Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:39:15 EST
From: Jeff Brooks <JEFF@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: The Real Presence

In article <930121125926.2e2092e3@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM>, URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
says:
>
>Jeff Brooks <JEFF@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU> writes:
>
>>In this instance I would certainly say that "absolute how" is unattainable --
>>the Real Presence is a Mystery -- but some form of "how" or "what" is
>>quite important to know.
>
>Thank you, Jeff, for affirming my belief that transubstantiation cannot
>be deemed "infallible", but only the most "palatable" to the majority
>of Catholics.

Sorry, I didn't intend to say anything about transubstantiation being taught
fallibly or infallibly.  I meant that "how" -- how does God turn bread and
wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ -- may, is probably, not knowable.
That is, the method God used is not accessible to us.  But the RESULTS --
the "what He did" -- are a matter of revelation, and may thus be taught
infallibly by the Church.  The truth as taught by the Church may even be
UNpalatable to many -- what about the disciples mentioned in the Gospel of
John who left after Jesus insisted that they must truly eat his flesh and
drink his blood to have eternal life?  But Jesus taught, and the Church
carries on and expands the teaching our Lord gave to the Apostles.

Making a statement of what the elements are after the Consecration has
nothing to do with "how God did it" and everything to do with "what He did."

And the teaching of transubstantiation is ancient even before that term
was used.  Both St. Ambrose in the West and St. Cyril of Jerusalem in
the East taught their flocks that they would receive in Holy Communion
the very Body "which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered on the Cross
for us", and that they must _ignore_ the appearances of bread and wine and
perceive the Realities under the "veil of the senses."  So in the 4th century,
two great Christian bishops and teachers propounded something that sounds
to me exactly like the end result of transubstantiation:  the Reality is
wholly present, and what was present before has been replaced utterly in
the process.

>>                         ...                           If it is not
>>the true Body born of the Virgin Mary and I adore it, I commit idolatry.
>>If it is, and I do not, I ignore the immediate presence of my Lord and
>>my God under the sacramental veils.  How can I dare decide not to ask?
>>And how can the Church dare to leave me uninstructed in such a matter?
>
>This is a nice little pet theory, but I wouldn't stake my eternal life
>on it:-) But seriously, I think you're getting a little carried away
>with this "idolatry" stuff. I'll stake my eternal life on the belief
>that Christ is present, the how/mystery part I'll leave to God.
>Doesn't it seem a wee bit pretentious to demand of God that He reveal
>how He does His mysteries, either through His Church or us? - J.J.

It is not a theory, it is a QUESTION, and I am staking my eternal life
on it.  Precisely so.  For three centuries after the apostles, idolatry
after baptism was a sin that ejected one from the Mystical Body of Christ,
and penance if allowed could very well be lifelong.  The apostolic Church
brooked no idolatry.

I proposed no theory.  I described a situation in which I might commit
a sin considered mortal by the early Church.  I have to decide between
two mutually exclusive actions, one of which is sinful.  And I asked the
logical and necessary question: what should I do?  You proposal to leave
the question undecided assumes that we CAN -- that we can act as if
the question doesn't matter _in fact_.

Again, the how is a mystery.  The what is terribly important.  The fact
that St. Paul speaks so energetically about the dangers of receiving the
Body and Blood of Christ without perceiving the reality -- leading to
sickness and death or worse -- should be enough to convince anyone that
the question deserves an answer.  The constant tradition of the Church
since AT LEAST the 4th century is such an answer, and you have given
no objection to it (as far as I can see) except that you can't bring
yourself to believe it.  "I can't see how that can be" is not an
argument.

    Yours in Christ,

    Jeff

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic