From: ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG)
Subject: Transubstantiation (continued)
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:28:40 GMT

	Here is the (edited) material that I was referring to in my previous 
post.  Hopefully it will be of some assistance to this discussion?

 John Browne's comment on its Aristotelian background is true since it was 
St Thomashimself who worked out a synthesis between the two. The Church has 
always believed in the Real Presence long before it coined this term to 
describe what happens. See St Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, 
Cyrilof Jerusalem for just some examples of the belief of the Church in its
earliest days.
	According to the Teachings of this Church, Regardless of what you or 
I, or a protestant, or atheist believes: once the priest has consecrated the 
bread and wine it is objectively Jesus; it is the one sacrifice of Calvary 
made present again; it is Jesus who is doing the offering to God on our 
behalf. His presence does not depend on what I or the community believes. 
Now I can quote a few examples to reinforce this (eg Satan Worshippers need 
a consecrated host to hold a black mass), but time only allows me to try to 
show this using a quote from Scripture. In St Paul's First letter to the 
Corinthians II:26-30:  "So, it is the Lord's death that you are heralding, 
whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, until he comes. And 
therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord 
unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord's body and blood. [or in 
other translations:"...shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord".] 
A man must examine himself first, and then eat of that bread and drink of 
that cup; he is eating and drinking damnation to himself if he eats and 
drinks unworthily, not recognising the Lord's body for what it is."
	As Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman said on this verse, "Plain and simple 
reason seems to tell us that the presence of Christ's body is necessary for 
an offense [to be] committed against it...... an offender against the 
Blessed Eucharist cannot be described as guilty of Christ's Body and Blood, 
if these be not present in the Sacrament". So, can I say that if I don't 
believe then there is no offense? These words indicate otherwise.
You may have had in the back of your mind an explanation of what happens
when you receive without faith. I believe the argument goes something like
this: If you don't believe then you will not receive the grace associated
with reception BUT still the sacrament (ie Jesus' body and blood - other
issues relating to such a reception, the "damnation" spoken of above, will
be judged by Christ who is judge of all).
	Read at your leisure (they have helped my understanding of the 
Faith) Peter Kreeft's "Fundamentals of the Faith", Ignatius Press, 
1988 (ISBN0-8987-202-X) and Karl Keeting's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism", 
IgnatiusPress, 1988 (ISBN 0-89870-177-5 SB). The only source for these in 
Melbourne is John XXIII Fellowship Bookshop, North Road, Ormond (on the 
right after the railway gates when travelling from Monash), tel: 03-578-
2706. Another good source is Fr Paul Stenhouse's "Catholic Answers to Bible 
Christians" available from Kensington, NSW - he is the editor of "Annals" 
magazine. I suspect you could get a copy from the XXIII bookshop or a 
Catholic Bookshop.
Newsgroups: aus.religion