Transubstantiation: From Stumbling Block to Cornerstone

The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is a real stumbling block to some Protestants who are seriously considering Catholicism. It was for me too, until I explored the subject, historically and scripturally. What follows is a summary of my deliberations.

Catholicism holds that bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ when they are consecrated by the priest celebrating the Mass. Oftentimes non-Catholics get hung up on the term transubstantiation, the name for the philosophical theory that the Church maintains best accounts for the change at consecration. The Church’s explanation of transubstantiation was influenced by Aristotle’s distinction between substance and accident.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), like most philosophers of his time, wanted to account for how things change and yet remain the same. So, for example, a “substance” like an oak tree remains the same while undergoing “accidental” changes. It begins as an acorn and eventually develops roots, a trunk, branches, and leaves. During all these changes, the oak tree remains identical to itself. Its leaves change from green to red and brown, and eventually fall off. But these accidental changes occur while the substance of the tree remains.

On the other hand, if we chopped down the tree and turned into a desk, that would be a substantial change, since the tree would literally cease to be and its parts would be turned into something else, a desk. According to the Church, when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but the substance of each changes. So, it looks, tastes, feels, and smells like bread and wine, but it literally has been changed into the body and blood of Christ. That’s transubstantiation.

There are several reasons why it would be a mistake to dismiss transubstantiation simply because of the influence of Aristotle on its formulation. First, Eastern Churches in communion with the Catholic Church rarely employ this Aristotelian language, and yet the Church considers their celebration of the Eucharist perfectly valid. Second, the Catholic Church maintains that the divine liturgies celebrated in the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome (commonly called “Eastern Orthodoxy”) are perfectly valid as well, even though the Eastern Orthodox rarely employ the term transubstantiation. Third, the belief that the bread and wine are literally transformed into Christ’s body and blood predates Aristotle’s influence on the Church’s theology by over 1000 years. For it was not until the thirteenth century, and the ascendancy of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought, that Aristotle’s categories were employed by the Church in its account of the Eucharist. In fact, when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) employed the language of substantial change, St. Thomas had not even been born!

It was that third point that I found so compelling and convinced me that the Catholic view of the Eucharist was correct. It did not take long for me to see that Eucharistic realism (as I like to call it) had been uncontroversially embraced deep in Christian history. This is why Protestant historian, J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.” I found it in many of the works of the Early Church Fathers, including St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110), St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 151), St. Cyprian of Carthage, (A. D. 251), First Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 350), and St. Augustine of Hippo (A. D. 411) . These are, of course, not the only Early Church writings that address the nature of the Eucharist. But they are representative.

This should, however, not surprise us, given what the Bible says about the Lord’s Supper. When Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples (Mt. 26:17-30; Mk. 14:12-25; Lk. 22:7-23), which we commemorate at Holy Communion, he referred to it as a Passover meal. He called the bread and wine his body and blood. In several places, Jesus is called the Lamb of God (John 1: 29, 36; I Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:12). Remember, when the lamb is killed for Passover, the meal participants ingest the lamb. Consequently, St. Paul’s severe warnings about partaking in Holy Communion unworthily only make sense in light of Eucharistic realism (I Cor. 10:14-22; I Cor. 11:17-34). He writes: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? . . . Whoever, therefore eats and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (I Cor. 10:16; 11:27)

In light of all these passages and the fact that Jesus called himself the bread of life (John 6:41-51) and that he said that his followers must “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” (John 6:53), the Eucharistic realism of the Early Church, the Eastern Churches (both in and out of communion with Rome), and the pre-Reformation medieval Church (fifth to sixteenth centuries) seems almost unremarkable. So, what first appeared to be a stumbling block was transformed into a cornerstone.

Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University. He tells the story of his journey from Catholicism to Protestantism and back again in his book, Return to Rome: Confessions of An Evangelical Catholic. He blogs at Return to Rome.

this may be the only net article that might be useful:

http://www.treenwaysilks.com/inout_silk.html

Reeled, or filament silk is the highest quality yarn and is very white and shiny. First the cocoons are inspected and sorted, as only those with a perfect shape can be used for the reeling procedure. Cocoons are soaked in warm water to soften the gummy sericin. The silken strand from a single cocoon is too fine to use alone, so individual filaments of 6-20 cocoons are unravelled at the same time, travelling through a very small eye. The softened sericin dries, hardens and binds the strands together to become one thread the size of a human hair. The majority of reeled silks supply large industrial looms.

