75], A[5]), after the consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of Christ's body or blood."
I'm just taking what the quotations say. Last time you were retreating into "it's sacramental" and now you're back to "it's His real body", which is monophysitism, as I've explained - you're ascribing an attribute of deity to Christ's human nature.
I'd go ahead and stick with the first horn of the dilemma - you'd have to drop RCC dogma but at least you won't be a formal heretic.
It is all from Aquinas. What are you even talking about Rhology? It is plain to see that you are not even reading what I have posted. Every single thing I have posted is form the same Summa. Are you saying that you do not understand the text, or are you just not reading it?
Rhology, once again, read the Tertia Pars, ST, Questions 75 and 76, all articles from beginning to end. When you have done that, and you feel that you have understood the text, then form a real rebuttal to the Angelic Doctor's writings, maybe then I can take you seriously.
What I take from Aquinas' quote there, it looks like what he gives with one hand he takes with the other. He goes to great lengths to affirm that the real body and blood of Christ is on the altar, but then says, "but not really like a body would be, but only sacramentally." I mean it almost boils down to "it's there because it just is. Trust me."
St. Thomas has put you and those like you in your places as outsiders to the true Christian faith
You know, this is going against the formal declarations of Vatican 2 that make us "separated brethren."
Matthew, since you have a better handle on this doctrine than us, would you mind explaining what Aquinas said in laymans terms, because my reading leaves Aquinas contradicting himself.
Bossman, first of all I am not going against what VCII says. Separated means exactly that, you are not a part of the true faith. You are not in communion with the Church, period.
Second St. Thomas upholds exactly the same teaching that the Catholic Church upholds. Do you understand the difference between substance and physical properties? Saint Thomas, and the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is present in His full person, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Eucharist. St. Thomas explains this fully in the Summa, Q75 and 76, and he also explains that He is fully present veiled under the Sacrament. That means that the physical dimensions are not what is being transformed, but only the substance is changed. So, just as the bread's physical properties remain after the consecration, so the physical properties of Christ remain where they are as well, yet the substance is changed. Bread is no longer bread in substance, but now Christ's body. St. Thomas is very clear about this, I do not see where the confusion is coming from.
Separated means exactly that, you are not a part of the true faith. You are not in communion with the Church, period.
What does that mean? If we're not in the "true faith" then we're not brethren. Are we Christians or not? Are we destined for glory or damnation? From what I understand, your church says we are Christians and following the true Christ, we are just not in communion with Rome. Is that true? Because if it is you may want to reword your polemic.
Do you understand the difference between substance and physical properties?
Yes.
Saint Thomas, and the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is present in His full person, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Eucharist.
His substantial body, blood, soul, and divinity; not the physical accidents, I understand that. I think the question becomes where does our substance end? Can it be multi-locational? My substance is in one place right now, and as a human being I don't have the ability to be in more than one place at once. That seems to be an attribute of my human substance.
So, just as the bread's physical properties remain after the consecration, so the physical properties of Christ remain where they are as well, yet the substance is changed. Bread is no longer bread in substance, but now Christ's body.
Okay, I can see how that could potentially work if it didn't seem that part of the attribute of humanity is that your substance is whole and in one place at one time; not being multiplied in different places.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attack your view, though I'm skeptical of it myself (I don't outright deny it however, I just don't see it in scripture), I'm just trying to get it straight in my mind how this would not be extending a divine attribute to Christ's humanity, making His substance appear anew in multiple locations.
Bossman wrote, "What does that mean? If we're not in the "true faith" then we're not brethren. Are we Christians or not? Are we destined for glory or damnation? From what I understand, your church says we are Christians and following the true Christ, we are just not in communion with Rome. Is that true? Because if it is you may want to reword your polemic."
My response,
You are Christians and bretheren as far as your baptism is concerned. The Church does not consider any Protestant sect to be a "Church." As far as you being destined for damnation or glory, only God knows that. The Church only says that it is possible for those not in communion with the Church to be saved. This usually falls into the person's culpability and so forth, which I will not get into there. If I were a person who was not in full communion with the Catholic Church, I would take some serious time to investigate her claims and not bank on the possibility of being saved outside the true Church.
I've heard it articulated far differently. ECT for instance.
It is quite evident that the Catholic Church does not concider any Protestant sect to be a "Church." This has never changed. For instance in 2007 Pope Benedict XVI signed a CDF document for which he was criticized for which reads,
"According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense."
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
I wasn't really talking about the definition of "church" per se. I say if you're a Christian you're a part of the body of Christ and, by definition, a member of His church.
Sure, via the sacrament of baptism. But that in and of itself does not guarantee salvation.
Well at least we agree on that. You're right. Would you agree that faith in Jesus Christ as the only redeemer the world has, and that He accomplished salvation for whoever believes?
Oops, I meant to add "makes you a part of the body of Christ."
I'm not sure what you are asking. The ordinary grafting into the Body of Christ is through Baptism. Belief or faith in Christ is another issue altogether. Just because someone believes something in their mind to be true doesn't make them a "believer". For we know that Satan knows that Jesus is the only savior of the world. It boils down to not only believing in Jesus Christ as being Our Savior, but believing Jesus Christ and everything He has revealed to us, so that we may do His will and live in the love of Christ. Anything less than this is not true belief.
Again I am not addressing the whole culpability issue, but I am speaking objectively here. One who does not believe everything Christ has revealed by an obstinate doubt or denial, is not really in communion with Christ, which means that all things being equal, they will not inherit eternal life, despite their having a valid baptism.
