The Eucharist

No cover. NOT ACCEPTABLEL

Edward Schillebeeckx (1914-2009) was a Dutch Catholic theologian and Dominican priest, who wrote a number of important "progressive" books in the Catholic tradition (e.g., Jesus: An Experiment in Christology , Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord , The Church With a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry , etc.). He wrote in the first chapter of this 1968 book, "I must unwillingly limit myself ... to a specified analysis of transubstantiation as such... What seems to me to be a basic methodological fault in many modern attempts ... is the fact that it is interpreted from a modern phenomenological standpoint without making clear what the dogma of, for example, the Council of Trent demands of one as a believing Catholic." (Pg. 19) He notes that "In every generation the Church rereads Holy Scripture... The fact that the biblical and conciliar statements convey a mystery does not eliminate the historical character of human thought and faith." (Pg. 27) He concludes that the ONLY aim of the Council of Trent was to proclaim the "unique and distinctive character of the eucharistic presence as an inviolable datum of faith." (Pg. 53) He suggests that the dogma of transubstantiation as Christ's transforming from within the sacrificial gifts of earthly food, thus making them a new creation, a saving sacrificial gift in time for eternity, must be formulated now "in a modern theological way, that the new formulation does not contradict the original, inviolable datum of faith or minimise it." (Pg. 86) He notes that after transubstantiation, nothing is changed visibly and empirically; "If the reality were changed empirically, there could be no question of sacramentality." (Pg. 115-116) He asserts that "what is given to us in the Eucharist is ... Christ himself, in living, personal presence." (Pg. 139) Schillebeeckx's interpretation is modern, yet also "traditional" (note that this book was published by Sheed & Ward).

Fr. Schillebeeckx does an excellent job of analyzing the work of the Council of Trent, particularly in reference to the two main canons regarding the Eucharist. He points out that the essence of their statement is contained in Canon 1, that we partake of the real presence of Christ when we participate in the Eucharist. He then points out that Canon 2 is an explanation of Canon1 using Aristotelian Philosophy as a tool to understanding our faith. He then goes on to explain that in the past 800 years the tools available to theologians to help us understand our faith have progressed dramatically, and it is time to explain Canon 1 using more current theological tools. This is, in fact what he does, and he does it very clearly and very systematically. At no time does he ever question Canon1, that we partake of the real presence of Christ when we participate in the Eucharist. I would ask those who are initially disturbed by Fr. Schillebeeckx's work to take another closer look at it with the above comments in mind. The Catholic Church has a rich tradition of encouraging theologians to help us understand our faith better, and to use the best tools available to them to accomplish this task, and I feel that Fr. Schillebeeckx has done an excellent job of continuing this tradition.

Schillebeeckx's idea of transubstantiation in this book is dangerous. I recommend God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life as a better and more orthodox book on the eucharist. Schillebeeckx's books should be read with discretion by discerning Catholics, he has supported liberation theology, ordination of women & the removal of celibacy for priests. A previous reviewer has mentioned that Schillebeeckx was named as one of the top three theologions in the The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism . Check out the 1-3 star reviews and you will see that this is not such a great accolade afterall.

One need not go very far to learn the absolute error that is entrenched within this book. Schillebeeckx's transignification and transfinalization ideologies and the way he describes them in parallel to transubstantiation reek of heresy. Page 120 is the main culprit in this book. In essence he denies transubstantiation as the council of Trent has taught and tries to reinterpret it. Schillebeeckx has been warned and criticized by the Vatican for some of his works. I recently ran across a liberation theology book which quotes Schillebeeckx's interpretation on the Eucharist and conclude that the Eucharist is about brotherhood - a mere remembrance of Christ and a mere meal. If you are looking to familiarize yourself with modern day errors concerning the Blessed Sacrament then this book would be a reference - it helps to understand what Schillebeeckx and Kung are thinking. But that is all that it is good for, otherwise it's garbage.

Excellent dissertation research. Edward Schillebeeckx is an essential read as one of the most important Roman Catholic theologians of the twentieth century. I am not RC but I find Schillebeeckx's work engaging and thought provoking. His works are a must for any theology student.

, etc.). He wrote in the first chapter of this 1968 book, "I must unwillingly limit myself ... to a specified analysis of transubstantiation as such... What seems to me to be a basic methodological fault in many modern attempts ... is the fact that it is interpreted from a modern phenomenological standpoint without making clear what the dogma of, for example, the Council of Trent demands of one as a believing Catholic." (Pg. 19) He notes that "In every generation the Church rereads Holy Scripture... The fact that the biblical and conciliar statements convey a mystery does not eliminate the historical character of human thought and faith." (Pg. 27) He concludes that the ONLY aim of the Council of Trent was to proclaim the "unique and distinctive character of the eucharistic presence as an inviolable datum of faith." (Pg. 53) He suggests that the dogma of transubstantiation as Christ's transforming from within the sacrificial gifts of earthly food, thus making them a new creation, a saving sacrificial gift in time for eternity, must be formulated now "in a modern theological way, that the new formulation does not contradict the original, inviolable datum of faith or minimise it." (Pg. 86) He notes that after transubstantiation, nothing is changed visibly and empirically; "If the reality were changed empirically, there could be no question of sacramentality." (Pg. 115-116) He asserts that "what is given to us in the Eucharist is ... Christ himself, in living, personal presence." (Pg. 139) Schillebeeckx's interpretation is modern, yet also "traditional" (note that this book was published by Sheed & Ward).

Fr. Schillebeeckx does an excellent job of analyzing the work of the Council of Trent, particularly in reference to the two main canons regarding the Eucharist. He points out that the essence of their statement is contained in Canon 1, that we partake of the real presence of Christ when we participate in the Eucharist. He then points out that Canon 2 is an explanation of Canon1 using Aristotelian Philosophy as a tool to understanding our faith. He then goes on to explain that in the past 800 years the tools available to theologians to help us understand our faith have progressed dramatically, and it is time to explain Canon 1 using more current theological tools. This is, in fact what he does, and he does it very clearly and very systematically. At no time does he ever question Canon1, that we partake of the real presence of Christ when we participate in the Eucharist. I would ask those who are initially disturbed by Fr. Schillebeeckx's work to take another closer look at it with the above comments in mind. The Catholic Church has a rich tradition of encouraging theologians to help us understand our faith better, and to use the best tools available to them to accomplish this task, and I feel that Fr. Schillebeeckx has done an excellent job of continuing this tradition.

. Check out the 1-3 star reviews and you will see that this is not such a great accolade afterall.

One need not go very far to learn the absolute error that is entrenched within this book. Schillebeeckx's transignification and transfinalization ideologies and the way he describes them in parallel to transubstantiation reek of heresy. Page 120 is the main culprit in this book. In essence he denies transubstantiation as the council of Trent has taught and tries to reinterpret it. Schillebeeckx has been warned and criticized by the Vatican for some of his works. I recently ran across a liberation theology book which quotes Schillebeeckx's interpretation on the Eucharist and conclude that the Eucharist is about brotherhood - a mere remembrance of Christ and a mere meal. If you are looking to familiarize yourself with modern day errors concerning the Blessed Sacrament then this book would be a reference - it helps to understand what Schillebeeckx and Kung are thinking. But that is all that it is good for, otherwise it's garbage.