Celiac Recovering Alcoholic

[Brandon_Cal]

It is His glorified Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

This is where I personally am still getting confused about Transubstantiation with respect to the underlying Aristotelian understanding. JuliusCaesar21 asked what is the essence or substance of Christ’s body and blood, and the very first part of your answer says that it is his “glorified body and blood”. That doesn’t answer the question at all.

We need to first define the substance of flesh and blood in general before we can tackle the question of whether the substance of flesh and blood remain in the Eucharist. As a biochemist I’m inclined to define blood, at least, in terms of function just as I did earlier with the essence of a chair, that is namely, blood is the means for nutrient and gas transport and exchange in the circulatory system. I may even be inclined to define the essence of blood by one or more of its accidents which would of course make those accidents non accidental! For example, I might say the essence of blood is the actual red blood cell, or maybe one of the lymphocytes, or the platelets, or maybe the existence of an oxygen chelating agent such as hemoglobin. Using these definitions then some part of actual blood must remain for the “Real Presence” to have actual meaning.

Now, it could be that my cell-centric idea of blood doesn’t suffice in defining the essence of blood (at least with respect to what Jesus meant by “blood” when he said “This is my blood”). My 21st century understanding of what blood is could be clouding my understanding of what a 1st century Jew would mean by blood. Nevertheless, this is yet to be stated and the original question remains unanswered.

 

[JuliusCaesar21]

I’d like to know if I’m describing this correctly.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church,

Jesus of Nazareth was man in all physical qualities. Imperceptibly, He was much more. He was God the Father, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit, the supreme governor of the Universe, incomprehensible to the human mind and senses.

Likewise, the wine and wafer is wine and wafer in all physical qualities. Imperceptibly, it is much more. It is the substance of the Father, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit, the flesh and blood of Christ.

 

[travissbeloved]

I think that is a great explanation, yes

 

[JuliusCaesar21]

I would still like to understand what characteristics of the Body and Blood of Christ are essential, not accidental. Just as I know that the essence of water is H2O and the essence of a chair is “a thing for sitting.”

 

[in_servitude]

Now, it could be that my cell-centric idea of blood doesn’t suffice in defining the essence of blood (at least with respect to what Jesus meant by “blood” when he said “This is my blood”). My 21st century understanding of what blood is could be clouding my understanding of what a 1st century Jew would mean by blood. Nevertheless, this is yet to be stated and the original question remains unanswered.

1st century Jews were careful to avoid consuming blood because it was thought that the animal’s essence/nature was contained there. So, a person eating meat that was not fully cooked would have the unfortunate side effect of causing that person to become more like that animal’s nature. Therefore, Jews fully cooked their meats to avoid this problem. The consumption of blood was strictly forbidden.

And, we all know that we’re trying to be as Christ-like as possible, so consuming his blood would be in line with that objective as seen by a 1st century Jew.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I’d like to know if I’m describing this correctly.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church,

Jesus of Nazareth was man in all physical qualities. Imperceptibly, He was much more. He was God the Father, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit, the supreme governor of the Universe, incomprehensible to the human mind and senses.

Likewise, the wine and wafer is wine and wafer in all physical qualities. Imperceptibly, it is much more. It is the substance of the Father, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit, the flesh and blood of Christ.

Eh, I think you’re mincing some words here, at least in regards to the Nature of God in your first paragraph, and that’s OK. As an LDS it took me a very long time to get even a basic grasp on the Catholic understanding of the Trinity since we Mormons essentially speak an entirely different language when we speak of God.

My understanding of the Trinity would not agree with this statement unless you clarified what you’re saying about the relationship between God the Father, and God the Son:

“[Jesus] was God the Father.”

It seems to me that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Ghost share the same substance. They are all one God, consisting of the same divinity. There are not three divinities, but one divinity. The three persons of the Trinity are just that: three separate persons. They are three persons who both collectively and individually constitute the one being of God. In general, it would be considered non-Trinitarian to say that Jesus is/was the Father. Jesus is not the Father. He is the Son.

 

[JuliusCaesar21]

Good Good. Great to gauge my understanding level. Thanks.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

1st century Jews were careful to avoid consuming blood because it was thought that the animal’s essence/nature was contained there. So, a person eating meat that was not fully cooked would have the unfortunate side effect of causing that person to become more like that animal’s nature. Therefore, Jews fully cooked their meats to avoid this problem. The consumption of blood was strictly forbidden.

And, we all know that we’re trying to be as Christ-like as possible, so consuming his blood would be in line with that objective as seen by a 1st century Jew.

