Will someone please explain exactly what "transubstantiation" truly means?

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003

Answers

I've read up on it, but I just don't understand it.

When I read the Scriptures, I don't exactly view the meaning to be literal, obviously not in accordance with doctrine. The "bread" refers to the Word, which refers to Jesus Christ. So, taking communion is a "symbol", right?

Please! Tell me how I'm confused about transubstantiation because I'm geting images of cannibalism, which can't be right.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Rod,

For Catholics (and Orthodox) communion is not merely a symbol. We hold that during the consecration the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ - literally. Jesus said "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood..." and the original word we translate as "eat" is really something more akin to "gnaw on."

Transubstantion is an attempt to use philosophical language to explain how this change occurs. So that while the "substance" of the bread and wine are changed - their "accidents" i.e. their physical qualities or appearances remain the same.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 19, 2003.

Then,

are we witnessing a miracle when the wafer and wine are changed to the "body and blood" of Christ?

Because, all logic tells me that His body cannot actually be divided amongst all of the believers. Or, is He?

This still leaves me with the idea of cannibalism. I hate to think of it in this way, but I feel that there is no other way to explain this Sacrament.

It is easier to accept the concept of internalizing God's word in the figurative sense of "eating" His Word. I truly need to be convinced in the Catholic way of the Holy Eucharist. This is a major obstacle in my religious life, right now.

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Read John 6, I believe(forgive me for quoting scripture) and then remember there were not enough loaves and fishes to go around but somehow they did.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 19, 2003.

Frank makes a good point, Rod
Recall that from the beginning to the end, Our Lord makes His own point very clear: No one will be saved without faith in Me. When Jesus spoke, He mainly spoke about faith. Faith in Him, faith in our Father in heaven, faith in those who will follow after Him.

He stated, ''If you just have faith like the smallest mustard seed, you will say to the mountain; Remove yourself, and it will be moved.''

Jesus made the facts plain. He demanded FAITH. Not understanding, only your faith. He pounded this into their heads. Because He already expected, one day: You will be commanded to believe my Body and Blood are given to you all. Under the appearance of bread & wine. It will require faith of the kind which moves a mountain. Only God can demand our complete faith. If we wish to be saved, we must say yes to His command.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2003.

rod,

i understand your position, and im glad to see you back. i have thought long and hard about the transubstantiation and i believe i can assauge some of your misgivings...

first, that there is not enough of the body of Christ to go around: the human body? certainly not. but when we partake of the eucharist we are consuming the spiritual body of Christ. this spiritual body of Christ is without limit... it can have no limit because Christ is God, the lamb slain for all generations.

second, the cannibalism issue: yes, if we were eating human flesh it might be considered cannibalism, but Christ and the eucharist are not human flesh. as the good father has already explained, the physical substance is not changed. It is the spiritual matter which is changed into the body and blood of the Risen Lord.

perhaps does this help?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 19, 2003.

Well, then...

If it means "spiritual", yes I can accept this. If it means to be in the "body" as in His grace over us, then yes , again. If it means to accept His Word, yes.

We are still speaking figuratively, right?

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

But,

In reality, we are accepting His body and blood as our salvation. So, literally speaking, we are in the "Body of Christ"; that is our soul is with Christ.

It has nothing to do with the flesh, as some would think.

Am I still getting this or not?

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Rod,

In John 6:

. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[5] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

The first apostasy occurs! Jesus tells His followers to eat his body, and when they ask how He can give them His flesh, He reinforces that that is EXACTLY what He means, for them to eat His flesh. At this some of his followers leave Him, refusing to believe. A Christian is called by the Eucharist, and to deny that this is the real presence of Christ, (by claiming it to only be symbolic) would make one not a Catholic anymore, IMO.

It may look like bread, it may taste like bread, but it ain't!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 19, 2003.

Rod we are not speaking figuratively here, we're speaking literally. When we consume the Eucharist, we consume the Risen Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity. We eat Him, in His entirety. It's not a symbol, He is truly and physically present. The Consecrated Host may look, smell, taste like bread, but it's not bread.

