Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist

phattonez · Oct 31, 2014

I just finished reading this book by Dr. Brant Pitre and found it fascinating. It looks at the actions and words of Jesus in the context of first-century Judaism to try to make clearer His intent. I wanted to get through a few of the conclusions.

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist

Dr. Pitre looks at the Eucharist and the Last Supper and compares it to Jewish reality and expectations concerning the Passover, Manna in the desert, and the Bread of the Presence. So I want to quote from some of the conclusions for each section:

Dr. Pitre said:
Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension are nothing less than a "new Passover." Through the Last Supper, Jesus makes the disciples "sharers in his Passover". Moreover, because "the Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover", it not only commemorates Jesus' death and Resurrection; it actually makes that event a present reality. "When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present."

Dr. Pitre said:
In short, there was above all one reason why Jesus the Jew could identify the Eucharist as the new manna from heaven. In his eyes, the Last Supper was not just a Passover sacrifice; it was a a miracle of the new and greater exodus. At that final supper, Jesus miraculously transformed bread and wine into his own body and blood. In doing so, he gave the disciples a share in both his bodily death and his bodily resurrection. In doing so, he gave the disciples the "supernatural bread" that would sustain them each day on their journey toward the new promised land of the new creation, a foretaste of the reality of the life of the world to come.

Saint Cyril said:
In the Old Covenant there were the loaves of proposition [the Bread of the Presence], but they, being of the Old Covenant, have come to an end. In the New Covenant there is a heavenly bread and a cup of salvation that sanctify soul and body. For, as the bread exists for the body, so the Word is in harmony with the soul.
Therefore, do not consider them as bare bread, and wine; for, according to the declaration of the Master, they are Body and Blood. If even the senses suggest this to you let faith reassure you. Do not judge the reality by taste, but, having full assurance from faith, realize that you have been judged worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ . . .
Having learned these things, you have complete certitude that the visible bread is not bread, even if it is such to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and the visible wine is not wine, even if taste thinks it such, but the Blood of Christ.

And finally I wanted to include one last quote about the "spirit and life" issue.

Dr. Pitre said:
For one thing, when Jesus said that the words he had spoken were "Spirit and life", he was not saying that he was speaking only symbolically. In Greek, the word pneuma does not mean "symbolic". In both the Old and New Testaments, the Spirit is real, more real than anything in the visible material world. Earlier in the same Gospel, when Jesus said, "God is spirit", he certainly did not mean that God was merely symbolic!
Even more important, in his response to the disciples, Jesus said that "the flesh is of no avail". He did not say "my flesh is of no avail." These are two very different statements. Nor could have have said the latter without flat out contradicting himself. If you read the preceding sermon carefully, you will find that Jesus has just finished saying six times in only seven verses that it was necessary to eat his flesh in order to have eternal life:
. . .
In light of these verses, Jesus' response to the disciples cannot mean that his own flesh is of no avail. People who make this argument often don't stop and realize that it would make the flesh that he offered on the Cross-not to mention the flesh he assumed in the incarnation-useless as well. But that is absurd, especially in the Gospel which emphasizes that the Word "became flesh" for the sake of saving humanity. By speaking of "the flesh" and not "my flesh," Jesus is simply using a standard expression for "that which is natural or earthly," as well as those who see reality only from this perspective. Proof of this can be found just a few chapters later in John's Gospel, when Jesus says to the Pharisees, "You judge according to the flesh".

So, let's hear the responses. :2razz:

CrabCake · Oct 31, 2014

phattonez said:
So, let's hear the responses. :2razz:

What for? When you don't like the response, you don't even acknowledge it.

phattonez · Oct 31, 2014

CrabCake said:
What for? When you don't like the response, you don't even acknowledge it.

Is that how a debate works? I'm simply supposed to accept opposing arguments and not argue against them? I don't know what you're looking for on a debate site if not debate.

CrabCake · Oct 31, 2014

phattonez said:
Is that how a debate works? I'm simply supposed to accept opposing arguments and not argue against them? I don't know what you're looking for on a debate site if not debate.

Debate involves two people discussing something. It doesn't work if one side pretends the other side didn't even say anything.

phattonez · Oct 31, 2014

CrabCake said:
Debate involves two people discussing something. It doesn't work if one side pretends the other side didn't even say anything.

I always respond to arguments, though, so I don't know what you're getting at. Are you going to contribute anything here or just be snarky?

CrabCake · Oct 31, 2014

phattonez said:
So I wanted to expand on this thought for your sake, because I feel like I'm not giving you an adequate response whereby I'm really defining well what substance is. Today I read an excerpt from a book by Cardinal Ratzinger (now known as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, the book is called The Celebration of the Eucharist) where he dwells on the issue of how we deal with the concept of substance in modern times.