Tips for Handling
Only during recent years have relatively heavy reeled silk yarns become available to handweavers. They are extremely slippery and require some special handling. A ball winder should not be used with reeled silks. The yarn will slip off, making a tangled mess. Wind the balls by hand, or better still, wind your warp and shuttle directly from the skein placed on a yarn holder (swift). It is best to clamp the swift sideways rather than upright. Investing in a couple of swifts and bypassing the ball stage saves time and tangle no matter what type of silk yarn you are working with.

Yarn Count
The count of reeled yarns is based on denier, a unit of measurement used to arrive at the diameter of a strand of silk. One denier (D) = 1 gram (g) weight which measures 9,000 metres (m) of filament. Translated into the imperial system this is: 1D = 9,750 yd (or just over 5 miles) of silk filament weighing 1/28 of an ounce. A strand of silk from an average cocoon is 2–3 denier and barely discernible by the human eye. A D 20/22 yarn is comprised of filaments from 8 cocoons which may be as thick as a hair from your head.

The count numbers describing reeled yarns are complex technicalities of trivial interest. The thickness and twist are the real important factors when embarking on a project. The best way to decide on the suitability of a yarn for our purposes is to look at a sample and the yardage it has. These factors will help determine set and hand. Reeled silk that has any kind of twist added is called thrown silk. There are two kinds of thrown silk: organzine, which is tightly twisted and plied and used as warp; and tram, which is given only a slight twist and used as weft.

High quality spun silk is easy to work with though it is more slippery than cotton or wool. An empty toilet paper tube placed on the arm of a ball winder will keep the silk yarns tidy if they slip off the ball while winding. The yarn should be handled as little as possible while dressing the loom to prevent fluffing and pilling.

Yarn Count
The count used for spun silk is the metric count system, used for cotton, linen and wool. In determining spun silk, 1 gram (g) (1/28 of an oz) is the stable figure. One metre (m) (39 inches) of yarn weighing 1g is 1m count or a #1 yarn. A #10 silk is 10m/g and has 10,000 m/kg. This translates to 4,970 yd/lb.

A pair of numbers identifies the size of plied yarns. A 20/2 spun silk is comprised of two strands (bottom number) of a #20 (top number) yarn. The 20 indicates that each strand is 20 times finer than a #1 silk, which has 497 yd/lb. To calculate the yardage of any spun silk yarn, multiply the yarn size by 497 and divide by the ply number. A 20/2 silk has 4970 yd/lb. The higher the number e.g. 20, 30, 60 the thinner the yarn and greater the yardage.

TWIST AND PLY
Within each type of yarn there are variations of twist and ply which give them different characteristics suitable for different purposes. Sheen is affected by twisting and plying. A yarn surface with the least interruptions will reflect the light for optimum sheen. The more twists and plies in the yarn, the more the surface is broken so there is less sheen.

PILLING
Plies and twists have a lot to do with how readily a silk yarn will pill or pull.

Pilling occurs with many good yarns that contain short fibres: cashmere, merino, qiviut and spun silk. Through use, the shortest fibres work their way to the surface, break off and form a little sticky pill. Plied yarns pill less than singles and yarns with more twist pill less than loosely twisted yarns. Gassing is the process of running the finished yarn through a flame at very high speed to burn off the fuzz which helps prevent pilling. All of Treenway’s yarns have been gassed.

Pilling is not an issue with reeled silk as only long fibres are used. However, these yarns are not without their own troubles. The heavier reeled yarns available to handweavers are made of numerous fine filaments. The rough edge of a table or jewellery clasp can easily catch just a few of the filaments. Yarns with a tighter twist will help avoid that problem.

Both spun and reel yarns can be twisted into a cord, which is a plied yarn with a firmer twist. These yarns have less chance of pilling or pulling, but make a slightly stiffer cloth.

