Another Thread About Transubstantiation

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;12824573]That is the understanding of Transubstantiation. Consubstantiation has the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine CONjoined with the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. IOW, both Substances subsist under the accidents of Bread and Wine.

A great description of consubstantiation.

For those who are Philosophically inclined, consubstantiation may seem more plausible.

Considering what some think Lutherans believe, it might seem odd to hear a Lutheran say, “not really.” Christ said “this is my body”, not “my body is included in this”. If I am compelled to describe the Eucharist in philosophical terms, I would choose Transub.

Jon

 

[Faith1960]

His Body was glorified at conception. However, by humility and submission to the Will of His Father, He maintained a normal human appearance (except for tthe Transfiguration and the Eucharist, afaik).

peace,
steve

I never read that explanation before. Can anyone else verify it?

 

[Faith1960]

That is the understanding of Transubstantiation. Consubstantiation has the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine CONjoined with the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. IOW, both Substances subsist under the accidents of Bread and Wine.

For those who are Philosophically inclined, consubstantiation may seem more plausible. However, since the Church has infallibly declared in favor of Transubstantiation (and really for no other reason) we hold to Transubstantiation.

I worded it wrong before, but CONsubtantiation makes more sense to me. Please help me “get” how the accidents can remain and still be totally Jesus’s body and blood in transubstantiation.

 

[Faith1960]

A great description of consubstantiation.

Considering what some think Lutherans believe, it might seem odd to hear a Lutheran say, “not really.” Christ said “this is my body”, not “my body is included in this”. If I am compelled to describe the Eucharist in philosophical terms, I would choose Transub.

Jon/QUOTE

Jon, can you describe it for me in philosophical terms? Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC;12824919:

A great description of consubstantiation.

Considering what some think Lutherans believe, it might seem odd to hear a Lutheran say, “not really.” Christ said “this is my body”, not “my body is included in this”. If I am compelled to describe the Eucharist in philosophical terms, I would choose Transub.

Jon

Not really. It isn’t typical Lutheran practice to do so. Lutherans look to the words of Christ. He says, “this is my body”. The metaphysical substance / accidents just isn’t part of our tradition.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I worded it wrong before, but CONsubtantiation makes more sense to me. Please help me “get” how the accidents can remain and still be totally Jesus’s body and blood in transubstantiation.

Philosophers consider consubstantiation more logical. Since trans/con-substantiation are philosophical descriptions of a Divine Mystery, which transcends our understanding, it is not surprising to be bewildered at the philosophy. However, the Divine Mystery simply needs the assent of Faith. Understanding HOW this is accomplished by the Divine decree is not necessary.

The problem philosophically with transubstantiation is that we have accidents remaining with no substance, and The Divine Person of Jesus hidden underneath (so to speak) those accidents, while Himself (His substance) having no accidents.

As I said earlier, it is almost philosophical nonsense. However, this is the way our infallible Church has framed this dogma of transubstantiation. Therefore we believe. It is really no different than the apostles hearing Jesus speak these words the first time at the Last Supper. They believed and didn’t question. It wasn’t that they understood how, but that they believed that was important. No different now. It is that Faith which unites us with Jesus. It is nevertheless, a Divine Truth, that however we describe it philosophically, or theologically, the Person of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is truly present. The Person of Jesus Christ is with us in a true and personal way by entering our bodies where we are absorbed into His Mystical body. There is no substitute in this world for the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Faith1960]

Philosophers consider consubstantiation more logical. Since trans/con-substantiation are philosophical descriptions of a Divine Mystery, which transcends our understanding, it is not surprising to be bewildered at the philosophy. However, the Divine Mystery simply needs the assent of Faith. Understanding HOW this is accomplished by the Divine decree is not necessary.

The problem philosophically with transubstantiation is that we have accidents remaining with no substance, and The Divine Person of Jesus hidden underneath (so to speak) those accidents, while Himself (His substance) having no accidents.

As I said earlier, it is almost philosophical nonsense. However, this is the way our infallible Church has framed this dogma of transubstantiation. Therefore we believe. It is really no different than the apostles hearing Jesus speak these words the first time at the Last Supper. They believed and didn’t question. It wasn’t that they understood how, but that they believed that was important. No different now. It is that Faith which unites us with Jesus. It is nevertheless, a Divine Truth, that however we describe it philosophically, or theologically, the Person of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is truly present. The Person of Jesus Christ is with us in a true and personal way by entering our bodies where we are absorbed into His Mystical body. There is no substitute in this world for the Holy Eucharist.

Do you know anything about the Eucharistic Miracle in Argentina? I have a DVD on it and two books by Ron Tesoriero. All the articles I read online says that Dr. Zugabe, one of the scientists who tested the Host, said the cells were alive, “still beating and moving”, but their movement isn’t mentioned in the DVD or book. Do you or anyone else know if the cells in this EM were moving when tested?

