#electronicosmosis deuce

[why-bless-your-heart]

@electronicosmosis-deuce how would transubstation have given the Vatican any political power that consubstantion wouldn’t have? The Church fathers have always said that the Eucharist is fully Christ’s body and blood, despite retaining all the accidents of bread and wine. Just because St. Thomas Aquinas formalized the language doesn’t mean that it was invented in his lifetime.

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ” (St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermons, circa 400 AD).

“After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood” (St. Jerome, Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, 398 AD).

“Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it” (St. Ambrose of Milan, Letter to Horontianus, circa 387 AD).

“I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy, circa 397 AD).

“Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, circa 350 AD).

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, circa 150 AD).

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, circa 90 AD).

Consubstantiation isn’t just bad theology, it’s bad philosophy. If a thing is wholly Jesus, how can it also remain bread? It acts as if Jesus is ‘possessing’ bread instead of transforming it, which is, quite frankly, emblematic of the problem with Lutheranism as a whole. It denies the truly transformative power of Christ’s sacrifice, claiming that our sinful natures are covered instead of redeemed.

[why-bless-your-heart]

@electronicosmosis-deuce The Church Fathers were often wise, but never infallible. Aquinas codified a Greco-Roman philosophical interpretation of a Hebrew cultural concept from the Jewish people's Jewish Messiah. Also, most people don't hate Catholics. People hate the Vatican, and with eminently good reason. If you need 'the actual body' and Rome is the only one selling it, that gives Rome political power. Which is exactly what it's wanted and consolidated for well over a thousand years. And frankly, to think that one is obligated to take 'the actual body' in the form of the Eucharist, over and over again, THAT is truly denying the transformative power of Christ's sacrifice. It denies that it was the "once for all" fulfillment and consummation of the ONLY sacrifices and ritual priesthood God's people have ever had -- the Tabernacle/Temple. Vatican theology denies the power of Christ's sacrifice, and its Eucharistic theology is an outstanding example.

That's why I say "at best," because even if God can be said to be present in some special way, 'in, with, and under,' this does not exclude any Christian from partaking of this tradition, even if he rejects the authority and priesthood of Rome. Rome IS exclusive, but it's authority is not merely based on bad theology but on hundreds upon hundreds of years of theft, power struggles, authoritarian violence, sexual degradation, and more. HOWEVER one may claim "but people aren't perfect!" or other whataboutisms, Rome is exclusive and over the last 2,000 years that exclusivity gave it incredible political power. This is why the Reformation was necessary - and STILL Luther would have preferred to reform the system from within, but the utterly corrupt Vatican would have none of it. The Vatican cares about Power, not souls, except insofar as they can make merchandise of them. Their Eucharist theology is bad, their Soteriology is bad, their historical record is bad. I was raised in it, so I get it. Loyola's Counter-reformation made extensive use of psychology to try to reassert Rome's primacy, and met with much success over the last few hundred years. But at some point you've got to shake yourself loose from that mental prison and look at things dispassionately, from the outside. "COME OUT OF HER, My people."

First of all, you claimed that the Eucharist was only known as what we'd call consubstantiation from the beginning of its observance: the church fathers don't need to be infallible for their words to prove that's not the case. It's been transubstantiation since St. Paul said that the bread we eat is the true body and the wine we drink is the true blood.

Aquinas used Aristotle's philosophy to more exactly word what was already taught, and to more clearly illustrate the mystery of the Eucharist. What Aristotle's philosophy contributed was its vocabulary, the same way that Rome contributed its language. What he wrote wasn't accepted as true just because he wrote it (rather infamously, he opposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception), but rather what he wrote was admirable for being a defense of the truth. It wasn't a "Greco-Roman Philosophical interpretation of a Hebrew cultural concept," it was a Christian defense of Christian concepts.

Christ's sacrifice was once, for all people, but it is made re-present at every sacrifice of the Mass. We are temporal beings (shocking, I know), and because of that we need to return to Christ's one sacrifice again and again. Otherwise, why were we commanded to do it in ""remembrance?" Or in 1st Corinthians 11:26, why does St. Paul tell us that "As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes?" If we are to receive at all, we are to receive regularly, just as we are to pray without ceasing. That's what a life in Christ means. It means union with Him in the sacraments.

And yes, if you reject what the Eucharist truly is, you should not receive it. St. Paul warns in 1st Corinthians 11:27-29 "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves." It's genuinely a threat to your eternal soul if you receive the Eucharist without believing it is truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Technically St. Paul was a Catholic bishop, but I don't think he was warning us against failing to discern the body and blood of Christ because he was a power-hungry maniac.

The Church has always had corruption and evil within it, ever since Christ chose His twelve apostles and one of them was Judas and the other was Peter. Our first pope denied Christ in public three times, and three times was commanded to feed His sheep. He was publicly rebuked by one of his bishops for his hypocrisy, and died a martyr. It comes back to the parable of the enemy who sowed weeds in the wheat field: the corruption and failures within the Church don't invalidate its teachings, and on the final day the weeds shall be bundled and burned while the wheat is put in the owner's barn. My plan is to be found still within the field.

@electronicosmosis-deuce how would transubstation have given the Vatican any political power that consubstantion wouldn’t have? The Church fathers have always said that the Eucharist is fully Christ’s body and blood, despite retaining all the accidents of bread and wine. Just because St. Thomas Aquinas formalized the language doesn’t mean that it was invented in his lifetime.

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ” (St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermons, circa 400 AD).

“After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood” (St. Jerome, Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, 398 AD).

“Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it” (St. Ambrose of Milan, Letter to Horontianus, circa 387 AD).

“I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy, circa 397 AD).

“Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, circa 350 AD).

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, circa 150 AD).

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, circa 90 AD).

Consubstantiation isn’t just bad theology, it’s bad philosophy. If a thing is wholly Jesus, how can it also remain bread? It acts as if Jesus is ‘possessing’ bread instead of transforming it, which is, quite frankly, emblematic of the problem with Lutheranism as a whole. It denies the truly transformative power of Christ’s sacrifice, claiming that our sinful natures are covered instead of redeemed.