Remember, to God anything is possible.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 19, 2003.

i must side with sara, its not figurative at all. the physical aspects may be the same, but what counts is the nature of the eucharist. and that is changed such that it IS the body and blood of our Lord.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 19, 2003.

Rod, Paul got it wrong. Not ''spiritual body & blood;'' actual, living Body-Blood changed from the substance we see, which is bread and wine, to the substance (not spirit alone) we can't see, except by faith. His real Body and Blood, not a symbol or spiritual sign.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2003.

eugene, i got it wrong in your perspective...

see, im a bit of a spiritualist. i dont believe in the physical aspect of anything. the spiritual aspect is the only thing that really exists. therefore to say that something is spiritually changed for me means something has made a fundamental change which alters its entire being. if you need more information on the spiritualist perspective i'll be happy to provide it.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 19, 2003.

Hi everyone.

I'm almost in tears over this. Yes, it is a powerful message and one that is very difficult for me to accept. I will make sense of all of your replies and bring myself to understand and believe.

Didn't any of you struggle with believing as did those disciples?

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Well paul Little:
I'm surprised. I really took you for a faithful Catholic. Forgive me.

The word trans-substant- iation is clear enough; transfer of substance; from the one to the other. What is at first-- a substance we know as bread/wine, --is transformed; actually-- not by metaphysical or spiritual change, but in real concrete substance, to another substance: the person of Christ, Body, Blood, soul and divinity. That's the meaning of transubstantiation.

If it were only spiritually accomplished, He would not be food--drink. He states absolutely, ''My flesh is food indeed; and my blood is drink indeed; as well as, ''Take and eat-- Take and drink;'' The statements don't allow of any mere spiritual food and drink. Pure spirit can't be consumed by a material body.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2003.

Rod,

The only thing I can suggest is that you pray on this. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand. I think we probably all have difficulties with understanding something in our religion at one point or other; it's not necessarily that we don't believe it's so, but sometimes we literally don't understand what's meant by something. Any time I've ever felt any confusion like you have just now, I pray and ask the Holy Spirit to help me out. He's never let me down yet, Rod. Remember, when we are confirmed we receive the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, right judgement, courage, knowledge, reverence, and wonder and awe.

‘Faith’ like this isn’t learned, but it does increase through prayer!

God bless you Rod

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 19, 2003.

Hi Sara.

I was born a Catholic and went through Baptism, Confession, Communion, and Confirmation. I left the Church at around 16 years old. Actually, I left at around 17 or 18. I feel a need to return, but first, all of my doubts and questions must be answered. I also have a lot of lost luggage that needs to be found or discarded, if you know what I mean.

I'm also not sure if I can ever come back to the Church. I currently refuse to take part in church services, especially communion. I fear that I will complicate matters severely if I do. I have this desire or wish that the next time I take communion will be in the Catholic Church, my birth church. I fear that in the eyes of the Church I'm way out in no man's land.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Hi Rod, I understand your struggle. It's kind of like the Trinity; we cannot really comprehend it BUT we know its true. That's the way it is with the Eucharist. Study, yes, and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal TRUTH, and He will. You may not catch it intellectually, but in your heart -- YOU'LL GET IT!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 19, 2003.

Rod, I think little paul got it right. John Ch. 6 mentions the story of the bread.

When people look for him he says making a comparison between manna and him,

58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forerever

You see, the manna was a physical food. Everyone knows what happens to physical food: it goes into the body, it is digested. Some of it becomes part of the body, the rest goes out everytome we use the restroom. So what Jesus is saying is that physical food will not preserve you forever, but believieving in the Son of man is.

Here, when people began to abandon him, he explains more clearly:

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[5] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe."

So Jesus is not saying that people will be eating him physically, but spiritually.

The idea that the bread becomes the true flesh and the wine becomes the true blood come from old stories, like the one my grandma used to tell. A priest somehow dropped by accident the wine. To his amazement it was blood.

So in essance: we eat Jesus and drink his blood not physically, that is cannibalism a practice not allowed to us, but physically.

