On The Eucharist...

[Jake Huether]

It ocurred to me that Protestant disbelief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is totally similar to non-Christians disbelief in the Divinity of Christ.

Non-Catholics ask: How could God be present under the accidents of bread and wine?

Non-Chistians ask: How could God be completely human, while at the same time be completely God?

Non-Catholics can easily answer the non-Christians. Yet, their answer is the same exact answer to their own question.

The necessity of God becoming man is the same as that of bread and wine becoming Christ. God said it was necessary for Christ to die in order to redeem us. Christ said that it was necessary to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order for us to have eternal life within us. The reality of it is the same.

How could bread and wine become God?

How could He become human!

In the "God" scale - is humanity any more Divine than bread and wine? NO! So, is it that hard to believe that bread and wine can become Divine (through the Power of God) any more than God could become human?

What's the delio. If you believe Christ is God, then why is it so hard to believe that bread and wine could become Christ?

[Paladin D]

Whoa man, that's interesting. Word.

[God Conquers]

Man, you hit the nail on the head! Although, humanity is more divine than bread on the God Scale, cause we were made in the image and likeness of God.

[willguy]

Very good point. I was at Clyde Convent once, and the nun was telling us about the mosaics in their adoration chapel (which is amesome) and there is a big image of the Incarnation, and she was like, "The Incarnation is the perfect representation of the Eucharist, because it is God descending from heaven to take an earthly form" (or something along those lines). Sr. Dawn ROX.

[phatcatholic]

i would add one thing......

i think a major difficulty that separates God becoming human from Jesus becoming the bread and wine is that in the latter scenario we are eating Jesus (to put it bluntly). i think that whole idea just freaks out alot of non-catholics.

[willguy]

Freaked the croud out to, but that didn't stop Him from preaching it. John 6

[Paladin D]

Freaked the croud out to, but that didn't stop Him from preaching it. John 6

And on John 6:66, many left.

[Jake Huether]

I don't think we are more Divine. Because one isn't 1/2 Divine or 2/15 Divine. You either are or arn't. That is: God or not God. We are more special, for sure. We are set aside. Different from all creation. We were made in the Divine image. But we aren't Divine (even partially). But I do see what you are saying.

The intent was to show that if God could become creation, it doesn't really matter which creation.

Anywho. Good point on the eating Christ. That is a bit of a difference.

Even so, if God could become man, and we interacted with Him as a human...

Then the possibility exists that He COULD become bread and wine, in which case we would interact with Him as food!

[ICTHUS]

It ocurred to me that Protestant disbelief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is totally similar to non-Christians disbelief in the Divinity of Christ.

Non-Catholics ask:  Ho    w could God be present under the accidents of bread and wine?

Non-Chistians ask:  How could God be completely human, while at the same time be completely God?

Non-Catholics can easily answer the non-Christians.  Yet, their answer is the same exact answer to their own question.

The necessity of God becoming man is the same as that of bread and wine becoming Christ.  God said it was necessary for Christ to die in order to redeem us.  Christ said that it was necessary to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order for us to have eternal life within us.  The reality of it is the same.

How could bread and wine become God?

How could He become human!

In the "God" scale - is humanity any more Divine than bread and wine?  NO!  So, is it that hard to believe that bread and wine can become Divine (through the Power of God) any more than God could become human?

What's the delio.  If you believe Christ is God, then why is it so hard to believe that bread and wine could become Christ?

That is the most asininely stupid argument I've ever heard.

God could become man because Man is made in the image of God, and in Christ, God restored that image to its fullness again!

Bread is NOT made in the image of God!!

Try again, Jake...ddddddddddddddd

[God Conquers]

Man made in the image of God doesn't even come INTO Jake's post ICTHUS. Read again.

[Paladin D]

Man made in the image of God doesn't even come INTO Jake's post ICTHUS. Read again.

He's playing devil's advocate... I think.

[ICTHUS]

He's playing devil's advocate... I think.

Partly, yes.

Man made in the image of God doesn't even come INTO Jake's post ICTHUS. Read again

It should have, if he wasn't presenting a totally see-through argument. It's got more holes than a sieve!!

[God Conquers]

What I think is at the core of what Jake is saying is this:

If God can do anything and we all believe that he became man, then to believe that he can also change bread into Himself should not be so far of a stretch (comparatively).

Both are God-to-Matter transformations.

[frozencell]

I would just like to simply say that I have been wondering about the exact reasoning behind this and it could not have been put any more simple or understandable. Thank you very much.

[God Conquers]

Alright! The Ultimate Team, FAITH and REASON triumph again!

[ICTHUS]

Uhhh, as I understand it, God came to inhabit matter (a man). Christ still had the "substance" of a man.

After all, He was "true God and True Man"

So the kind of change you are describing is entirely different to transubstantiation.