I read a very good essay (actually, it was originally a lecture) by Ratzinger on the communion. In it, he explores how communion is a symbol for the transformation of death to life, violence to love, and how it serves to unite believers. He also talks about how the act of communion is foreshadowing of the coming eternal wedding feast. Furthermore, he discusses the two dimensions of communion, the vertical (communion with God) and the horizontal (communion with believers), and how in the case of the second, this presents a special call for global social justice. Here is how he summarizes this whole thing:

Cardinal Ratzinger said:
The purpose of the Eucharist is the transformation of those who receive it in authentic communion. And so the end is unity, that peace which we, as separate individuals who live beside one another or in conflict with one another, become with Christ and in him, as one organism of self-giving, to live in view of the resurrection and the new world.
Eucharist, Communion and Solidarity

It seems clear that the Catholic Church recognizes and greatly values the deep symbolism inherent in communion. It's worth noting that we could read that whole lecture without believing in transubstantiation and still agree with virtually everything it says.

As far as 'substance theory' goes, this was a theory developed by Aristotle, Aquinas merely applies it to Christianity. The problem is that virtually no one supports this theory anymore. Aristotle developed that ontology in a pre-darwinian time and almost certainly would not have developed it had he had access to modern science. Now that we know about atoms, elements, covalent bonds, etc. the theory of "substance" is unnecessary. The substance theory that the Catholic Church relies on for transubstantiation lost credibility centuries ago.

Recognizing that Catholic theology on the Eucharist was now being supported by ontological approaches that were no longer tenable, Catholic theologians Karl Rahner and Edward Schillebeeckx proposed a new way of thinking about the eucharist, no longer as transubstantiation but as transfinalization or transignification. Their views were swatted down by Paul VI, who by his own admission, felt it was necessary to do so only because such beliefs were causing confusion.

The question I want to get to is the following. Given that:
1. The symbolism behind communion is recognized, valued, and celebrated in Catholic theology.
2. The intellectual framework once believed to prop up transubstantiation is no longer held to be valid.
3. Noted Catholic theologians have promoted moving away from it.
4. The current pope has declared that God is not afraid of new things.

would it be so damaging if the church moved away from such teachings? It seems to me that transubstantiation is an unnecessary detail of Catholic theology. Read Ratzinger's thoughts on communion and it's difficult to see the value transubstantiation adds to that theology. Why is it so important to you?

A follow up question to that. If the church revisited the issue and accepted a transfinalization view instead, would you be willing to accept this new position?

Link to Ratzinger's Essay: Eucharist, Communion and Solidarity

phattonez · Nov 2, 2014

CrabCake said:
I read a very good essay (actually, it was originally a lecture) by Ratzinger on the communion. In it, he explores how communion is a symbol for the transformation of death to life, violence to love, and how it serves to unite believers. He also talks about how the act of communion is foreshadowing of the coming eternal wedding feast. Furthermore, he discusses the two dimensions of communion, the vertical (communion with God) and the horizontal (communion with believers), and how in the case of the second, this presents a special call for global social justice. Here is how he summarizes this whole thing:

It seems clear that the Catholic Church recognizes and greatly values the deep symbolism inherent in communion. It's worth noting that we could read that whole lecture without believing in transubstantiation and still agree with virtually everything it says.

Sure, all of that is true, but we have to remember that all of this symbolism is not to the exclusion of transubstantiation. Far from it.

CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

As far as 'substance theory' goes, this was a theory developed by Aristotle, Aquinas merely applies it to Christianity. The problem is that virtually no one supports this theory anymore. Aristotle developed that ontology in a pre-darwinian time and almost certainly would not have developed it had he had access to modern science. Now that we know about atoms, elements, covalent bonds, etc. the theory of "substance" is unnecessary. The substance theory that the Catholic Church relies on for transubstantiation lost credibility centuries ago.