Remember, when the disciples met at the first ecumenical council ( not Nicea as many believe, but Jerusalem 49 AD) the gentiles were told not to eat(drink) blood or food sacrificed to idols. Acts 15 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things See Acts 11 first, It goes with 15.

You can see clearly blood we cannot eat, thus we cannot eat(drink) Jesus blood physically, only spiritually.

It took the Church 13 centuries to define transubstantiation. If it took the Church this long, is for a reason.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 19, 2003.

Here is what I understand from John 6.

1. When we eat the Body and Blood of Christ, we are owning up to the sacrifice of Christ. The seperation of body and blood means death. The reason for Christ' sacrifice is because of our sin.

2. When we eat His Body and Blood, we become one with Christ and He is in us.

3. When we eat His Body and Blood, we accept Christ as our Saviour.

4. When we eat His Body and Blood, we also receive the Spirit of God.

5. ...we become part of the Body of Christ--Grace.

6. When we eat the Holy Eucharist, we remember His death and resurrection that paid the price for our salvation.

7. "Transubstantiation" is when the wafer becomes all of the above mentioned parts.

rod.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Would you all have a look at this page about TRANSUBSTANTI ATION?

It sounds a lot like "consubstantiation".

Here is another page that tells of the first use of the word.

rod.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

You know, Rod, is the first time I see Ch. 6 of John this way. You still have a valid argument. Nice interpretation.

From your reference I saw this piece:

It is helpful to remember from eucharistic theology that the word "substantial" is a Thomistic, neo-Aristotelian term; it does not mean "material" as it is often understood and used in "common" speech. Today we tend to think that substance is matter. During the scholastic age, the term was quite literally to mean "that which stands beneath" the appearance of the thing ("the accident").

Interesting that subtantial here didn't mean physical.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 19, 2003.

Rod, my Friend:
If anyone anywhere is UNABLE to explain the gospel of John and the mystery of the Eucharist, it's Elpidio.

Please don't allow his Latin charm to suck you in. His interpretation, for instance, of

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[5] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe."-------------- So Jesus is not saying that people will be eating him physically, but spiritually.--

----- --Is dead wrong. Not close to true. ''The words I have spoken to you'' when Jesus answers the objections of His disciples are not meant about His Body and Blood; but about the mystery no one will be capable of understanding without

total, unwavering FAITH in Him.

He starts this warning about their unbelief, saying: ''Does this scandalize you? What then, if you should see the Son of Man ascending where He was before?'' He means-- You ain't heard NOTHING yet! Because in His words is all spirit and life. Never EVER doubt His words;

that is what He says, forcefully. Please realise one thing, and all of the argument will disappear, the truth will astound you, Rod. No way in Creation are physical beings able to eat ''spirit''. Elpidio should read his own phrase: we cannot eat (drink) Jesus' body and] blood physically, only spiritually.'' cannot stand scrutiny. Is he ready to explain, to give us his thesis on *How anybody can eat spiritually* -- *Drink spiritually*-- Eat and drink is what we do PHYSICALLY.

That's why, during His Last Supper, Jesus consecrated the bread and the wine, into His Body and Blood; and told them all-- ''Take, and EAT-- This is my Body. And, Take and drink of it, this is the cup of My Blood.''

He did not tell them, eat spiritually. Nor drink spiritually-- Because that is absurd.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2003.

Hi Eugene.

The charm Elpidio provides is pleasant. But, it is his insights and knowledge that is provocative and questionable, at times. Much like your insights and knowledge, Eugene. But, you are Catholic and it is your answers that I am after. I was a strong Catholic at one time. I am finding my place.

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Rod, and all . . .

In my way of thinking, Eucharist has to have a "spritiual" quality to it. Yes it is the actual body and blood of Christ, but it is the "risen" Christ who will be with us always. The same Christ who appeared to the apostles in the locked room. The same Christ who walked with the disciples on the road to Ameaus. (opps sp)

We have the words of Christ . . . I will be with you always. I've been taught since I was little that Christ lives in each of us and I believe that to be true. Why can't Christ exist in the outward appearance of the bread and wine?

