I really don’t appreciate the sarky nature of your post. Thus,I will make it simple for you if this is what you want to hear of what I believe..
The bread and wine no longer are bread and wine at the consecration in any way-the bread and wine are now fully Christ in His Body, Blood ,Soul and Divinity.
We spiritually believe this and see the full Christ through the eyes of our faith
It’s a Miracle and a mystery that surpasses scientific and human knowledge. I understand why the Eastern Orthodox took issue with Blessed Aquinas trying to explain things further in a scientific manner.
And regarding Exodus 16- there is a whole lot of Typology that has been historically understood
Here is an Example...(sorry about the bad formatting for this part, but you can read the full PDF at http://hebrewca.ipower.com/files/11.10TypologyofMoses.pdf
Manna as a Figure of the Eucharist
The manna that nourished the Israelites for forty years as
they wandered in the desert is a magnificent figure of the
Eucharist that Jesus instituted as a sacrament of spiritual
nourishment. The event is described in Exodus 16:4–35.
After the people blamed Moses for taking them out of
Egypt where they “sat by the fleshpots and ate bread to
the full,” the Lord said to Moses:
“Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the
people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that
I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or not.
On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it
will be twice as much as they gather daily.” So Moses and
Aaron said to all the people of Israel, “At evening you shall
know that it was the Lord who brought you out of the land of
Egypt, and in the morning you shall see the glory of the Lord.
. . . in the morning dew lay round about the camp. And when
the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness
a fine, flake-like thing, fine as hoarfrost on the ground. When
the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What
is it?” For they did not know what it was. And Moses said
to them, “It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.
This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Gather of it, every
man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer
apiece, according to the number of the persons whom each
of you has in his tent.’” And the people of Israel did so; they
gathered, some more, some less. But when they measured it
with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and
he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according
to what he could eat. And Moses said to them, “Let no man
leave any of it till the morning.” But they did not listen to
Moses; some left part of it till the morning, and it bred worms
and became foul; and Moses was angry with them. Morning
by morning they gathered it, each as much as he could eat;
but when the sun grew hot, it melted. . . . Now the house
of Israel called its name manna; it was like coriander seed,
white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.
And Moses said, “This is what the Lord has commanded:
‘Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations, that
they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilder
-
ness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.’”
And
the people of Israel ate the manna forty years, till they came
to a habitable land; they ate the manna, till they came to the
border of the land of Canaan.
That Jesus instituted a better kind of manna—miracu
-
lous bread from heaven for our journey through the desert
of this life—is a prime motive of credibility for faith in
Jesus as the Messiah. What Moses won from God for the
Israelites in the desert, Jesus gave to the Church for her
entire pilgrimage through history. Instead of feeding us
with perishable food for forty years, Jesus’ bread from
heaven has nourished the People of God with the divine
life for two thousand years.
26
The manna is a figure of the Eucharist in various respects.
First, because it is “
bread from heaven
.” Normal bread
comes from the earth, in that it is made from grains of
wheat. This bread was rained down on Israel from above.
Thus it is a natural symbol of the fact that the Eucharist
nourishes us with a reality that is not from this earth nor
even from the natural order, but supremely from above. It
is in fact the Word Incarnate. Jesus brings out this figure
in John 6:48–51:
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the
wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes
down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I
am the living bread which came down from heaven.
The manna also was not the product of human toil like
normal bread, but came down from above as the dewfall.
This prefigures the fact that the Eucharist in its interior
reality is not the fruit of human technology or accomplish
-
ment, but is the supremely gratuitous gift of God.
The manna is a figure of the Eucharist also because it
was something utterly
unknown
to the Israelites, which
is expressed by the name “manna,” which means “what
is it?” This mystery prefigures the Eucharist because it is
the reality of the New Covenant most veiled in mystery.
Transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, and Holy
Communion, although not contradictory, utterly transcend
everything that pertains to our ordinary experience. The
mysteriousness of the manna as a figure of the supernatural
mystery of the Eucharist is also indicated in Deuteronomy
8:3: “And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you
with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers
know; that he might make you know that man does not
live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that
proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.”
27
Furthermore, the manna is a figure of the effects of
grace of the Eucharist in that God gave them each only
I won’t be able to respond for awhile since my mother is very ill and I have much work to do
I wish you Blessings.
“Tell these stones to turn into bread...
“Tell this cracker to turn into Christ’s flesh...
