D
distracted
Guest
it was my understanding that Transubstatiation means that the bread and wine are changed into the physical body and blood of Christ?
is this accurate?
is this accurate?
- Status
C
choy
Guest
yes
the substance of bread is changed to become TRULY the Body of Christ
and the substance of wine is changed to become TRULY the Blood of Christ
no ifs, no buts, no representations, no symbolisms
the substance of bread is changed to become TRULY the Body of Christ
and the substance of wine is changed to become TRULY the Blood of Christ
no ifs, no buts, no representations, no symbolisms
D
distracted
Guest
then why doesn’t the pope believe this?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
They are substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ (where “substantially” means “in their substance,” not “for the most part”). They retain the accidents (appearance, smell, etc.) of bread and wine, which is why it can be misleading to say that they “physically” change.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
If you’re trying to make some funny point, it’s lost on me.
E
edward_george
Guest
And you have documentation of this…where?
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
The Pope does not believe this, nor should he. Physically turning into the body and blood of Christ refers to the accidents of the bread and wine…the bread and wine’s physical properties. They do not change, so physically the bread and wine are still bread and wine. HOWEVER the substance, as in, what the bread and wine actually is, changes completely into the body of Christ and the blood of Christ.
Two quotes by Pope Benedict XVI, back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger:
“The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens. When material things are taken into our body as nourishment, or for that matter whenever any material becomes part of a living organism, it remains the same, and yet as part of a new whole it is itself changed. Something similar happens here. The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.” – Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
“’Reality’ is not just what we can measure. It is not only ‘quantums,’ quantifiable entities, that are real; on the contrary, these are always only manifestations of the hidden mystery of true being.”
So no, the physical properties of the bread and wine do not change, and who really cares about that? The important thing is that the substance has changed. It is truly the body and truly the blood of our Lord.
Two quotes by Pope Benedict XVI, back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger:
“The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens. When material things are taken into our body as nourishment, or for that matter whenever any material becomes part of a living organism, it remains the same, and yet as part of a new whole it is itself changed. Something similar happens here. The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.” – Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
“’Reality’ is not just what we can measure. It is not only ‘quantums,’ quantifiable entities, that are real; on the contrary, these are always only manifestations of the hidden mystery of true being.”
So no, the physical properties of the bread and wine do not change, and who really cares about that? The important thing is that the substance has changed. It is truly the body and truly the blood of our Lord.
D
distracted
Guest
far from funny… i will try to find the site i was at, but someone said that the pope said… .that the host is not changed physically into the body of Christ…If you’re trying to make some funny point, it’s lost on me.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
The Pope is right…perhaps you mean this quote:
"…even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.”
D
distracted
Guest
Ratzinger denies the Real Presence…
“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”
Source: Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliche Existenz by Joseph Ratzinger
“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”
Source: Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliche Existenz by Joseph Ratzinger
C
choy
Guest
transubstantation means the subtance is changed, but not necessarily the physical appearance, which are called accidents
the opposite of this is water, who’s physical appearance changes from ice to liquid water to water vapor to steam, depending on the temperature. the physical appearance is different, but the substance remains water
in transubstantion, the substance is changed, while the accidents of bread and wine remain
D
distracted
Guest
see quote in post 10
M
MarkThompson
Guest
. . . which of course is exactly right. It’s people who don’t understand what the Church teaches who wind up asking, “Then why can’t people with a wheat allergy eat the body? Why don’t alcoholics drink the blood?”
D
distracted
Guest
i know that…
but post 10 says something different… and i do NOT agree with Benedict… sorry if that makes me some kind of nut…
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Once again, he is right. God is everywhere. You cannot confine God to the Eucharist. Furthermore the Eucharist is not made up of little bite-size pieces of God, but of the entire being of God transformed completely into the bread and wine…truly a miracle.
I didn’t even read the full article and I can tell that that is taken completely out of context.
L
LoyalViews
Guest
The Holy Father means )Cardinal Ratzinger at the time), don’t go to church and adore Our Blessed Lord and have a conversations with hims like, “Her, how ya doin?”, you should pray to him, worship God. Not chat. Other people are there two. He means don’t talk to him as if he is someone you’re having a conversation with. We should not talk to God this way, anytime. But, the consecrated Host is the Body, our Our Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It just doesn’t look like that on the outside.
D
distracted
Guest
“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God"
well, i guess i have been deceived all these years…
NOT!!!
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Yeah. For one thing, this was written 44 years ago, in German. The website NovusOrdoWatch (hardly a friend of the Holy Father) has what purports to be a translation of much of the surrounding context, illustrating what he is really getting at (underlining is mine):
What in fact – in this manner we can now ask again – does the man do who celebrates the divine service of the Church, the sacraments of Jesus Christ? He does not abandon himself to the naive idea that God, the Omnipresent One, lives only at this place in space which is designated by the tabernacle in the church. This would already contradict the most superficial understanding of the dogmatic statement content , because the species of the Eucharist is not the presence of God in general * but the presence of the man Jesus Christ, which refers to * the horizontal historically-bound character of the divine encounter of man. He who goes to church and celebrates her sacraments does not do so, either, if he understands everything correctly, because he thinks the spiritual God is in need of material * media in order to touch the spirit of man**.
. . .
Eucharistic adoration or quiet visiting in church can, reasonably, not simply be thought of as conversation with the God who is thought present in a locally-circumscriptive manner. Statements such as “God lives here” and conversation with the locally-thought God based on such [thinking] express a mistake [misjudgment] of the christological event as well as the idea of God, which necessarily repels the thinking man who knows about the omnipresence of God. If one were to justify going to church on the grounds that one must visit the God who is only present there, this would indeed be a justification which would make no sense and would rightfully be rejected by modern man. *
D
distracted
Guest
then why didnt he SAY that??
he did NOT say that… you are giving the words meaning it wasn’t intended to have…
***when a person is in the Real Presence, s/he is in the presence of Christ, who is GOD ***
C
choy
Guest
i think the point of it is that God is not limited to the physical form of the Eucharist. while we know that the Blessed Sacrament contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, by no means is Jesus contained to that one physical form in that one physical location where the Blessed Sacrament is. the attitude is not to go there and visit God. you cannot visit God, God is everywhere. the point of adoring the Blessed Sacrament is not about visiting God
- Status