When I joined the church it was a question for me too. When we were journeying to the church in RCIA and began the discussion of the sacraments, I'll never forget sitting at the dinner table with my (Lutheran) mother and her saying that "Well, you know, we Lutherans believe that it is the actual body and blood of Christ in the bread and the wine; and I argued with her that, no, it was only a symbolic remembrance. Then we go to class that night and Sister tells us that "Well, you know, we Catholics believe that it is the actual body and blood of Christ in the appearance of bread and wine.

If you don't think that wasn't a hard one to swallow . . . well, I finally worked it out, by understanding that it is the actual body and blood of our "Risen Lord."

Stay the course, Rod and remember, it's the journey that matters . . . if it all made sense and it wasn't a challenge, it wouldn't be called "faith."

Peace

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 19, 2003.

eugene

I'm surprised. I really took you for a faithful Catholic. Forgive me.

i actually am a true Catholic, it is i who must appologize. as opposed to the 'religious' movement spiritualism, who call themselves spiritualists, i am an ascriber to a philosophical theory called the spiritualist perspective, also called spiritualists in philosophical circles. the spiritualist perspective is NOT contradictory to church teachings at all.

what it states is this: there is a problem with the mind body perspective in several key areas, so we view the body as inconsequential, or better yet, non existant. namely, the soul is the true existance of the human being and the body is merely a manifestation which allows the soul to have 'presence' in the physical world God created for us. thus changes in the soul in effect change the very essence of something, though its physical manifestation may remain the same. such things as depression which show physical changes in the body as well are caused by their effect on the soul.

for example, someone denounces their faith and vows a life of sin. though their physical person remains the same, their soul is clouded with sin and they in essence are changed to something less.

so when i say that something like the eucharist undergoes a spiritual change (essentially a change of essence) that is the only change that matters. the physical manifestation (chemical compounds, starches, sugars, atomic structure) is unchanged... as we see in most cases (there are a few miracles where the physical substance is changed as well). what i mean to say is that the essence of the subject is changed, it is a completely DIFFERENT substance with the same physical characteristics, although not always.

otherwise we must question, if the eucharist is not PHYSICALLY different... why? is the priest not pure enough to enact the rite? do we have to have the physical change for the sacrament to count? are those who dont witness the miracle of physical change AND partake of it doomed to hell because they havent had the true eucharist? i would like to think all these answers would be no.

so, i'll forgive you your hasty judgement if you'll forgive my lack of explanation.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 20, 2003.

paul-

Your explanations makes a lot of sense to me. That transformation also occurs in us, as you've inferred. True, we cannot eat the Spirit, yet we accept the Spirit to enter into our essence. It is our soul that makes the transformation.

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 20, 2003.

I can't say if there's any contradiction in your concept. Spiritual means something contrary to material or concrete; and Christ is incarnated, not pure Spirit, as the Trinity had once been. The Incarnation admits of a true Humanity, with Body, Blood, human senses, and material existence in time.

It seems to me your idea would make the Incarnation circumstantial at best. Coming down from heaven and pure Spirit, to become Man. Then returning to pure spirit as the Bread of Life? If my limited imagination won't bend around all these corners, I'm sorry. Jesus was heard to say: ''This is my Body; This is My Blood.'' We have it as a material existence; then and now. The ''extension'' of matter is in itself a distinct mystery, as the Sacrament is revealed to us.

There is no contradictory teaching, if the properties or extension of the Host and Precious Blood are hidden; they remain matter. Not spiritual --but a MYSTERY to human understanding, truly food and drink.

Jesus said plainly, ''Unless you eat the flesh (not spirit) of the Son of Man, and drink His blood (not spirit, Blood) you shall not have life in you.'' (John 6:54.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 20, 2003.

rod,

there is a fine line to be drawn, though. when i speak of the spirit of something being changed, i mean that it is changed. in essence we are not consuming the spirit of Jesus' body. what i mean is that the aspect of the bread, its nature, lets say, is changed such that it IS the body and blood of Jesus.