TUSSAH SILK

Tussah is the common name given to the Antherea silk producing caterpillars and their silk. These silkworms have a different diet from their Bombyx mori cousins. Whether they are reared in the tropics or temperate climate the leaves they eat contain tannin, the ingredient in tea that leaves a stain in your cup. The natural colour of tussah silk is a warm honey beige.

Tussah silkworms are protected and harvested in jungles and forests by indigenous peoples in Asia. These silkworms have rejected all attempts at total domestication. Tussah fibres are a little coarser than the cultivated Bombyx.

This wiki article has an item down in it about metalic salts added to silk making handling easier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finishing_(textiles)

http://www.silkmelody.com/shop/page/6?shop_param=

Pure silk contains no metallic chemicals.

•Silk has the capacity to absorb moisture while remaining dry.
•Silk has the ability to breathe and to absorb oil from the skin. However, it sheds dirt easily and readily, making it a very sanitary textile.
•Silk has a greater natural affinity for printing media (Penetrability) than linen and cotton. As a result, basic acids and direct dyestuffs can all be used on silk with better results than can be achieved on linen and cotton.

•The silk fiber ranges in length from 1350-4000 ft
•Silk is the finest natural fiber and has the greatest strength compared to other natural fibers of the same diameter
•The elasticity of real silk is superior to that of linen or cotton
Silk can be stretched by 1/5—1/7 of its original length before breaking. Because of this property, garments made of silk keep their shape and do not wrinkle badly.

• Garments made of silk are warmer than those made of linen and cotton because of the poor heat conductivity of silk. Silks hold the heat near the body keeping it warm.

Different Types of Silk Origin

Silk produced in different parts of the world have unique sheen and texture properties.
•Chinese silk is smooth and satiny, and has a creamy white natural color
•Japanese silk has a creamy white natural color
•Italian silk is soft and rich in color, and has a yellow crinkly look

http://www.weavingtoday.com/blogs/weaving-today/archive/2010/09/15/warping-their-looms-and-rebuilding-their-lives.aspx

http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Weaving__Thai_Silk&articleid=747257

Scripture utterly clearly, unambiguously that what is in the Eucharist REALLY IS the Body and Blood of Christ

How can anyone deny these clear statements and deny the REAL Presence in the Eucharist is beyond me

[35] And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

[52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

[54]Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

[55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day

And NOTICE -- he repeated it twice! This is no symbolism, no metaphor, He clearly stated it and repeated it at other times when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12), but this time He clearly stated it again.

This is reinforced in the Epistle to the corinthian

1 Cor. 10:16-17, Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ

Of course the Jews murmured and jumped back in horror at being told they would eat the flesh of Jesus Christ -- read the scripture.

And this has been the interpretation of all Christians since Apostolic Times -- for 1600 years. All Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, even Assyrians separated from the others for 1700 years believe the same. So, too do Lutherans and Anglicans correctly believe in the Real Presence of Christ.

All of these believe in Christ's REAL PRESENCE in the Eucharist
Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies?

What language in the world ever spoke so?
To deny this clearly, explicit statement in scripture is unworthy of anyone who believes in Jesus Christ -- they should belive it when Christ said unambiguously "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh" and not make up their own interpretations

A lot of Calvinism mirrors Augustine. No surprise. Calvin returned to Augustine for much of his Bible studies.

Again, re: Limited Atonement, from "Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love" (Enchridion)...