I was hoping someone would pick up on my not-so-subtle nod to Jewish thought

This understanding of the essence of blood makes much more sense to me with respect to the Eucharist than our modern understanding of what blood is. The thing is our modern understanding of what blood is is far far better than the 1st century Jewish understanding of it. In fact I’d go as far as to say the 1st century Jewish understanding of it is factually incorrect. The blood is not the animating force of a creature otherwise the Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct to forbid blood transfusions, and pro-choicers are at least a little correct in asserting that there exists some amount of time between conception and the development of the circulatory system in which the “baby” isn’t actually a person.

With this all in mind, I think understanding the “essence/substance of blood in the Eucharist” to only mean what the ancients would’ve understood it to mean, is best. “Soul/ divinity/animating force” is the essence in the Sacrament which replaces the essence of bread and wine rather than actual flesh and blood (as we’d understand these things to be today).

Problem is, I don’t know if this is an acceptable alternative for a Catholic to believe (or Orthodox person for that matter), because I’ve yet to find an Apostolic Christian very specifically articulate what the “essence of flesh and blood” is.

 

[jmcrae]

I’d like to know if I’m describing this correctly.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church,

Jesus of Nazareth was man in all physical qualities. Imperceptibly, He was much more. He was God the Father, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit, the supreme governor of the Universe, incomprehensible to the human mind and senses.

Likewise, the wine and wafer is wine and wafer in all physical qualities. Imperceptibly, it is much more. It is the substance of the Father, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit, the flesh and blood of Christ.

I can’t say that I understand everything about it, but this sounds correct to me, with the caveat that although Jesus took on a human nature and became really a human being, He does not take on the nature of bread or the nature of wine, nor does He really become bread or become wine.

But in terms of what happens during the Consecration, the bread and the wine do in fact become Christ.

Another difference is that it was not a human being who became Christ, but rather, it was Christ who became a human being - whereas it is bread and wine which become Christ.

 

[epan]

I would still like to understand what characteristics of the Body and Blood of Christ are essential, not accidental. Just as I know that the essence of water is H2O and the essence of a chair is “a thing for sitting.”

If the essence of water is H2O, then the essence of chair is the chemical formula for cellulose, or something like that. If the essence of chair is, “a thing for sitting”, then the essence for water is, “the liquid for drinking”, or the “substance for hydrating the body”

I don’t really get what you are asking. The subject of the thread had to do with Celiac disease and alcoholism, and partaking of communion

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

What is meant by “Accidents”? and where can I read more about substance vs. accidents of the wine and wafer?

Lots of people have given answers that I feel may be a bit complicated for someone in the earlier stages of understanding Catholic theology. Please allow me to offer a simple explanation - think of the things we see and experience in this world as having two properties: the way they look/feel/smell/taste/etc. (their form, or “accidents” in theological language), and what they are, meaning their underlying nature, the purpose for their existence, the very essence of their being (their substance). On this earth, we see many things change their form while their substance remains the same. For example, water, ice, and steam are all different forms of the same substance, H2O. When the bread and wine are offered at Mass by a Catholic priest, the very substance, the very essence and meaning of what they are, and the very reason for their existence, is completely changed. But they still seem to us to have the same form or accidents. That is why we say the Eucharist is transubstantiated (substance is changed) rather than merely transformed (the form is changed but the substance stays the same).

Hope that helps. God bless you on your journey to learn about our faith.

 

[JuliusCaesar21]

If this sounds super ignorant, forgive me. It seems like the substance of a thing is what it’s purpose is and it’s accidents are what it looks, feels, smells and tastes like.

So, if a chair was transubstantiated into a hat, it would still look, feel and smell like a chair, but I would wear it on my head?

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

Don’t get too caught in the weeds here. The only thing that undergoes transubstantiation is the Eucharist.

 

[JuliusCaesar21]

That’s why I said, “if”.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

I get that, but please remember there are “useful” hypotheticals, like thinking about what might happen if I lose my job, propose to my girlfriend, find out a family member is very ill, decide to pursue a degree, etc, and there are “silly” hypotheticals, like what would happen if I woke up as a unicorn tomorrow, what it would be like if the sky were purple, or how to wear a transubstantiated table or chair.

This is not to sound demeaning, but sometimes people get so caught up in “what if” that they don’t spend enough time pondering the beauty and majesty of “what is!”

 

[JuliusCaesar21]

I’m just trying to understand transubstantiation by comparing it to things I know.

Am I right then, that the substance of a thing is defined by it’s purpose (ie. chair = thing for sitting, hat = thing for wearing on your head, wine = drink for drinking, bread = food for eating, body and blood of Christ = sacrifice for the salvation of mankind)?

That would mean that transubstantiation, rather than changing the appearance, taste, smell, feel etc., of the bread and wine, changes its purpose/essence/substance and makes it the literal sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the salvation of man. Therefore, partaking would bring salvation to the partaker. I think.