As im having trouble explaning to eugene, i dont think of it as merely a spiritual body and blood. in its change it becomes completely the body and blood of Christ, although its physical manifestation remains the same in most cases.

see, its a little difficult dealing with a physicist, we tend to enjoy really complex thoeries of existance. it makes sense though, that God creates the world, and the nature of everything in the world. each thing has a manifestation in this world, although its true existence is on another 'plane' (for lack of a better word, i dont really believe in different planes of existence). our body is merely the temple which allows our soul to interact in the physical world. (Jesus tells us this in scripture).

to answer eugenes challenge, yes, Jesus came down and took on the form of man. God manifested himself in the physical world with a physical form of a man. does this make him any less God? no, certainly not.

the essence of bread is a loaf of wheat. it has a physical manifestation as bread. the sacrament of the eucharist changes the essence of this bread into the body and blood of our Lord. though the physical manifestation is still the same (no necessary change in chemical compounds), the bread is no longer bread, because its fundamental element which makes it bread no longer exists. it IS the body and blood of Christ. just as Christ was no less God because of his manifestation in the body of a man, the eucharist is no less the body, though its physical manifestation is that of bread and wine.

have i thoroughly confused you yet?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 20, 2003.

Good argument paul.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 20, 2003.

Hi paul.

I've often wonder what could be so beyond our average concept of belief; this is one of them.

Scriptures tells us to think beyond the flesh because the now-life is only temporary. After reading your post (at least 5 times), I am begining to think in terms of God's eternal existence and how Jesus would be required to be in us. Jesus is the way, the door. I cannot think in terms of our flesh, but in the substance of God in the eternity. I believe that the only way humans can ever have a chance to be with God is to witness and accept proof of His existence through a human-god. This would be Jesus, His Son.

Then, Body and Blood of Jesus takes on an even more significant realization. Body and Blood must then mean the SUBSTANCE of God. This would then mean that those who partake in the Holy Eucharist are taking the SUBSTANCE of God, are placing God, into their own substance. It is no longer the flesh of our temple, but the substance of our existence in God, His existence.

Ok, this is very awakening for me and I think I need to spend time sorting everything ou

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 20, 2003.

Here is a page that looks at the Protestant vs. Catholic belief dealing with John 6.

rod.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 20, 2003.

You seem to understand slightly, Rod. If you research Catholic doctrine, the pieces fall into place more or less (not precisely) as you imagine it.

When you say ''manifests'' and '' a manifestation''; you come close to how the Church sees the ''accidents'' or properties of bread and wine. We think we're looking at bread. It even tastes like it (a property, or manifestation) and expect it to still be the ''substance'' called bread by our senses.

But it no longer is. It is all Jesus' Body in substance. Only the ''accidental'' appearances of bread are manifest to us. Or wine, which has the taste (a property) of the wine, yet is not.

We could wonder: If Jesus changed the substance, why wouldn't He care about the appearance? Good point.

Go back to John 6: He states, I am the Bread of Life. He prepared the faithful for a BREAD-property-manifestation-appearance. He knew what He was doing. Nothing was given us out of context.

He intended it for good reason. To be present on every altar in the world; and never gone out of sight. An eternal sacrifice, extended universally, and accessible as food! Not as a ''picture'' or manifestation of the crucified Lord (IT IS!) but as close as a wafer in our hand!!!

No one has ever accused Jesus Christ of being a genius-- But He IS! No holy detail is overlooked, or happens just by chance.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 20, 2003.

Hi Eugene.

Actually, the bread and wine have become insignificant, but only as a host for Jesus Christ. What paul said has truly opened my thinking to the reality that the fundamentals of a substance has changed the existence of that object to the new substance Jesus' Body and Blood. I put that together with the Scriptures in John 6 and I can begin to put the pieces together. It would even be erroneous to even call the wafer a "host" in this case, because this would indicate two distinct substances. The Holy Eucharist has become only one SUBSTANCE. This is almost like saying that the illusion is the wafer, as it is needed to give to the person, but the reality is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Truly, a hard saying!

r

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 20, 2003.

I forgot to close the bold

test test rod. . .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 20, 2003.

