[Chrysostom]

Note: The present thread has been split from this thread.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

When we've been discussing the Sacraments in our youth group, the definition we've been teaching the kids is "An outward physical sign of an inward spiritual reality".

In the Roman Catholic Eucharist, the sign is the thing signified, eh?

[veggies27]

The way ICTHUS described Sacraments is right on the money per the Catholic view. Sacraments are Christ's way of showing us things that we as mere humans could never understand otherwise. I have always heard it as: A visible sign of an invisible reality.

CCC 1084-
"Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. The sacraments are perceptible sign (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify ."

Sacraments are efficacious because it is Christ Himself who works in them. Efficacious mean thats they work and are effective; they actually bring about the reality they signify.

mustbenothing said:
In the Roman Catholic Eucharist, the sign is the thing signified, eh?

Mustbvenothing was right on the money too. The Eucharist is a sign, however since sacraments are efficacious and Christ is the one doing the work, the Eucharist truly IS what is points to. Christ and our never-ending union with Him.

Baptism is a sign of our original sin being forgiven, a sign that we are now part of the Church and a sign that we are ready to recieve the grace God wants to give us. However, Baptism actually does all of these things because it is Christ working through the sacrament.

The Sacrament of Confession is a sign of our sins being forgiven, a reality that is hard to understand as humans. However again, since Christ is the one doing the work, sins ARE actually forgiven.

And so on with the rest of them....

Lots of people have things loved ones gave them. The mailman came to my door not 15 minutes ago. It was a box full of candy from my girlfriend. Inside was just a little note which said something to the tune of: Just wanted to remind you of how much I love you. Love is a hard thing to understand. Thats why it is always nice to have physical reminders. The difference here is that since Christ isn't really working through this box of food, as my stomach might like to think, this package simply represents her love for me, and does not bring about the love she has for me.

Does this make any more sense?

Jeff

[Chrysostom]

But if the "sign" is the thing signified, then it's not really a sign at all -- it's just the thing signified.

[veggies27]

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

But if the "sign" is the thing signified, then it's not really a sign at all -- it's just the thing signified.

Fair point. The thing to remember here is that sacraments are not only a sign, they are efficacious, or effective. This is an example I have always heard...A stop sign is a sign, it points to the reality of the necessity of stopping. Unfortunately, the stop sign does not actually do any stopping of its own. I could easily blow through a stop sign and thus making the sign inffective, and only a sign in the narrowest of definitions. The sacrament here would be a brick wall with a stop sign painted on it. Not only does it signify the necessity to stop, but it actually DOES the stopping. The brick wall is a sign relaying the need to stop, however it is not ONLY a sign. Just as sacraments actually bring about the thing that the sign is pointing to.

[exo]

Originally Posted by veggies27

Fair point. The thing to remember here is that sacraments are not only a sign, they are efficacious, or effective. This is an example I have always heard...A stop sign is a sign, it points to the reality of the necessity of stopping. Unfortunately, the stop sign does not actually do any stopping of its own. I could easily blow through a stop sign and thus making the sign inffective, and only a sign in the narrowest of definitions. The sacrament here would be a brick wall with a stop sign painted on it. Not only does it signify the necessity to stop, but it actually DOES the stopping. The brick wall is a sign relaying the need to stop, however it is not ONLY a sign. Just as sacraments actually bring about the thing that the sign is pointing to.

You basically just stated what John stated. I see no clarification there.

[veggies27]

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

But if the "sign" is the thing signified, then it's not really a sign at all -- it's just the thing signified.

This point however does bring out a good point that the original explantion of a sacrament--"An outward physical sign of an inward spiritual reality"- needs to be coupled with something like CCC 1084:
"The sacraments are perceptible sign (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify ."

It is incomplete, and confusing if only the first part is understood, because as mustbenothing said, a sign CAN only be a sign, and here the sign means so much more because it is a sign coupled with the 'action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit", making it efficacioous(I think I like using that word).

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by veggies27

It is incomplete, and confusing if only the first part is understood, because as mustbenothing said, a sign CAN only be a sign, and here the sign means so much more because it is a sign coupled with the 'action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit", making it efficacioous(I think I like using that word).

Of what is the Eucharist a sign? The Body and Blood of Christ. But it is the Body and Blood of Christ, you maintain. It is, then, a sign of itself. If something is a sign of something else, then the latter thing is the thing of which it is a sign -- that something is the thing signified. If the thing signified is identical to the sign, then the sign is the thing signified. If the two are identical, there is really no separate sign; there is just the thing signified. The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation thus contradicts Trent's definition of a Sacrament, for it turns the sign into the thing signified, meaning that there is not really a sign at all.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

In the Roman Catholic Eucharist, the sign is the thing signified, eh?

Well, the accidents are the outward sign of the inward reality.
There is both an outward sign - the fact that the Body and Blood retain the characteristics of bread and wine, and an inward reality - that they are indeed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Well, the accidents are the outward sign of the inward reality.