Let me know if I’m on the right track here. I’d really like to understand this and I think the best way is to read what people say and try to put it into my own words, until I have it right.

 

[Miriam1947]

Most celebrants are aware of Celiac disease(an immune response to a protein in wheat, barley and rye), and also wheat allergies. They usually have gluten free wafers. Some nuns figured out a way, after much experimentation and effort, to produce a wafer which was acceptable to the rite, and also gluten free.

It is advisable to inform someone prior to going up to the alter, so you don’t send them scrambling to get the wafer for you.

If you partake of one species, then it is not necessary to partake of the other.

So, the answer to your question is yes. You may partake of a gluten free host, which is generally available. If you partake of the host, then you have received the sacrament with no need for the wine.

I believe that there must be gluten in the wafer even if only a small amount. We have a deacon in our parish who cannot receive even the least amount of gluten so he partakes of the cup only.

 

[epan]

I’m just trying to understand transubstantiation by comparing it to things I know.

Am I right then, that the substance of a thing is defined by it’s purpose (ie. chair = thing for sitting, hat = thing for wearing on your head, wine = drink for drinking, bread = food for eating, body and blood of Christ = sacrifice for the salvation of mankind)?

That would mean that transubstantiation, rather than changing the appearance, taste, smell, feel etc., of the bread and wine, changes its purpose/essence/substance and makes it the literal sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the salvation of man. Therefore, partaking would bring salvation to the partaker. I think.

Let me know if I’m on the right track here. I’d really like to understand this and I think the best way is to read what people say and try to put it into my own words, until I have it right.

What has been presented to you is a teleological argument about the “substance” or “telos” of the host, and its transformation in the supernatural rite (sacrament) of communion. As far as I know, Aristotle was one of the principal early expounders of the idea of an objects “telos.”

The concept has important resonance and meaning through all of philosophy and religion, ranging from pre-christian thinking through Marxism. Whenever someone starts talking about the “purpose” or “meaning” or “essence” of something in moral, political, philosophical, or religious discussions, they are usually referring to the “telos” of it. It is an old idea, which is always relevant.

One of my favorite teachers on the subject of ethics is Michael Sandel of Harvard. Here is a link to his introduction of Aristotelian Teleology. justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-10/#watch. I see that Harvard finally got smart and started using YouTube to avoid paying for the bandwidth.

If my memory is correct, the last lecture in this series applies the teleological argument to the subject of gay marriage. Professor Sandel does not take a position on the topic in his class, but points out that the arguments for and against are essentially teleological. You can find all of the episodes listed at: justiceharvard.org. The lecture series is his introductory class to the subject of Social Justice, and it is the most popular undergraduate course at Harvard, offered free to audit now to anyone who cares to watch it via the Internet.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

I’m just trying to understand transubstantiation by comparing it to things I know.

Am I right then, that the substance of a thing is defined by it’s purpose (ie. chair = thing for sitting, hat = thing for wearing on your head, wine = drink for drinking, bread = food for eating, body and blood of Christ = sacrifice for the salvation of mankind)?

That would mean that transubstantiation, rather than changing the appearance, taste, smell, feel etc., of the bread and wine, changes its purpose/essence/substance and makes it the literal sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the salvation of man. Therefore, partaking would bring salvation to the partaker. I think.

Let me know if I’m on the right track here. I’d really like to understand this and I think the best way is to read what people say and try to put it into my own words, until I have it right.

That is a pretty good way to state it, yes. Although, the idea that the “substance” is defined by its end purpose (“telos”) is a teleological argument, as the person below pointed out. This is one way to look at “substance,” but not the simplest. At its most simple, substance is the underlying reality of a thing which does not change when the “accidents” of it - who is holding it, where it is located, whether its today or tomorrow - change.

Here’s a very technical look at “substance:” newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

What has been presented to you is a teleological argument about the “substance” or “telos” of the host, and its transformation in the supernatural rite (sacrament) of communion. As far as I know, Aristotle was one of the principal early expounders of the idea of an objects “telos.”

For the sake of clarity for those who read this, the Greek “telos” does not translate directly to “substance” but rather to “end,” in the sense of the end goal or “the point” of something’s existence.

 

[jmcrae]

If this sounds super ignorant, forgive me. It seems like the substance of a thing is what it’s purpose is and it’s accidents are what it looks, feels, smells and tastes like.

So, if a chair was transubstantiated into a hat, it would still look, feel and smell like a chair, but I would wear it on my head?

That actually sounds correct.

The substance of a thing is the answer to the question “What is it?”

The accidents of the thing are its physical properties or characteristics.