Link for CathyT. and all (Sunday Forum)

by PeterR , Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 14:36 (1458 days ago) @ Marvemlb
edited by unknown, Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 15:10

Eucharist is a mystery and, I think we should never try to explain away the mystery.

Over the centuries, from within various cultures, people have tried to make the mystery meaningful by invoking various philosophical and theological bases.

This passage from "Eucharistic Theology" - Joseph M. Powers may help. To put the passage into context, Powers is considering an article previously written by Schillebeeckx. Powers uses the term transignification whereas I use transymbolisation. I am impressed by Susanne K. Langer's study of symbolism in terms of human understanding. In fact, I am following Powers' thinking in my post.

"All this means that, although the effect of the Eucharist and Christ's presence is not simply the effect of the faith of the individual, the mutuality of the meaning of the Eucharist means that it only reaches the fullness of its sacramental form in the mutual presence of Christ to His Church and of the individual in the Church of Christ and the Church in the act of communion (sacramental communion!) in the Eucharist. If the consecrated bread is viewed outside this context of Christ acting in the Church, it is rendered meaningless and beyond experience. Any physical or metaphysical analysis apart from this specifically sacramental context is useless for the understanding of the Eucharist.

"Only against the background of this entire Eucharistic event, then, can one approach the question of transsubstantiation and transsignification. The question of whether they are identical or whether one implies the other is ultimately a question of reality itself as experienced in the Eucharist.

"Reality is normally perceived in a complex act of the knower in which perception, understanding and all the complexity of the human act of the knowing subject come into play. Appear­ances normally are the "sign" of reality, containing the reality which they incarnate for the knowing subject. In the case of the .. Eucharist, however, the knowing subject is pulled up short. For what appears to be bread and wine is actually the "body of the Lord." Thus, there is a change in the signifying function of these appearances, but that change (a "trans signification" ) is a change precisely because the reality which is contained in these appear­ances is no longer the reality of bread and wine, but Christ's bodily reality.

" 'Transsignification,' in other words, presupposes "transsubstantiation." Though not simply identical, the two realities evoke one another and are inseparable. There is a meta­physical priority to the fact of transsubstantiation, but given that fact, it takes place in the context of a transsignification in which Christ manifests Himself to the believer in the community under the "sign" of bread and wine. Transsignification is brought about by the creative action of the Spirit of God in the action of the Eucharist.

"If Schillebeeckx adds anything to the discussion (and he adds a great deal), it is primarily the soundness of his theological method which is the most significant factor of his participation in this discussion. His hermeneutical principles in the interpretation of the Council of Trent form a solid basis for his constructive reflection. He brings to mind the scribe who knows how to bring forth from his stores things both old and new (Mt 13:52)."