R
RomanRyan1088
Guest
The bread and the wine still looks like bread and wine even AFTER it has been changed, so how does the church explain this, I have read many books, but I end up more confused than what I already am.
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
For me, and this is most likely becuase of the Byzantine spirituality and traditon which I love so much, its a mystery.
Why do we need an answer? Why must we try to shoehorn God into out reasoning?
C
carol_marie
Guest
I think an answer is necessary because it is one of the MAJOR reasons the Catholic church is unique. The Lutheran Church celebrates communion every week and they also say it is the actual body & blood of Jesus (but also a cracker & wine) The Catholic church says it is no longer bread & wine - not one bit (even though it looks like bread & wine, feels like bread & wine, tastes like bread & wine) So the question is, which makes more sense? The Lutheran way if you ask me but then again I’m not God so who am I to decide which is correct - lots of things don’t make sense to me but that doesn’t mean they aren’t true. It is difficult to argue though with my Lutheran friends…
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
carol marie:
I think I can understand what you are saying but let me say this…
I think it is partly becuase of the scholatic tradition in the West that the protestant reformation occured. The need for an answer and when they didn’t like the answers they made new ones.
In the Eastern Tradition, we do not have these answers because we can not know, it is a Mystery. This is why we use the word Mystery instead of Sacrament. For example, how does Christ absolve us of our sins when it is the priest who says the words? This is the Mystery of Confession.
If you look at the East, there was no protestant reformation.
I think it is the search for an answer to a mystery that we can not really understand that causes many to leave the church, both past and present.
Carol,
I think I can understand what you are saying but let me say this…
I think it is partly becuase of the scholatic tradition in the West that the protestant reformation occured. The need for an answer and when they didn’t like the answers they made new ones.
In the Eastern Tradition, we do not have these answers because we can not know, it is a Mystery. This is why we use the word Mystery instead of Sacrament. For example, how does Christ absolve us of our sins when it is the priest who says the words? This is the Mystery of Confession.
If you look at the East, there was no protestant reformation.
I think it is the search for an answer to a mystery that we can not really understand that causes many to leave the church, both past and present.
M
Mjohn1453
Guest
Bread has a taste, a smell, a look. The host is round, white, and tastes funny. These are properties of the bread, what philosophers call “accidents” of the bread. The accidents are not what the bread is, because what bread “is” is its “substance.” Our mind tells us that bread’s substance is bread, and our senses tell us about its accidents. Our senses can tell us nothing of the substance, only its accidents.
What happens with the Eucharist is that the substance of the bread and the wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in something called, transubstantiation. The accidents, the smell, taste, and feel remain that of the bread and wine. What the bread “is” has changed, and we can only grasp that change in our minds because we can understand substance only in our minds.
H
headman13
Guest
Thanks, Dave. I have said much the same thing on another thread–and I AM a Lutheran pastor----I think all of the sophistry and scholastic theorizing about “accidents” and “substances” only clouds the issue of the great gift of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist—I prefer to accept the gift rather than trying to second guess what happens.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
it is sometimes hard for the mind to grasp what a change in substance is because we are not used to that in everyday life.
take the color of your hair. One could change the color of their hair to blue green or blond, but it was still be hair.
the “subatance” of what makes it hair is still hair though it’s appearance has changed.
the eucharist is just the opposite. What it looks like, it’s outward appearances do not change, but what it really is, its substance has changed.
Why do we believe this in this way. It is because when CHrist said “This is my Body”, he was making a statement regarding what the bread and wine really became. and we have evidence that this is really what CHrist meant in his discourse in John chapter 6.
take the color of your hair. One could change the color of their hair to blue green or blond, but it was still be hair.
the “subatance” of what makes it hair is still hair though it’s appearance has changed.
the eucharist is just the opposite. What it looks like, it’s outward appearances do not change, but what it really is, its substance has changed.
Why do we believe this in this way. It is because when CHrist said “This is my Body”, he was making a statement regarding what the bread and wine really became. and we have evidence that this is really what CHrist meant in his discourse in John chapter 6.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
I think a better question is: why wouldn’t it still look like bread and wine? After all, Jesus’ human body still looked like a human body even though a divine person occupied it!