 

[Gorgias]

thenobes:

His Body was glorified at conception

I never read that explanation before. Can anyone else verify it?

That was my thought, too, Faith. It sounds like a pious thought, but it’s nothing that I’ve ever seen asserted as part of doctrine.

In fact, it seems quite impossible. A ‘glorified body’ cannot die or be harmed. Logically, then, it seems implausible that Christ had a glorified body prior to His crucifixion. (Therefore, it veers precariously close to Docetism – that Christ only seemed to have a human body.)

 

[Faith1960]

Is it Jesus’s mortal body after transubstantiation or His glorified body and blood we eat and drink?

 

[Gorgias]

Is it Jesus’s mortal body after transubstantiation or His glorified body and blood we eat and drink?

Christ is present in the Eucharist in His substance. So, it doesn’t really make sense to ask “mortal body or glorified body”; in either one, it’s His substance, which is unchanging and unchanged.

 

[JimG]

If Jesus is present along with and intermixed with bread (consubstantion,) then it would seem that if we break the piece of bread, the communion wafer, we break Jesus.

That is not what we believe with respect to transubstantiation. Only the appearances (accidents) of bread remain. The reality of the bread (substance) becomes Jesus—in his entirety. Not just his body, not just his blood: his entire being—body, blood, soul, divinity, Jesus in his entirety, human and divine.

The appearances of bread remain, but they do not inhere in Jesus. Neither do they inhere in bread, because the bread is gone. Jesus is present under the appearances of bread and wine—in a unitary way. He cannot be divided by dividing the communion wafer. He is present whole and entire under the smallest piece of the communion wafer. Neither is he multiplied. It is the one Jesus in his entirety that each communicant receives.

 

[Faith1960]

If Jesus is present along with and intermixed with bread (consubstantion,) then it would seem that if we break the piece of bread, the communion wafer, we break Jesus.

That is not what we believe with respect to transubstantiation. Only the appearances (accidents) of bread remain. The reality of the bread (substance) becomes Jesus—in his entirety. Not just his body, not just his blood: his entire being—body, blood, soul, divinity, Jesus in his entirety, human and divine.

The appearances of bread remain, but they do not inhere in Jesus. Neither do they inhere in bread, because the bread is gone. Jesus is present under the appearances of bread and wine—in a unitary way. He cannot be divided by dividing the communion wafer. He is present whole and entire under the smallest piece of the communion wafer. Neither is he multiplied. It is the one Jesus in his entirety that each communicant receives.

But is His presence in the Eucharist glorified or non-glorified?

 

[JimG]

But is His presence in the Eucharist glorified or non-glorified?

I don’t think that’s ever been defined. But it makes no difference in any case, since Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist transcends time and space.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

The substance of bread does not become a divine substance - that is only God.
The substance of the body of bread becomes another material substance (it becomes the substance of the body of Christ, which body was truly material and human body). It does not become the substance of Christ, but becomes the substance of his body, and the wine the substance of his blood. And just as our bodies are not our souls, but our souls are with our bodies, so the soul, and divinity of Christ are where his body is; and the same with his blood.

But your statement about the substance of bread being “gone” and in the same instant the substance of Christ’s body in its place is a good way to state it, because “change” implies a duration in time, where transubstantiation is in the instant of Jesus’ declaration, with no elapsing of time during the changeover.

Your answer is full of nift! Another question:At what point does this change over occur? I know instantaneously but at what point? The priest says “Take this all of you and eat it. For this is my body…” I have always believed it was at after the finishing of the word Body, but I have wondered, if it is on the first “this”, since the command is “Take THIS”…implying that it is already Jesus at that point. In other words, Take this, because it is my Body or is it take this bread which as of right now is my Body?
I want to adore Christ the moment He becomes present.

 

[DavidFilmer]

My understanding about consubstantiation is that both Jesus and the accidents remain.

Well, yeah, but that is also true for transubstantiation.

The question is whether the substance remains. Everybody agrees that the accidents remain, and that Jesus is somehow incorporated. But does the substance remain (and Jesus is somehow attached to it), or is the substance itself transformed, such that ONLY the accidents (and, of course, Jesus) remain?

Catholics believe in transubstantiation, which literally means a transformation of substance. After the Consecration, there is nothing BUT Jesus (who becomes the substance) and the accidents (the physical attributes of bread and wine). The substance of bread and wine no longer remain.

Luther taught consubstantiation. According to Luther, after the Consecration, there are the original substance, the original accidents, and Jesus, who is somehow attached. Neither the substance nor the accidents change in any way, but Jesus is added to them both. This is why his doctrine is called “consubstantiation,” which literally means “the substance plus something else.” Nothing actually changes, but something (Jesus) is added.