First, this is based on Aristotelian metaphysics, which is outmoded. Second, even using Aristotelian metaphysics, it's substances in which qualities inhere. You're trying to have qualities inhere in the accidents. This is like pointing to a cell phone, and saying that it's a "sign" for a cell phone, because the light rays touching my eyes aren't really the cell phone.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

There is both an outward sign - the fact that the Body and Blood retain the characteristics of bread and wine,

This won't do, because the outward sign is not of bread and wine. Then, bread and wine would be the thing signified. On the contrary, the Body and Blood of Christ are the things signified. We thus have to have an actual substance that is the sign for the Body and Blood of Christ. But, we've got no substance but the actual Body and Blood of Christ, if transubstantiation is true! We need the bread and wine to be the signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, but we've got no bread or wine left.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

and an inward reality - that they are indeed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

The problem here is that the elements themselves are supposed to be the sign. If the elements are indeed Christ, then they are the thing signified. Thus, you've got Christ being the sign of Christ. But, Christ is not a sign of Himself -- He is Himself.

[+Donny]

Another difficulty, which I tried to develop in the debate in "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper" thread was that if the Eucharist is what it signifies, then it should cleanse not only venial sins, but mortal sins as well, as Christ's body and blood most certainly cleanses us from mortal sins and venial sins. However, the RCC teaches that the Eucharist cleanses only from venial sins. This is inconsistent.

[jdironfist]

Is the teaching of transubstantiation taken from a saint or from somewhere in the Bible?

[veggies27]

I actually typed this response twice before, but since internet explorer shut down twice right before I was ready to leave for mass, I'll have to try again now.

First--

jdironfist said:
Is the teaching of transubstantiation taken from a saint or from somewhere in the Bible?

The teaching of transubstantiation, or the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is take from Christ himself. He first talked about the idea in John 6.

John 6:51-56
I 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." Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

At the last supper he said the words that actually show the transformation from "this is a loaf of bread" to "this is my body".

Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."


---Second---I was thinking a lot more about this topic, and I think I was arguing the wrong point, or the wrong angle on the point. So here goes the new explanation:::
The bread and body are not the "sign" in the sacrament when we talk about sacraments being an outward sign of an inward reality. The bread and wine ARE actually the body and blood of Christ. There is no simple sign there.
To understand the sign, we need to look at the sacarament as a whole, and not just the species. The "sign" here is the consumption of the bread and wine(body and blood). This makes sense since the sacrament is actually the consumption, not simply the species themselves. The reality that this sign represents is our intimate union with Christ. The union that was made possible only through His awesome sacrifice. This is what the Catechism says:

CCC 1325-1326
The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit. Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.

The important thing to remember with this sacrament, as with all sacraments, is its efficaciousness, where what is represented by the sign is actually coming about through the work of Christ. Because Christ is working through the sacrament, the bread and wine that we consume is His body and blood, thus making this union truly take place within us.

To sum up:
Bread and wine = Body and Blood of Christ (no simple signs)
In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrament:
The Sign = the consumption of the body and blood
The Reality = The intimate union we have with Christ through His sacrifice.

I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion

Jeff

[Insane Drummer]

Originally Posted by veggies27

First--

The teaching of transubstantiation, or the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is take from Christ himself. He first talked about the idea in John 6.

John 6:51-56
I 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." Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

At the last supper he said the words that actually show the transformation from "this is a loaf of bread" to "this is my body".

Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Matthew 3:7-9 "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

So lets see, Jesus is teaching that the religous leaders of the day slitehred around on their bellies and had forked tounges?

John 15:5 "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."

Jesus is a vine?


Matthew 26:29"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.""

So He has just proclaimed the wine was His own blood, now He is going to drink it again in heaven. So in heaven Jesus is going to drink His own blood?

[drummergirl]

Good point. Why would we take it literally with those other examples. Precisely because we believe He meant it literally. Where do we get that from? No one asked how Christ could be made of wood, or wonder how he could be a gate with no hinges on Him, but when he stated that it was His body and blood they all got freaked out wondering how He could do that. Instead of going, "Look, I just meant that symbolically...like the vine and gate thing," He just restated His first remark about eating His body and drinking His blood.

These may help:
http://www.catholicoutlook.com/john6dialog.html
http://www.catholic.com/library/Chri..._Eucharist.asp

Have a great day!

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Another difficulty, which I tried to develop in the debate in "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper" thread was that if the Eucharist is what it signifies, then it should cleanse not only venial sins, but mortal sins as well, as Christ's body and blood most certainly cleanses us from mortal sins and venial sins. However, the RCC teaches that the Eucharist cleanses only from venial sins. This is inconsistent.

Very interesting point. I'll have to consider it.

Originally Posted by veggies27

I actually typed this response twice before, but since internet explorer shut down twice right before I was ready to leave for mass, I'll have to try again now.

Uggh, sorry. I hate when that happens.