At the last supper Jesus turned the bread and wine into His body and blood and it still looked like bread and wine. This is, in fact, the way God comes to us – usually in the normal, ordinary things of life.
The Eastern Church never developed a theology to explain this (as ByzCath so rightly pointed out). However, the Latin Church has developed a theology called “transubstantiation” which explains that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of Jesus while the *accidents *of bread and wine remain. To help clarify: the term “accidents” refers to the sensate qualities of the thing; color, smell, physical dimension, weight, etc. The term “substance”, however, refers to the property which makes a thing what it is. So, for example, a rose is a rose not because of its color or smell or even its thorns, but because it is a rose and has “roseness.” This is the case with the Eucharist – it has the substance of Jesus with the accidents (appearance) of bread and wine.
Deacon Ed
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
That’s not the question at all. The question *ought *to be, what is the truth. The truth isn’t always that which makes most sense or that which is simpler for us to understand.
The ancient Church believed it to be a *change *in the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, no longer bread and wine. This, we believe, is the apostolic tradition. We hold fast to this tradition. When a theologian comes up with a theory which is contrary to this tradition, we reject it, no matter how much easier it is for us to understand.
Observe the teaching of the Church well before Luther…
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66, A.D. 110-165)
“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:4, ca. A.D. 350)
“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ;”
(St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8, ca.A.D. 350)
St. Cyril was an Eastern Father. It is true that he didn’t attempt to explain the “how”, but it is equally true that he handed on the orthodox teaching regarding the truth that the bread and wine are no longer that which appears sensible to the taste, but really has changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.
D
Desert_Dweller
Guest
Just as Christ could have been born in a palace (or any place more befitting a king), He also could have chosen to allow us to see His body and blood. However, the fact that He chose bread and wine leads me to two thoughts:
- It is truly a gift from God to be able to approach our Lord every Sunday. In Revelation, John fell down as if dead when he saw Christ. Could we expect to do any better. Because the Eucharist is something we need, we have to be able to partake of it. Christ has seen fit to take on a form that will not overwhelm our human senses. Thanks be to God.
- We do not have to see everything to believe (unlike Thomas). In fact, if we can accept what we have been taught with a chlildlike faith, then we will undoubtedly be rewarded in heaven. Is there any room for faith if we have a certain knowledge of everything we are called to believe in?
C
carol_marie
Guest
Excellent points… thanks to all who help me to understand. I am so thankful to these forums where I can get all my questions (that must seem so silly to many of you) answered and yet I’m never made to feel stupid for asking. God Bless you all. 
O
otm
Guest
Something to ponder, while you ponder scholastic philosophy: The ressurected body of Christ was somehow the same, and somehow different. It was not a ressusitated body as was Lazarus’. It entered rooms without opeing doors. It appeared and disappeared. Christ was not initially recognized by those who knew him inimately, until something happened; He spoke; He broke Bread. How could something be both the same and not the same, at the same time?
The Eucharist is both the same and not the same, after the Consecration. It looks like bread, but it is not. We use the philosophical terms “substance” and “accident” to describe the Mystery; and Mystery it still is.
The Eucharist is both the same and not the same, after the Consecration. It looks like bread, but it is not. We use the philosophical terms “substance” and “accident” to describe the Mystery; and Mystery it still is.
F
Fergal
Guest
Folks!
The great miracle of our Mass is that bread and wine are changed into the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The greater miracle is that they remain under the appearance of bread and wine.
God Bless
Fergal
Naas
Ireland
The great miracle of our Mass is that bread and wine are changed into the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The greater miracle is that they remain under the appearance of bread and wine.
God Bless
Fergal
Naas
Ireland
M
Mandi
Guest
Sometimes, not always, After receiving The Body and Blood of My Lord, I have been left with the intense sensation and taste in my mouth of real blood. Sometimes it is so powerful that I have actually checked to see if my mouth is full of blood. And of course it has not been, but it rattles me just the same.
Act of Spiritual Communion
My Jesus, I believe that Thou art really present in the most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. I love Thee above everything else, and I long to receive Thee into my soul. I cannot now receive Thee in Holy communion, but I beg Thee to come to me at least spiritually. I embrace Thee as already there, and unite myself entirely to Thee. Grant that I may never be speparated from Thee!