You are holding to a Aristotelian physics notion of substance, which philosophers in the 13th century did not ascribe to. So, I need to share with you a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger about how the classical theists viewed the idea of substance:

Cardinal Ratzinger said:
For classical physics, as everyone knows, substance was the last indivisible unit of corpuscular being; at first atoms were regarded as those units and, later, the elemental particles found in atoms. They appeared to be the things ultimately responsible for material reality, the "building blocks of reality" out of which the world is constructed. Thus they were considered the substances in which the different dynamics processes occurred accidentally. The demonstration that matter in principle can be transformed into energy demolished this notion of substance. Matter is not something that exists as solid clumps of reality. The ultimate particles are not some "mass" in rigid contrast to energy. Consequently, the concept of substance in classical physics and the late Middle Ages is in fact abolished.
The thirteenth-century concept of substance, however, as it was classically formulated by Thomas Aquinas, is completely different. For High Scholasticism, not only the "when" but also the "where" is an accident; that is to say, not only the process unfolding over the course of time but also the structure existing in space is an accident. In still other words: not just the quality but also the quantity is considered an accident. That is an important observation. For with that we have caught sight of the subject matter peculiar to the field of metaphysics, as the High Middle Ages understood it; at the same time, this makes evident the central element in the rearrangement of our understanding of reality that became the presupposition of the classical physics of the modern era. For the High Middle Ages, "matter," as materia prima is a pre-physical, precisely meta-physical entity; it is pure potentiality, and as such it does not become intelligible anywhere; it can only be grasped speculatively , metaphysically as the one root of physically observable material being. The same is true of "substance", which refers to the metaphysical reality of the subsistence of an existing thing, but not to the appearing thing as phenomenon.

From The Celebration of the Eucharist

The question I want to get to is the following. Given that:
1. The symbolism behind communion is recognized, valued, and celebrated in Catholic theology.
2. The intellectual framework once believed to prop up transubstantiation is no longer held to be valid.
3. Noted Catholic theologians have promoted moving away from it.
4. The current pope has declared that God is not afraid of new things.

would it be so damaging if the church moved away from such teachings? It seems to me that transubstantiation is an unnecessary detail of Catholic theology. Read Ratzinger's thoughts on communion and it's difficult to see the value transubstantiation adds to that theology. Why is it so important to you?

A follow up question to that. If the church revisited the issue and accepted a transfinalization view instead, would you be willing to accept this new position?

Link to Ratzinger's Essay: Eucharist, Communion and Solidarity

Position number 2 is not true. Substance goes even beyond the atoms; it is far more complex than that. Position number 3 is irrelevant. Theologians do not decide the truth. That's not the way authority works in the Church. And position number 4 is odd. Here I honestly think the pope is saying things which ultimately have no meaning.

The truth does not change, as it is truth. Since the Church is the bulwark of truth, its teachings cannot change, because truth does not change. Since transubstantiation is truth, and we have always held to this truth, then the Church will not change because it cannot change, because transubstantiation is the truth.

CrabCake · Nov 2, 2014

phattonez said:
You are holding to a Aristotelian physics notion of substance, which philosophers in the 13th century did not ascribe to. So, I need to share with you a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger about how the classical theists viewed the idea of substance:

That's just an explanation of Aristotle's substance theory. How is it any different? The only novelty here is that they applied it to the Eucharist. It's the same exact substance theory that has been held as obsolete for some centuries, as modern Catholic theologians have mentioned.

phattonez said:
Position number 3 is irrelevant. Theologians do not decide the truth. That's not the way authority works in the Church.

It is relevant in that it shows that some of the most enlightened Catholic thinkers have seen no problem with moving away from transubstantiation.

Karl Rahner is considered one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the 20th century. His theological work shaped the Second Vatican Council where he served as peritus and was one of the seven theologians who drafted the Lumen Gentium, one of the council's central documents. He also worked alongside Ratzinger on drafting position statements in regards to the relationship between scripture and tradition and his influence is said to be easily felt throughout most of the council's ultimate findings.

It should be relevant that someone held in such high esteem within the church, with so much knowledge on Catholic theology and so much involvement in the shaping of the church's official doctrines, felt that moving away from transubstantiation was justified. If someone in such a position, knowing as much as he did, felt that the doctrine of transubstantiation was worth revisiting, and indeed promoted revising it, shouldn't that lead you towards thinking that maybe your view on the topic should be a little less stubborn and a little more open to other views?

phattonez said:
The truth does not change, as it is truth. Since the Church is the bulwark of truth, its teachings cannot change, because truth does not change. Since transubstantiation is truth, and we have always held to this truth, then the Church will not change because it cannot change, because transubstantiation is the truth.

The truth does not change, our understanding of it does. Other Catholic theologians have proposed that our understanding evolve from transubstantiation to either transignification or transfinalization. Why is it that two highly influential Catholic theologians, both of whom participated actively in Vatican II and are credited as having helped shape many of its views are able to have a view of the Eucharist that is more flexible than your own?