CHAPTER XXVII
"Limits Of God's Plan for Human Salvation"
103. Accordingly, when we hear and read in sacred Scripture that God “willeth that all men should be saved,” although we know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that account to underrate the fully omnipotent will of God. Rather, we must understand the Scripture, “Who will have all men to be saved,” as meaning that no man is saved unless God willeth his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it. Moreover, his will should be sought in prayer, because if he willeth, then what he willeth must necessarily be. And, indeed, it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he made that statement. Thus, we are also to understand what is written in the Gospel about Him “who enlighteneth every man.” This means that there is no man who is enlightened except by God.
In any case, the word concerning God, “who will have all men to be saved,” does not mean that there is no one whose salvation he doth not will — he who was unwilling to work miracles among those who, he said, would have repented if he had wrought them — but by “all men” we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided: kings and subjects; nobility and plebeians; the high and the low; the learned and unlearned; the healthy and the sick; the bright, the dull, and the stupid; the rich, the poor, and the middle class; males, females, infants, children, the adolescent, young adults and middle-aged and very old; of every tongue and fashion, of all the arts, of all professions, with the countless variety of wills and minds and all the other things that differentiate people. For from which of these groups doth not God will that some men from every nation should be saved through his only begotten Son our Lord?
Therefore, he doth save them since the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever he willeth.
Now, the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be offered “for all men” and especially “for kings and all those of exalted station,” whose worldly pomp and pride could be supposed to be a sufficient cause for them to despise the humility of the Christian faith. Then, continuing his argument, “for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior” — that is, to pray even for such as these [kings] — the apostle, to remove any warrant for despair, added, “Who willeth that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” Truly, then, God hath judged it good that through the prayers of the lowly he would deign to grant salvation to the exalted — a paradox we have already seen exemplified. Our Lord also useth the same manner of speech in the Gospel, where he saith to the Pharisees, “You tithe mint and rue and every herb.” Obviously, the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the people of other lands. Therefore, just as we should interpret “every herb” to mean “every kind of herb,” so also we can interpret “all men” to mean “all kinds of men.” We could interpret it in any other fashion, as long as we are not compelled to believe that the Omnipotent hath willed anything to be done which was not done. “He hath done all things in heaven and earth, whatsoever he willed,” as Truth sings of him, and surely he hath not willed to do anything that he hath not done. There must be no equivocation on this point."

Or how about...

CHAPTER XXV
"Predestination and the Justice of God"

98. Furthermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God cannot turn the evil wills of men--as he willeth, when he willeth, and where he willeth--toward the good? But, when he acteth, he acteth through mercy; when he doth not act, it is through justice. For, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom he willeth, he hardeneth."[205]
Now when the apostle said this, he was commending grace, of which he had just spoken in connection with the twin children in Rebecca's womb: "Before they had yet been born, or had done anything good or bad, in order that the electing purpose of God might continue--not through works but through the divine calling--it was said of them, 'The elder shall serve the younger.' "[206] Accordingly, he refers to another prophetic witness, where it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated."[207] Then, realizing how what he said could disturb those whose understanding could not penetrate to this depth of grace, he adds: "What therefore shall we say to this? Is there unrighteousness in God? God forbid!"[208] Yet it does seem unfair that, without any merit derived from good works or bad, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good deeds of the one, and evil deeds of the other--which God, of course, foreknew--he would never have said "not of good works" but rather "of future works." Thus he would have solved the difficulty; or, rather, he would have left no difficulty to be solved. As it is, however, when he went on to exclaim, "God forbid!"--that is, "God forbid that there should be unfairness in God"--he proceeds immediately to add (to prove that no unfairness in God is involved here), "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show pity to whom I will show pity.'"[209] Now, who but a fool would think God unfair either when he imposes penal judgment on the deserving or when he shows mercy to the undeserving? Finally, the apostle concludes and says, "Therefore, it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God's showing mercy."[210]
Thus, both the twins were "by nature children of wrath,"[211] not because of any works of their own, but because they were both bound in the fetters of damnation originally forged by Adam. But He who said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," loved Jacob in unmerited mercy, yet hated Esau with merited justice. Since this judgment [of wrath] was due them both, the former learned from what happened to the other that the fact that he had not, with equal merit, incurred the same penalty gave him no ground to boast of his own distinctive merits--but, instead, that he should glory in the abundance of divine grace, because "it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy."[212] And, indeed, the whole visage of Scripture and, if I may speak so, the lineaments of its countenance, are found to exhibit a mystery, most profound and salutary, to admonish all who carefully look thereupon "that he who glories, should glory in the Lord."[213]
99. Now, after the apostle had commended God's mercy in saying, "So then, there is no question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy," next in order he intends to speak also of his judgment--for where his mercy is not shown, it is not unfairness but justice. For with God there is no injustice. Thus, he immediately added, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, that I may show through you my power, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth."[214] Then, having said this, he draws a conclusion that looks both ways, that is, toward mercy and toward judgment: "Therefore," he says, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth." He showeth mercy out of his great goodness; he hardeneth out of no unfairness at all. In this way, neither does he who is saved have a basis for glorying in any merit of his own; nor does the man who is damned have a basis for complaining of anything except what he has fully merited. For grace alone separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been mingled together in the one mass of perdition, arising from a common cause which leads back to their common origin. But if any man hears this in such a way as to say: "Why then does he find fault? For who resists his will?"[215]--as if to make it seem that man should not therefore be blamed for being evil because God "hath mercy on whom he willeth and whom he willeth he hardeneth"--God forbid that we should be ashamed to give the same reply as we see the apostle giving: "O man, who are you to reply to God? Does the molded object say to the molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Or is not the potter master of his clay, to make from the same mass one vessel for honorable, another for ignoble, use?"[216]
There are some stupid men who think that in this part of the argument the apostle had no answer to give; and, for lack of a reasonable rejoinder, simply rebuked the audacity of his gainsayer. But what he said--"O man, who are you?"--has actually great weight and in an argument like this recalls man, in a single word, to consider the limits of his capacity and, at the same time, supplies an important explanation.
For if one does not understand these matters, who is he to talk back to God? And if one does understand, he finds no better ground even then for talking back. For if he understands, he sees that the whole human race was condemned in its apostate head by a divine judgment so just that not even if a single member of the race were ever saved from it, no one could rail against God's justice. And he also sees that those who are saved had to be saved on such terms that it would show--by contrast with the greater number of those not saved but simply abandoned to their wholly just damnation--what the whole mass deserved and to what end God's merited judgment would have brought them, had not his undeserved mercy interposed. Thus every mouth of those disposed to glory in their own merits should be stopped, so that "he that glories may glory in the Lord."[217]