Catholics are often looked upon as being narrow minded, when in fact the opposite is true, how broad must the mind be to believe that my Lord and Savior comes to me, who am unworthy is the shape of a tiny white host!
Jesus, Jesus, come to me, all my longing is for Thee!
Act of Spiritual Communion
My Jesus, I believe that Thou art really present in the most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. I love Thee above everything else, and I long to receive Thee into my soul. I cannot now receive Thee in Holy communion, but I beg Thee to come to me at least spiritually. I embrace Thee as already there, and unite myself entirely to Thee. Grant that I may never be speparated from Thee!
Catholics are often looked upon as being narrow minded, when in fact the opposite is true, how broad must the mind be to believe that my Lord and Savior comes to me, who am unworthy is the shape of a tiny white host!
Jesus, Jesus, come to me, all my longing is for Thee!
S
seeker63
Guest
RCIA is coming up and I’d like to believe in the Real Presence but am having difficulty, thanks to a Protestant background. I know the Church gives as its chief explanation that Christ said, “This is my body…This is my blood,” and say that since He said, “This IS,” rather than, “This is a symbol” or “This symbolizes,” He meant He was referring to His actual Body and Blood.
I know I’m dissecting this to death, but I remembered that commercial with the guy with the skillet and egg:“This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs.” He didn’t say, “This symbolizes” either, but it’s understood that’s what he meant.
I don’t mean to sound flippant. I want to accept this and grasp this and have been praying about it, but it’s just not happening. I wait for it to hit me at Mass, but it hasn’t yet. Most of the Catholic doctrines I’ve encountered seem to be really well backed-up with logical explanations.
Can anybody help me with this?
I know I’m dissecting this to death, but I remembered that commercial with the guy with the skillet and egg:“This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs.” He didn’t say, “This symbolizes” either, but it’s understood that’s what he meant.
I don’t mean to sound flippant. I want to accept this and grasp this and have been praying about it, but it’s just not happening. I wait for it to hit me at Mass, but it hasn’t yet. Most of the Catholic doctrines I’ve encountered seem to be really well backed-up with logical explanations.
Can anybody help me with this?
J
JimG
Guest
It wasn’t easy for the Apostles to believe either, but they did. Read the sixth chapter of the John’s gospel. First Jesus feeds the multitudes with only a few loaves and fish. Then he disappears from the crowd. Later, he walks on water to the boat the disciples were in. It’s almost as though he was trying to impress them that he could really do whatever he said.
Then he gives the bread of life discourse, promising to give his body and blood to eat. Many left him over this, saying, “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?” He never called them back. He asked his apostles if they too wanted to leave. They didn’t understand either, but they said, “Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all give accounts of the institution of the Eucharist, as well as St. Paul in 1 Corinthians. Paul even adds a warning about the need to take this literally: if we receive without recognizing the body, we are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
After the resurrection, discussing recent events with two disciples on the way to Emmaus, they do not recognizing Him, until he breaks bread with them. They rush back to the Apostles, telling how they “recognized him in the breaking of the bread.”
Of course it’s not an easy doctrine to understand, but it is backed by an abundance of scripture; the early church believed and practiced it; the Church Fathers expounded it. The doctrine was never questioned for 1500 years.
JimG
Then he gives the bread of life discourse, promising to give his body and blood to eat. Many left him over this, saying, “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?” He never called them back. He asked his apostles if they too wanted to leave. They didn’t understand either, but they said, “Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all give accounts of the institution of the Eucharist, as well as St. Paul in 1 Corinthians. Paul even adds a warning about the need to take this literally: if we receive without recognizing the body, we are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
After the resurrection, discussing recent events with two disciples on the way to Emmaus, they do not recognizing Him, until he breaks bread with them. They rush back to the Apostles, telling how they “recognized him in the breaking of the bread.”
Of course it’s not an easy doctrine to understand, but it is backed by an abundance of scripture; the early church believed and practiced it; the Church Fathers expounded it. The doctrine was never questioned for 1500 years.
JimG
K
KennySe
Guest
Edited: For me to begin an argument here, would not be beneficial to the OP.