Jmj

Rod, you wrote: "It would even be erroneous to even call the wafer a 'host' in this case, because this would indicate two distinct substances."

I think that it will help you to know why the word "Host" is used.

The word used for the Blessed Sacrament is not "host" in the sense of "person who receives a guest" or "animal that carries a parasite" or "army" [as in "Lord of hosts"]. All of those "hosts" are derived from the Latin "hostis," which can mean "stranger" or "enemy" and is related to the word "hospital(ity)."

Instead, the "Host" of the Eucharist is derived from a different Latin word -- "hostia" -- which can mean victim or sacrifice.

Thus we are not speak of something separate [bread] that contains Jesus (as in "consubstantiation") ... but rather something that becomes Jesus the Victim ("transubstantiation").

God bless you.
John
PS to "little paul": I wish that I had time to go through your "spiritualist" theology. My impression is that you may have non-Catholic ideas about the purpose of the human body and the makeup of a human person. But I may just be misunderstanding you. If I get lucky, I'll have a chance to discuss it with you.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 20, 2003.

Rod;
Let me help you. You race ahead of these concepts at high speed.

They really require more. We should meditate on the mystery; and let the Holy Spirit enlighten our souls.

YOU SAY: ''Actually, the bread and wine have become insignificant, but only as a host for Jesus Christ.''

But I think you want to say, ''The outward appearances of bread & wine are no longer significant. They have hidden within them all the substance of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. If you contemplate it that way, you have ,i.seen the real significance and you've understood the Catholic doctrine.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 20, 2003.

john,

i'll gladly discuss the spiritualist perspective with you, would you like to start a thread or continue along this one? i dont follow the philosophical theory to a T, there are elements that had to be changed to fit church teaching. im even in the midst of writing an essay on my version of the perspective which i would like to get published if possible. i think you'll find that my version, at least, alot of credit to church teachings. although i could be wrong... which is why talking to you will be quite nice.

eugene, thanks for the corrections in wording... by manifestation i meant accident, but i forgot the proper terminology so i just fell back on my philosophical vocab.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 21, 2003.

Hi everyone.

"Hostia" would then make a lot of sense in it meaning "sacrificio", John.

An yes, Eugene, your correction would then work very well.

"The outward appearances of bread & wine are no longer significant", [but only as the Host Jesus Christ].

Very tricky this etymology.

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 21, 2003.

yes rod,

the complexity is beautiful. there is so much depth to the mystery of the eucharist, and all the mysteries of the church, it is hard to believe that anyone could not appreciate the beauty of the teachings of the church.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 21, 2003.

Dear Rod:
Let me reassure your doubts; nothing takes place between the Blessed Sacrament and a faithful recipient in a state of grace which can remotely be compared to cannibalism. Faith tells us the eating and drinking are much more than a meal. We eat and drink salvation; in the grace the Sacrament imparts. That's written in the gospel of John: ''Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for that which endures unto life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you.'' (v. :27)

How much clearer can He say; I give to YOU? To eat, to drink, of the food that endures to life everlasting,'' certainly not a cannibalistic meal. It's blasphemy to regard the Blessed Sacrament that way.

Each new ocassion in which we eat of this food, that day becomes, in succession, the greatest day of our life; better than all the preceding days. Because we are already in eternal life, as we partake.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 21, 2003.

Rod, just to clarify ...
Host (Latin "Hostia") = sacrifice (in the sense of "victim sacrificed," not in the sense of "action of sacrificing).
When you were a practicing Catholic, perhaps you sang the Benediction hymn, "O Salutaris Hostia" ("O Saving Victim").

Little paul, I wish that I didn't have to say this, but I can't get into that discussion with you right now. My time is very limited, and I may not have any access to a computer for several days (starting soon). Maybe this subject will arise again some day.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.

john, sorry to hear that you have to go... i'll try to help hold down the catholic fort until you get back. i'll miss getting to read your solidly conservative catholic posts so come back soon. and we can talk about my philosophical perspective anytime.

God bless

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 21, 2003.

Thanks very much, "little paul." See you soon. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.