THAT'S Christianity.

THAT'S Calvinism.

Unmerited salvation. Free grace. Unearned mercy. All glory to God alone.

Understandable.

Most folks weave with silk because of the luster, colors etc. and extremely fine threads, thin cloth available thereby.

However, one can find thicker silk yarns of tussah silk and still enjoy the colors and luster and other silk qualities without the hassle of extremely thin threads.

Of course, the level of detail possible, is less.

If you still want to go with fine threads, then I’d think that 24-48 threads per inch would be a minimal density set for such threads—without my checking any charts or books.

I have some sewing machine threads partially all set up on my invention setup to weave shirt material. I think that was figured at 24 epi (ends per inch). Which, in a 12 dent reed would be 2 threads per dent.

There is the likelihood that too many fine silk threads per dent would mean some minimal fraying of the threads as they jossled one another in passing in the dent. That would decrease the luster and sheen to some slight to moderate degree, most likely.

On the other hand, with differrent fingers . . .

silk is a natural fabric with wonderful wearing qualities, compared to synthetic. Though for a strip of decorative fabric, such qualities would be minimal except for luster, color and detail of the weaving.

Let’s see . . . for an 8 inch wide strip . . . 8 X 24 = 192 ends = 192 heddles. One can quickly run out of heddles at high density sets. At 48 epi = 348 ends/heddles

For a 12 inch wide strip . . . 288 ends/heddles; at 48 epi=576 ends/heddles.

I have metal heddles, that would be a lot of weight!

On the other hand, with different fingers . . .

PERHAPS with an inkle loom, you could try weaving a 1” ribbon of 24 or 48 epi and see how it would go.

Or set that up on your regular loom.

How many harnesses do you have?

I have 8 harnesses. If you have only 4 or 2 . . . I’m not sure the level of detail possible would be worth the bother of such a fine set. I’m sure some weavers would argue that. Some wouldn’t.

It is probably possible to weave one of those shimmering fabrics where the color is one cast from one angle and another color cast from a slightly different or certainly 90 degree angle—I think one can do that on 4 harnesses.

I don’t know if it works on 2 harnesses with one color in the warp and one in the weft, or not.

Anyway—thanks for returning my head to weaving for a bit.

Am eager to get my loom going again after the sunroom is built—Lord willing and the Creek don’t rise up.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.