P
Peace-bwu
Guest
Here is an excellent article on the subject, It isnt’ overly technical, and may aid in a better understanding so, give it a try! I hope this helps. Along with this article I would like to say that it is a wonderful quality in human nature that we want to understand “why” We were made in the image of God and with that we have the desire to know and understand everything we can, especially when seeking God. Questioning is essential for a person to grow from a child’s relationship to an adult’s relationship with God. Without seeking we will not be able to find, without knocking there might not be an answer. There is nothing wrong with seeking to understand the mystery of the Eucharist, however, we must be careful to be humble and worship God instead of science and knowlege. They are tools for understanding God, not to be held above or replace Him. Our limited human faculties make it impossible to fully comprehend God, there comes a point where individuals accept the gift and mystery of the Eucharist for what it is, but to deny our hearts’ desire to know God, by better understanding the mystery of the Eucharist is like deciding that you have prayed enough or read enough scripture or done enough charity. I know I will never fully understand the Eucharist, but I want to understand to the best of my personal ability. Beyond that, I go to Eucharistic adoration and simply say “Where else am I to go? YOU have the words of eternal life!”
ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/WHOLCHRI.TXT
ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/WHOLCHRI.TXT
O
otm
Guest
seeker63: to go further with JimG’s comment, go and read John 6. The whole chapter builds and builds to a climax, where Christ tells the disciples they must eat His flesh. They leave him (apparently permanently). He then turns to the Apostles and asks them, “Are you going to leave too?”
Everywhere else in the Gospels, he explains his sayings when people don’t get it. This is the only occasion I know of, where he does not explain that he meant something other than the literal meaning of his words. This is further backed up by His question to the Apostles. He doesn’t chase after the disciples who are leaving Him. He lets them go. Then, He gives the same options to the Apostles! No explanation “Well, they just didn’t understand, let me explain…”. He challenges the Apostles to leave too (you might call it a fish or cut bait question, pun my soul).
Much gets said about a further statement, about the flesh amounting to nothing; but there is no logical connection between “the flesh” and My flesh"; to make one is to have Christ contradict Himself.
Look also to Paul’s staement about the results of the failure to recognize Christ in the Eucharist. What he is saying makes much less sense if Christ is only symbolicly present. How can you be guilty of murder of a symbol? But to actually eat His flesh without recognizing His presence makes so much more sense.
God bless you on your journey.
Everywhere else in the Gospels, he explains his sayings when people don’t get it. This is the only occasion I know of, where he does not explain that he meant something other than the literal meaning of his words. This is further backed up by His question to the Apostles. He doesn’t chase after the disciples who are leaving Him. He lets them go. Then, He gives the same options to the Apostles! No explanation “Well, they just didn’t understand, let me explain…”. He challenges the Apostles to leave too (you might call it a fish or cut bait question, pun my soul).
Much gets said about a further statement, about the flesh amounting to nothing; but there is no logical connection between “the flesh” and My flesh"; to make one is to have Christ contradict Himself.
Look also to Paul’s staement about the results of the failure to recognize Christ in the Eucharist. What he is saying makes much less sense if Christ is only symbolicly present. How can you be guilty of murder of a symbol? But to actually eat His flesh without recognizing His presence makes so much more sense.
God bless you on your journey.
M
mark1270
Guest
seeker63
One thing to keep in mind that in the commericial the speaker is speaking English to an English speaking audience. In English the word ‘is’ can be both literal “He is a male” or metaphorical “He is a bear”. However Jesus wasn’t speaking English, nor was he speaking to an English audience. The words Jesus used did not have a metaphorical usage, only a literal one. We don’t have a equivilant term in English, the closest we can get is “is”.
I completed RCIA three years ago and found the experience to be one of the most rewarding ones of my life. I highly encourage your participation in the process.
One thing to keep in mind that in the commericial the speaker is speaking English to an English speaking audience. In English the word ‘is’ can be both literal “He is a male” or metaphorical “He is a bear”. However Jesus wasn’t speaking English, nor was he speaking to an English audience. The words Jesus used did not have a metaphorical usage, only a literal one. We don’t have a equivilant term in English, the closest we can get is “is”.
I completed RCIA three years ago and found the experience to be one of the most rewarding ones of my life. I highly encourage your participation in the process.
- Status