I do not see that this line of argumentation makes any progress to proving transubstantiation at all, as it is silly to say that God taking on a human nature while keeping His Divine Nature is the same thing as transubstantiation.

If anything, your line of argumentation would prove con-substantiation rather than trans-substantiation, and I dont think you want to be a Lutheran. For, if you say that Christ's incarnation is a representation of the change in the bread and wine, then you must concede that, just as Divine and Creation coexist in Christ's hypostatic union (unless you're a Monophysite, and I hope youre not!), so must Divine (Christ) and Creation (Bread and wine) coexist in the Eucharist.

You're a Lutheran!!

Edited December 11, 2003 by ICTHUS

[Jake Huether]

Dude, take a deep breath. I wasn't trying to PROVE transubstantiation, anymore than one can PROVE God became man. Both are faith based. Get a grip (said with love).

I think you are reading WAY to deeply into what I said.

Actually Jesus is no more God then the Eucharist. They are both God the Son in his fullness, Body Blood Soul and Divinity. So I fail to see your point about him also being man, while in the case of the Eucharist it is merely the accidents of bread and wine.

My argument wasn't on the specific scientific details of God becoming man / Christ becoming bread and wine.

My argument was simply this:

Bread is no more Divine than us. It is created. We are created. Yes, we were created in the image and likeness of God... But that doesn't make us Divine. We are created, and so is bread.

I started thinking about this because our good friend Ayed has been asking and commenting on how Christ could become human. And it just struck me as so similar to the disbelief that Protestants have in the fact that bread and wine can become Christ.

Protestants rationalise the Eucharist just like non-Christians rationalize Christ. They say, "How can he become human, and yet still be God." Protestants say, "How can bread and wine become the Body and blood of Jesus Christ". Non-Christians will point to their holy books (for athiests maybe a biology or history book) and show how this "contradicts" God. Protestants point to the Bible and show how Christ "wasn't" talking about really eating His Body and Blood.

It was just curiouse to me why Protestants believe that God could become man, yet then rationalize that he couldn't make bread and wine become Him???

When God became man we interacted with Him as He came to us, as a human (i.e. we become friends, talk, laugh with, etc.)

When bread and wine become Christ we interact with Him as He comes to us, as bread and wine (i.e. we eat him).

I'm not trying to prove anything, just sayin it like it is...

[Jake Huether]

First off: Again get a grip, man. Re-read my post.

I wasn't comparing God becoming man to Christ becoming the Eucharist, in the specific sense of their actuality.

I was comparing the reactions that non-Christians have to the former and non-Catholics to the latter.

I never said that the two events ocur the same in every detail. In both cases, quite simply, creation becomes God (or vice/versa).

So the kind of change you are describing is entirely different to transubstantiation.

Agreed, but in both cases Creation becomes God - unless you are saying that Christ isn't completely God - but I know you just said he was. In both cases: Bread becomes fully God. Man becomes fully God (and fully man)

I do not see that this line of argumentation makes any progress to proving transubstantiation at all, as it is silly to say that God taking on a human nature while keeping His Divine Nature is the same thing as transubstantiation.

That would be pretty silly, I guess. Good thing I didn't say it.

Now, as to your comment about con-substantiation (Christ being in and around the elements- and not the actual elements themselves), you have a few holes.

If anything, your line of argumentation would prove con-substantiation rather than trans-substantiation

No it doesn't. If anything it doesn't prove either. Con-substantiation is when God is in and around the elements.

In the Case of Christ each and every element of him has become God. Unless you believe that Christ was simply a physical vessle for God?? Your statment would indicate that you think God was merely in and around the elements of man. Not so. Each element was fully God fully man. This is not con-substantiation, though it isn't transubstantiation either (in that the elements of Christ retain their complete human nature at the same time, while the bread and wine merely retain their accidents).

You're a Lutheran!!

NO I'M NOT! I'M CATHOLIC! GET THAT STRAIGHT!!!!!!

(I'm biting my tongue hard not to retaliate for that).

Have a little charity. This is a discussion topic. You know I'm Catholic. So calling me a Lutheran is a HUGE insult. I am deeply offended. And very much agrivated! Nothing I said was Lutheran.

You have extrapolated a bunch of ideas (and I use extrapolate very loosely) that aren't even envolved here.

Dude, seriously, re-read what I wrote, and then let's have a friendly discussion about it.

I don't want to discuss how Christ becomes the Eucharist or how God became man. I wan't to discuss the similarity in the ideology of the non-Catholics to non-Christians in their rationalizing how God could NOT become a part of creation (wheather through the incarnation or transubstantiation).

[Paladin D]

I thought ICTHUS was playing Devil's Advocate...

[Jake Huether]

If he was, he was being an a double s about it.

And I hope that my posts cleared up his advocacy. ;)