If Catholics are correct, Jesus ought to have said “This IS my Body.” Which is what he said.

If Luther was correct, Jesus ought to have said, “HERE is my Body.” Which is NOT what he said.

 

[John_Martin]

Your answer is full of nift! Another question:At what point does this change over occur? I know instantaneously but at what point? The priest says “Take this all of you and eat it. For this is my body…” I have always believed it was at after the finishing of the word Body, but I have wondered, if it is on the first “this”, since the command is “Take THIS”…implying that it is already Jesus at that point. In other words, Take this, because it is my Body or is it take this bread which as of right now is my Body?
I want to adore Christ the moment He becomes present.

Well, with the sacrament, we are not the only ones there - we are with Jesus, with his disciples, as all of us watch and hear Jesus.
The Bread is suddenly his Body at the moment Jesus knows it is his body. And with humans, what is known happens to be known immediately when the words begin about what we know - we know or understand something and we immediately form the words “I understand” with our thoughts and lips.

So, I see it as his body the instant before I hear the word “Take and eat” It has to be complete in the intant these words begin because his intent is that I consume his flesh and blood. If it were not already his body, if he did not know it as his body at that point already, then he would be knowingly offering me bread to eat, and only later decide to make it his body. But he defines the “Take and eat” by telling them what it is he has asked them to take and eat. He already knows what it is (therefore it is what he knows), but with his words he is informing us what it already is to him.

As humans we learn to know by using our senses. And at the Mass, we are coming to know something when we hear it told to us by Jesus. We do not need to adore what we do not know, but when we do know. When we have this knowing in common with Jesus of what he is handing to us, then it is time to adore, and also it is time to eat. But the reality of what we know always precedes our hearing and knowing.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

A bit of black- mail here, I’d say , and not a bit of dissimulation too .

He is with those who love Him , always, and in Spirit ,as He said .

And as far as I know ‘transubstantiation’ was much debated and not a few of the great religious figures did not believe that the body and blood of Christ was literally there , although He is there .(in Spirit )

What is your documentation for “as far as you know”? You are mistaken my friend. The demons believe in Jesus yet they are not saved. AS for “blackmail” again, your meaning is lost on me here. Jesus’ words are clear as can be. many walked away as they could not accept the hard teaching. When Jesus repeats himself, he does not correct their understanding. He gives us His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity at Mass. if you haven’t been to Mass, I suggest you go and see for yourself. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Jesus did not write a book, he started His Church and it has prevailed for 2000 years. Nothing a person started up after Jesus ascended into heaven can compare with the heaven on earth of attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[Faith1960]

I think I’m confused about substance, how it can be changed into the body and blood of Christ and what substance means.

I read once that substance is a philosophical term…can someone elaborate on that?

 

[davidv]

I think I’m confused about substance,** how** it can be changed into the body and blood of Christ

The how is answered by: the saying of the words of “This is my body”, by the person acting “in the person of Christ” during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In other words, it is through the power of God.

and what substance means. I read once that substance is a philosophical term…can someone elaborate on that?

My simplistic philosophical definition of substance: That which a thing is. It answers the question: What is it?

 

[Usagi]

I think I’m confused about substance, how it can be changed into the body and blood of Christ and what substance means.

I read once that substance is a philosophical term…can someone elaborate on that?

The substance of a thing is its … “thing-ness.” Not any descriptive thing about it, like size or shape or color or sound or taste or texture (those are all accidents) but the underlying reality of the thing. Normally, you can’t have a thing without having the accidents of that thing, and if you change the substance of a thing (from wood to ashes by fire, for example) the accidents also change (ashes do not look or otherwise respond to the senses like wood).

In transubstantiation, the claim is that the substance of the bread and wine – but not any of their accidents – is changed into the substance of Jesus’ body and blood. So the identity of what’s there is changed, from “bread-ness” and “wine-ness” to “Jesus-ness,” but every property that we can sense or measure remains that of bread or wine.

It’s a strange idea, to be sure, and it’s pretty much the only time we have to worry about a change of substance occurring undetectably. Some people mix up “substance” with scientific concepts like “molecular structure” and wonder why we can’t tell that the change has occurred with microscopes and other scientific instruments – but molecular structure still operates on the accidental level. When we say the substance changes, we mean that what this thing IS changes, not anything we can sense or measure.

Now, more recent systems of philosophy tend to deny that a thing has an underlying “thing-ness” that is separate from its actual properties. To some degree, Catholic theology is kind of shackled to older currents of philosophy because we use those terms to define what happens in the Eucharist. But no attempt to reproduce the same idea without using substance/accident terminology has been entirely successful.

Usagi