But more importantly, you never answered the question of why transubstantiation matters if all Catholic theologians agree about the deep symbolism underlying communion. You simply said that it can be both symbolic and literal. Yes, I agree, but if you lost the literal the symbolism would remain. The practice would remain just as rich in symbolism and meaning if you stripped away the transubstantiation. So, what are you afraid of losing if that doctrine is changed as some of the most brilliant minds in Catholic theology have proposed? If we accepted Rahner's proposal and shifted our view towards transignification, what difference would that make? Why is this a hill you're willing to die on?

phattonez · Nov 12, 2014

CrabCake said:
That's just an explanation of Aristotle's substance theory. How is it any different? The only novelty here is that they applied it to the Eucharist. It's the same exact substance theory that has been held as obsolete for some centuries, as modern Catholic theologians have mentioned.

It is clearly not. The old substance theory from Aristotelian physics was that substance was the atoms. That's clearly not true, and in any case it's not the definition of substance used by Scholastic philosophers in the High Middle Ages.

Cardinal Ratzinger said:
The thirteenth-century concept of substance, however, as it was classically formulated by Thomas Aquinas, is completely different. For High Scholasticism, not only the "when" but also the "where" is an accident; that is to say, not only the process unfolding over the course of time but also the structure existing in space is an accident. In still other words: not just the quality but also the quantity is considered an accident. That is an important observation. For with that we have caught sight of the subject matter peculiar to the field of metaphysics, as the High Middle Ages understood it; at the same time, this makes evident the central element in the rearrangement of our understanding of reality that became the presupposition of the classical physics of the modern era. For the High Middle Ages, "matter," as materia prima is a pre-physical, precisely meta-physical entity; it is pure potentiality, and as such it does not become intelligible anywhere; it can only be grasped speculatively , metaphysically as the one root of physically observable material being. The same is true of "substance", which refers to the metaphysical reality of the subsistence of an existing thing, but not to the appearing thing as phenomenon.

It is relevant in that it shows that some of the most enlightened Catholic thinkers have seen no problem with moving away from transubstantiation

.

Catholic thinkers do not decide truth. That is not how the Church operates. Truth is safeguarded by the Magisterium; theologians do not constitute the Magisterium.

Karl Rahner is considered one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the 20th century. His theological work shaped the Second Vatican Council where he served as peritus and was one of the seven theologians who drafted the Lumen Gentium, one of the council's central documents. He also worked alongside Ratzinger on drafting position statements in regards to the relationship between scripture and tradition and his influence is said to be easily felt throughout most of the council's ultimate findings.

Ultimately, though, it's irrelevant, as Rahner is not infallible. That is only the gift of the Church, and the pope in particular.

It should be relevant that someone held in such high esteem within the church, with so much knowledge on Catholic theology and so much involvement in the shaping of the church's official doctrines, felt that moving away from transubstantiation was justified. If someone in such a position, knowing as much as he did, felt that the doctrine of transubstantiation was worth revisiting, and indeed promoted revising it, shouldn't that lead you towards thinking that maybe your view on the topic should be a little less stubborn and a little more open to other views?

The truth does not change, our understanding of it does. Other Catholic theologians have proposed that our understanding evolve from transubstantiation to either transignification or transfinalization. Why is it that two highly influential Catholic theologians, both of whom participated actively in Vatican II and are credited as having helped shape many of its views are able to have a view of the Eucharist that is more flexible than your own?

Listen, with Church matters it is this simple: if you doubt transsubstantiation obstinately, then you are a heretic, and therefore not Catholic. Heretics are excommunicated latae sententiae.

But more importantly, you never answered the question of why transubstantiation matters if all Catholic theologians agree about the deep symbolism underlying communion. You simply said that it can be both symbolic and literal. Yes, I agree, but if you lost the literal the symbolism would remain. The practice would remain just as rich in symbolism and meaning if you stripped away the transubstantiation. So, what are you afraid of losing if that doctrine is changed as some of the most brilliant minds in Catholic theology have proposed? If we accepted Rahner's proposal and shifted our view towards transignification, what difference would that make? Why is this a hill you're willing to die on?

Because if this is not true and it is just a symbol then Christ is a liar. You can see why that might be an issue for a Christian.

CrabCake · Nov 12, 2014

phattonez said:
It is clearly not. The old substance theory from Aristotelian physics was that substance was the atoms. That's clearly not true, and in any case it's not the definition of substance used by Scholastic philosophers in the High Middle Ages.

You need to re-read your Aristotle. There is no difference between the substance theory Ratzinger described and that which Aristotle developed. That's not my opinion. It is a historical fact. Even the briefest glance at the wikipedia entry for substance theory will show you this.

phattonez said:
Listen, with Church matters it is this simple: if you doubt transsubstantiation obstinately, then you are a heretic, and therefore not Catholic. Heretics are excommunicated latae sententiae.