The Catholic Church teaches that it is possible for a Protestant to be saved only by an invincible ignorance of the truth of which God may or may not forgive that person, for only God knows the heart of a person. They are not saved because they are invincibly ignorant. In other words just because someone is ignorant does not earn them a free ticket to heaven. If God so chooses, He may save them in spite of their ignorance, not because of it. I hope this helps.
Matthew, when most Christians talk about "belief," they mean the true belief, not just the intellectual belief.
One who does not believe everything Christ has revealed by an obstinate doubt or denial, is not really in communion with Christ, which means that all things being equal, they will not inherit eternal life, despite their having a valid baptism.
Wow, and I hear Catholics criticize fundamentalists. So you have to believe and understand everything down to a 'T'? When Paul said to the Jailer "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" he really meant "believe on the Lord Jesus and on the specific creeds that will be articulated throughout the next few centuries and then the official declarations of the Roman Catholic church when it is fully developed in the 6th century, especially the doctrine that will be called transubstantiation and the Marian dogmas!!!!!11!!!!!oneone!1111 Believe in Jesus and all this other stuff, too." Is that what Paul meant?
The Catholic Church teaches that it is possible for a Protestant to be saved only by an invincible ignorance of the truth of which God may or may not forgive that person
That sounds like your interpretation of what the Catholic church says, because I've spoken with Catholics, both the laity and priests, who would disagree with your strict dogmatism. Whose interpretation of the magisterial declarations is correct?
Maybe you should just gamble with your soul and remain outside the Church? Great alternative.
"Wow, and I hear Catholics criticize fundamentalists. So you have to believe and understand everything down to a 'T'? "
My response,
Yes we believe everything that has been revealed to us by Our Lord as best as we can. With our best intentions we live the faith that Christ revealed through His apostles, and ultimately through the Church. I always find it quite amusing that the thief on the cross is brought up as being the normal means of how someone is saved by Protestants, yet it is the only story of its kind in the NT. It is an extraordinary situation for someone to be nailed next to Christ on the Cross, so obviously there would be no opportunity for the thief to learn anything other than what Christ revealed to Him then and there. If anything this supports the Catholic teaching that God may save whom he chooses based on the intentions of their heart. We are bound to the normal means made available to us by Christ through His only Church, everyone else remains at the mercy of God, since God is bound by no one.
Maybe you should just gamble with your soul and remain outside the Church?
My theology is determined by the Biblical texts. I could not in good conscience become a Catholic. As much as I desire unity, I cannot join a church which I see espousing so much aberrant theology.
yet it is the only story of its kind in the NT
No, there is an instance in Acts where the believers receive the Holy Spirit without baptism; immediately after believing.
Thats funny, I could never in good conscience put myself above God's written Word and determine for myself what I will believe and what I won't, based on my own subjective interpretations of Holy Writ. If that is the best you have, I want none of it. I will take Jesus' interpretation which he gave through His apostles which He commanded all to obey, and those that would refuse also refuse Christ Himself. For He said, He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
Right, you just put yourself above God's written Word and determine for myself what church you will join and which you won't, based on your own subjective interpretations of tradition and deciding which of it is Sacred Tradition and which isn't.
I see your back Rho, yet you still haven't refuted anything I wrote on the subject we were first discussing, no surprise there. But again you prove what little you really know about Scripture. Jesus said to follow those he sent, based on their apostolic authority given to them by Christ Himself. So no, it is my subjective interpretation that I follow, it is Jesus that I follow and those sent by Him. This is an objective reality that you reject. You follow your own personal ideologies which have nothing to do with God, or Jesus in any fashion whatsoever. Learn the difference between the two terms objective and subjective, you don't seem to comprehend them very well.
I didn't answer anything else you said b/c there wasn't anything new to it. If you think there's sthg of worth in those writings you cite, quote some.
Jesus said to follow those he sent
You were criticising subjective interpretation. This is subjective interpretation.
So no, it is my subjective interpretation that I follow, it is Jesus that I follow anf those sent by Him.
That's funny, that's the same thing bossmanham and I say about the Bible! Looks like ANYone can play the "wrong answer to the problem of individual fallibility" card!
You follow your self own personal ideologies which have nothing to do with God
Your subjective interp again. Yawn, this is getting old.
Yes, you are getting old coming over here without any rational arguments. You have been refuted on your Monophysite nonsense, and since you can't argue your position effectively, now you have jumped on the bandwagon to change the subject entirely.
It is objective truth that Jesus sent those with apostolic authority to preach. Thats a fact. I follow Him and those who He sent. Thats objective reality.
Now, until you actually refute St. Thomas, don't waste your time on these other smokescreens. We are all awaiting your magnificent rebuttal of the Angelic Doctor's work on the Eucharist. We have seen nothing yet. Just saying that you are right doesn't cut it. Prove it by refuting Saint THomas. Afterall, its only two questions and a few articles on the subject. What could be so hard about putting together a scholarly rebuttal on the subject? By the looks of your posts I would bet that you wouldn't stand a chance in refuting Saint Thomas' writing on the subject. Until we see your refutations, I won't waste any more time entertaining these diversions.
It is objective truth that Jesus sent those with apostolic authority to preach. Thats a fact.
No, it's your interpretation of a fact.
Look, just retract the idiotic "that's just your interpretation!" nonsense you threw out earlier and we can all move on.
Just saying that you are right doesn't cut it.
True. Let the reader judge whether I haven't rebutted everything you've so far brought up.
Until we see your refutations, I won't waste any more time entertaining these diversions.
I won't hold my breath.
I definately won't hold my breath. The day we see someone of your caliber attempt to refute St. Thomas will be the day when you really hang yourself in front of your fellow bloggers. I would run if I were you.
Post a Comment