For reason of my repeating a sort of terminology which NL used twice, and was deleted by moderator, my own comment too (since I threw the same phrase right back at him) was deleted also. So all this has been much like battling some tag-team whom won't confess to the slightest terminology if it be potentially troubling -- but which terms themselves have been used by their very own church! Meaning; the persistence in not directly admitting that the communion wafer, in it's physical properties shall we say, does not change, for as stated at Trent, as is noted by Liam G. Walsh in Sacraments of Initiation: A Theology of Rite, Word, and Life © 2011 Archdiocese of Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 3949 South Racine Avenue, Chicago IL 60609 from pg.326;
"Using the language of Medieval sacramental theology, Chapter 1 states that in the Eucharist after the consecration Christ is "truly, really, and substantially...contained" under the appearance (species) of bread and wine." [ellipses his own]
The "species" or "accident" (the physical appearance or reality on this plane or realm of existence we generally abide in) does not change, in that it retains it's appearance, or as otherwise said, the transformation of the bread and wine into being the body and blood of Christ is "under the species of those sensible things".
As I said, that to which you originally replied to, which was addressed to NL;
Please remember again, the "accident" of the form DOES NOT change (even though some here other than yourself seem to be arguing for the accident or "species" be changed also).to which I added;
which for some reason you chose to quote, then attempted to correct?
Now you say;
Excuse me? In any way? This is precisely what I've been driving at, and excuse me further, for the author of this confusion is not myself, for these interplays of wording, language, and definition derived from Aristotelian/Greek philosophy influenced word definitions & meanings existed long before any of us alive today were subjected to them.
You still didn't answer the question directly, but instead jumped to the next step (of explaining by faith). In doing so, resulted in affirming my suspicion --- in that regarding the change of "substance" you take 'substance' to mean as is commonly defined and understood today, not 'substance' as the Greek philosophy defined the word? This is the crux of the matter. The definition of "substance" which is being transformed is important, and is precisely where both contention and some confusion enters in. Substance_theory Substantial form Accident (philosophy) which word "accident" Thomas Aquinas used in his own transformation of the bread explanations, but was shifted to "species" in later centuries writing and declaratory. Also take a peek at Essential properties; please study or refresh understanding of those, taking particular note of how in today's common usage "The idea of substantial forms has been abandoned for a mechanical, or “bottom-up” theory of organization." then it can be understood that to impose modern idea of "substance" be in error in regards to official RCC proclamation from Trent concerning transubstantiation, which there leave the underlying article, the accident or "species" as it were unchanged (in one sense the wine still wine, the bread still bread) but it be otherwise essentially changed --- to be understood in the realm of Spirit, and of faith(?), for as Trent said (to repeat) the transubstantiation took place "under the species of those sensible things".
What you continued with beyond which I quoted, highlighted in brown above would have been fine --- IF you had directly answered the question. I already understand the next step, and I do already understand what it is that is believed.
Yet I knew too, that something along the lines of "I don't appreciate the sarky nature of your post" would be tossed on the table (much as Mormons get all huffy when challenged) along with expanded description of what is believed, leaving the pointed question unanswered.
You do realize that the information you sent my way (after the link) contains much of the precise scripture I touched upon already? I'm supposed to read it now and come away with some other framework, just because you don't appreciate my (alleged) snarkiness?
Forget it. This is not a conversation. I asked for one thing and one thing only --- after establishment of which we could both proceed. That answer sought for was fully along the lines of that which you otherwise on this thread approached agreeing with, but I did seek explicit clarification, which is STILL being avoided, but curiously avoided, like it was some poisonous thing; even as the very article can be found among Roman Catholic descriptive terminology in regards to their own understanding and presentation of this sacrament.
Is it for reason such [above link] came from a co-religionist (another Roman Catholic) that you found something to agree with there, yet won't touch it (and say "amen" to = not physical but spiritual reality, thus is) with a ten-foot pole when it comes to myself?
What now? More bashing of me over the head with proclamations in capital letters "it's the body!" or some other official word-smithing which studiously avoids confession that the "species" as Trent put it, remain unchanged? Perhaps not for agreement sake (not asking for your agreement) at least TRY to understand this line of questioning from perspective other than that which you now hold. Try to understand what I'm actually saying. If one cannot or will not do such (a touch of acknowledgement along those lines could go long way) then what earthly good is discussion which you offer? What's the plan? Is it to just keep repeating it over and over until all others can be brow-beaten into submission? Is there resentment that I'm not easily lectured to, but do not hesitate myself to return the favor? To hit me with reams of copy/paste sort of thing, in response to my own self taking great pains to reason, and write in my own voice, providing support for my own assertions as I go along is supposed to sway me? Or -- what?