So, you believe Karl Rahner and Edward Schillebeeckx were heretics who should be excommunicated?

Odd..since the pope, having heard of their ideas (which you call heretical), chose to involve them in shaping Catholic doctrine through the Second Vatican Council instead of excommunicating them.

CrabCake · Nov 12, 2014

The pope's words about these "heretics":

Pope Paul VI said:
We certainly do not deny that those who are spreading these strange opinions are making a praiseworthy effort to investigate this lofty Mystery and to set forth its inexhaustible riches and to make it more understandable to the men of today; rather, We acknowledge this and We approve of it.

Paul VI - Mysterium Fidei

It sounds like you disagree with the Pope on whether promoting a re-evaluation of transubstantiation is heretical or whether it is, instead, "praiseworthy".

phattonez · Nov 13, 2014

CrabCake said:
You need to re-read your Aristotle. There is no difference between the substance theory Ratzinger described and that which Aristotle developed. That's not my opinion. It is a historical fact. Even the briefest glance at the wikipedia entry for substance theory will show you this.

Aristotle is ultimately irrelevant. Development of philosophy did not stop with Aristotle. The definition of substance used by Scholastics during the High Middle Ages was far more complex than that used by Aristotle. That is the definition that you need to deal with.

So, you believe Karl Rahner and Edward Schillebeeckx were heretics who should be excommunicated?

If they hold views obstinately opposed to transsubstantiation, then they are already excommunicated latae sententiae.

Odd..since the pope, having heard of their ideas (which you call heretical), chose to involve them in shaping Catholic doctrine through the Second Vatican Council instead of excommunicating them.

What is odd is that you put so much emphasis on the fact that they were involved in the Second Vatican Council, which is a council that produced no infallible declarations since it was strictly a pastoral council, and that the views associated with these men were explicitly struck down by Pope Paul VI.

CrabCake · Nov 13, 2014

phattonez said:
What is odd is that you put so much emphasis on the fact that they were involved in the Second Vatican Council, which is a council that produced no infallible declarations since it was strictly a pastoral council, and that the views associated with these men were explicitly struck down by Pope Paul VI.

It was the most important theological work of the Catholic faith during the time these individuals were active. The fact they were invited to participate and that their participation is considered to have had tremendous impact gives us an idea of what the feelings of the catholic church and the papacy regarding these individuals you call heretics were. Far from excommunicating them for those views, they instead gave them positions of prominence and influence among the leading catholic theologians of the time.

This helps show my point which is that you are far more arrogant and closed minded about this topic than the church itself is. You want people who disagree with it to be considered heretics whereas actual church leaders, including a Pope consider them Catholics in good standing whose profound theological insights should be sought after in the most important council of their lifetimes.

In all of your posts you have presented transubstantiation as the only view that any Catholic could ever reasonably come to. Yet here are two individuals widely considered to be among the greatest modern catholic theologians whose opinions are different from yours. Obviously, this means your position is not the only interpretation of scripture a catholic can come to. People far more knowledgeable than you about catholic theology (please correct me if you are actually a leading catholic theologian who works closely with the Vatican) have come to different conclusions.

phattonez · Nov 14, 2014

CrabCake said:
It was the most important theological work of the Catholic faith during the time these individuals were active. The fact they were invited to participate and that their participation is considered to have had tremendous impact gives us an idea of what the feelings of the catholic church and the papacy regarding these individuals you call heretics were. Far from excommunicating them for those views, they instead gave them positions of prominence and influence among the leading catholic theologians of the time.

This helps show my point which is that you are far more arrogant and closed minded about this topic than the church itself is. You want people who disagree with it to be considered heretics whereas actual church leaders, including a Pope consider them Catholics in good standing whose profound theological insights should be sought after in the most important council of their lifetimes.

The "profound theological insights" that you claim they had were explicitly shot down by Pope Paul VI. Why are you suddenly ignoring that now?

In all of your posts you have presented transubstantiation as the only view that any Catholic could ever reasonably come to. Yet here are two individuals widely considered to be among the greatest modern catholic theologians whose opinions are different from yours. Obviously, this means your position is not the only interpretation of scripture a catholic can come to. People far more knowledgeable than you about catholic theology (please correct me if you are actually a leading catholic theologian who works closely with the Vatican) have come to different conclusions.

And those conclusions were shot down. Myself, I'll stick with the Tridentine Creed:

Tridentine Creed said:
I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation.

I would suggest you look up how the Magisterium works in the Church, because it is far different than any simple institution. Truth does not change, and as such Church teaching does not and cannot change.