Originally Posted by veggies27

First--

The teaching of transubstantiation, or the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is take from Christ himself. He first talked about the idea in John 6.

John 6:51-56
I 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." Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Two points need to be made here. The first is with respect to John 6. Specifically, if we look at the chapter as a whole, we see the nature of eating Jesus, the bread of life. The following verse is representative:

John 6:35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

We eat the bread of life by faith -- we come to Him, trust in Him, believe in Him. Nowhere does John say that the fruition of New Covenant salvation is the physical eating of what was formerly bread and wine. Rather, here, Jesus tells us that we've got to come to Him for salvation, and we connect with what He's offering by faith. The point of the passage, then, is not to set up a system of salvation by Sacraments, but to point to salvation in Christ by faith.

Second, it must be recognized that only the Zwinglians reject the fact that we truly partake of Christ's Body and Blood in the Lord's Supper. Their now-popular position is the only Protestant view which breaks from the historic affirmation of the presence of Christ in Communion. The Lutherans (and some Anglicans) even affirm that Christ's Body and Blood are locally and physically present! That is to say, even if you demonstrate that we eat Christ's Body and Blood, you have not proven transubstantiation, for Luther and Calvin believe that, as well.

Instead, we must consider the nature of the presence of Christ in the sacrament. We must ask how it is that we eat the real food and drink the real drink of Christ. Now, according to John 6, it is by faith. Faith is how we connect with the real food and real drink of Christ Himself. But, let us consider the Eucharist: How is it that Christ is present in this Sacrament? What kind of food do we eat? 1 Cor 10-11 provides the longest discussion on Communion in all the New Testament. Following is a passage from it:

1 Corinthians 10:1-4
1 I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3 and all ate the same spiritual food,
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

The Israelites were baptized into (identified with) Moses. The Israelites ate spiritual food. The Israelites drank spiritual drink. Here we see the nature of the eating and drinking that New Covenant believers experience in this Sacrament: spiritual. We spiritually eat and drink of Christ's Body and Blood by faith. This is not done locally, even though we have elements locally. Rather, we spiritually partake of Christ's Body and Blood by faith; through union with Christ, the Spirit offers us the full meal of our Paschal Lamb who was slain and is now eaten.

However, let us consider the views of Rome and Luther. Rome maintains that the bread and wine turn into Christ's physical Body and Blood, and Luther maintains that Christ's physical Body and Blood are present "with" the elements. However, we must remember the nature of Christ's physical Body. According to the Definition of Chalcedon, His human body was just like ours. Does our body look like bread? Can we hold our own body in our hands (as Jesus would have done at the Last Supper), when our bodies remain whole?

Furthermore, we must take into account the fact of the Ascension. Christ ascended into Heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father. How then is it that He can somehow appear out of bread and wine across the globe with such frequency? This takes away the very fact of the ascension! We must recognize that He is truly in Heaven; He left Earth.

It has sometimes been suggested that Christ became omnipresent here on Earth when he ascended into Heaven or when He was glorified after being raising from the dead. However, first, this seems like pure speculation. Second, the Last Supper occurred prior to the ascension and resurrection. Third, this still removes the force of the fact that Christ ascended into Heaven, leaving Earth.

Those are the two arguments presented by St. Augustine for a view anticipating Calvin's. Following are the references:

DoC:
"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin;"

Luke 24:6, 39
6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,
39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Acts 3:21
whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

"Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? ‘ What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before ?’" Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed... But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually." -- St. Augustine, Sermon 131

Originally Posted by veggies27

At the last supper he said the words that actually show the transformation from "this is a loaf of bread" to "this is my body".

Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

The problem here is that Christ then turns around and calls it wine again. At one point, He says, "This is My Body." Immediately thereafter, He refers to it as "fruit of the vine" (wine). Why only take it literally some of the time?

Matthew 26:29
I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Paul likewise refers to it as bread and wine:

1 Corinthians 11:26-28
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Originally Posted by veggies27

---Second---I was thinking a lot more about this topic, and I think I was arguing the wrong point, or the wrong angle on the point. So here goes the new explanation:::
The bread and body are not the "sign" in the sacrament when we talk about sacraments being an outward sign of an inward reality. The bread and wine ARE actually the body and blood of Christ. There is no simple sign there.
To understand the sign, we need to look at the sacarament as a whole, and not just the species. The "sign" here is the consumption of the bread and wine(body and blood). This makes sense since the sacrament is actually the consumption, not simply the species themselves. The reality that this sign represents is our intimate union with Christ. The union that was made possible only through His awesome sacrifice.

I'm not quite sure that I follow. The consumption of the Body and Blood of Christ is a sign of the consumption of the Body and Blood of Christ? I don't see how this fixes the problem.

This is what the Catechism says:

Originally Posted by veggies27

CCC 1325-1326
The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit. Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.

Okay, perhaps this would be a better understanding of your position than the one I offered above. The Eucharist signifies:
1. Union with Christ.
2. Union in the Church.

Is that more accurate?