The "snark" you think you see is more in your own defensive imagination, though I do confess to being very straightforward and unapologetic in that which I convey, and not pulling many punches, even aiming a few ---directly at; issues, issues of avoidance; debate techniques I find not on the level; personality clashes I'm expected to grin and bear ---even as that which I'm pressing for discussion is ignored or else rudely and in unsubstantiated manner rhetorically swept off the table. Let's just say there are enough other FRomans who live in nasty-slathering criticism-land I find it difficult to be too overly solicitous regarding all others' pride, self-esteem, or "feelings", if I need sacrifice clarity of thought as to issues I am addressing. If you or others have not the patience to set aside your own "feelings" enough to read and fully understand plain meaning, preferring even to take offense(?) even as hoping to lecture or "instruct", others yourselves, then what kind of deal is that but this attempted conversation be held hostage to "feelings"? And at the price of truth, also. That's too costly.
You do realize that getting all "hurt" when the going get's tough is one of the first-order Mormon debating techniques, don't you? Why, oh why follow that example? This forum is not for the thin-skinned.
The Mormons say it was not Christ dying on the cross, but his great stress in the garden of Gethsemane where he sweated blood. Yet stress on our part, on Christ's part, or bleeding an animal slightly then releasing that animal (that was to be a sacrifice, is not sufficient under the law of the Hebrews. Sacrificing blood, not a few drops, but all of it; for the life is in the blood Leviticus 17:11 and as Paul speaking of the Law explains Hebrews 9:11 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission is rough stuff. Brutal even. There is no way to feminize it. Thus much part of reason for the priesthood be men.
Not that God be bloodthirsty, but that He is Holy, and the law itself though not His chosen invention as something he thought up, but instead be an immutable part of His very nature & essence. That view makes it different, does it not? The Holy Book is true, and it can show us what the nature of our God, the one true God, Creator of Heaven and earth is in "essence". Yet to only read about Him and never encounter Him, never be touched by or encounter the terrifying reality of His capital "H" Holiness, that at the mercy seat [kaporet, hilasterion] He be both the demand for blood sacrifice and Him the propitiation, the body & blood sacrifice too, at the same time, is to not know Him. Or in the least not know as the Israelite priests whom entered into the Holy of Holies once a year encountered Him, and then learned & knew. This I understand beyond mere "textual" level of understanding, though it be difficult to put in words.
Why it must be so, that there be no remission of sin without shedding of blood (and here we speak of Israelite Temple sacrifice, and the laws pertaining to such) I have touched upon. If it were up to me...I would not have chosen that way...yet the Lord our God did not either, but that death be wage of sin is completely unavoidable, and He does declare that workmen be paid their just due. Hence another facet of the preciousness of Christ's own blood, and body broken for us.
Yet still, death for our sins, that we be separated eternally from Life which He is, be not His own heart's desire towards us, for it is He that teaches us also that obedience is better than sacrifice; and in Christ being obedient to the Father, His own direct Father whom is Creator, took upon Himself (even bodily) our infirmities, and inequities. [Isaiah 53:5-7] [1 Corinthians 15-3]
The sun was darkened that day for the horror of the sin put upon Christ, so much poured upon him, Christ becoming sin itself [last verse 2 Corinthians 5]. Slayed outside the Temple, even as he was the Lamb of God, he was made scapegoat by the Sanhedrin, "better one man to die, than an entire nation" Caiaphas prophesying perhaps without knowing it. Yet I can bear direct witness, that if Caiaphas had the gift of the Spirit such as is available to us now, available since Jesus ascended back unto his Father and the Spirit then enabled to be sent to us, then I say he would have known irrefutably within himself that he had prophesied when he did so (particularly for that particular prophesy, having that reach, power and magnitude) for it would be as a fire within himself as he spoke the words.
I don't know for certain about others, but when I partake of the Lord's Supper (as Paul termed it) I know what I consume, and know that I do not deserve it, cannot earn it, but must accept both His life, and the sacrifice of His life given to us "my body, broken for you" accepting forgiveness from God within myself that I in no way deserve. Done in such manner, I have encountered Him there, found the "presence" which is spoken of.
Do you understand now, from this last sentence [above], how it is I said to you that we may be able to come to some agreement? But first things first, the most important the foremost, for otherwise what is this which we eat (and call Christ)? Is He...a production of the church, a ritual He be fully captive of, of is He son of God who died (and rose again, hallelujah!) so that we may be free of the curse, so that we may live?