Do we believe in literal Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tsun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks to the many posters here for their insights on the Eucharist … and for the OP for making them possible. 🙂

I must give special acknowledgement to Sheadad for that excellent example of a person getting sunburned on a cloudy day because one thought it wasn’t logically possible. I think this actually happened to me at age 14!

Lancer for posting an array of material on the subject.

And devoutchristian, whose succinct brevity can scarcely be exceeded. Especially by the likes of more expansive types like me. 😃 👍
 
Yes, the church teaches a in “literal transubstantiation”, and every Catholic is obligated to believe this.

However, the use of this term is important - it is different than a “transformation”. The bread does not take on the characteristics of human flesh. Rather, it is wholly replaced by the substance of God Himself. As God has no physical attributes, he chooses to retain the physical attributes (called “accidents”) of the original bread.

As Christ is both human and divine, it is also the Body and Blood of Christ, because Christ cannot be divided. The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord.

It is not by the power of the priest that this is done, but, again, by the power of Christ working through the sacrament of holy orders in the Priest.
Slight clarification: Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, though under the appearances of bread and wine. The idea that Christ is only spiritually present in the Eucharist is a heresy adhered to by the Anglicans and a few other groups.
And devoutchristian, whose succinct brevity can scarcely be exceeded. Especially by the likes of more expansive types like me. 😃 👍
:rotfl:
 
Growing up I logically assumed consuming the body of Christ was figurative. Now as an adult I discovered transubstantiation where one believes it’s literally the body of Christ. As 21st century man I have difficulty believing a Catholic priest has the power to allow me to literally consume the body of Christ via the Eucharistic. What is the consensus on this subject?
The brain cannot comprehend this, perhaps. This is why we must believe with not just our minds, but with our heart and soul. With belief from your soul, I believe that anything is possible from God. Even when my mind has told me that things were NOT possible and there is no earthly way it could have happened, my heart and soul know it happened, and have ‘seen’ and ‘felt’ it.

God bless you,
 
So, the key is…not intellectual…not feelings…not catechesis…the key is simply keep going to Mass faithfully…weekly as you are doing…act as if you believe in the Real Presence…and you will (receive the grace of faith)…and come to believe in the Real Presence…Transubstantiation.

Its somewhat akin to loving your neighbor…and you just cant bring yourself to do it…C.S. Lewis has the key…

Lastly…the perfect prayer…

Pax Christi
Very sad statistics. 57% of Catholics in 2008 did not believe in the Real Presence! That’s more than half of US Catholics! Unbelievable–and this number is five yrs old. Is there anything more central to our Faith than the Eucharist? Why bother calling yourself a Catholic if you don’t believe?

One small point: when reading statistics like these, we can see a correlation but we cannot assume causality. Thus, we can’t really make a statement like “You don’t believe in the Real Presence because you don’t go to Church”. Statistics…:dts:
 
Of course there is a literal Transubstantiation! If there were not, Jesus would not have told us, through His disciples, that we MUST eat His body & drink His blood. If we do not, we do not have any part in Him. God performs the change in the bread and wine, through the ability Jesus gave to His disciples to be His priests. The Priest is a man, just like any other man, it is God’s power which transforms the bread & wine. I serve as a Eucharistic Minister, and I am always awed by the fact that He allows me to touch His holy body & blood when sharing this miracle with His people. How sad that some cannot or will not believe this great miracle we see each time we attend Mass and receive His Holy Eucharist! Accept it mentally, and the faith will follow! Then you, too, will be awed by how He trusts and loves us to share His very Essence with us each time!

If you think it is difficult to believe as a “21st century man”, think about the earliest Christians who had actual examples of cultures which practiced human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism! THAT is why the people in the Gospels said it was too hard to believe! To them, it was anathema and paganism. To those who believed, it was the greatest miracle and gift God had ever given to mankind.
 
Thanks for the great responses and information.

The Eucharist is Jesus “Under the appearance of bread and wine” as some said. This makes more sense to me.

I get confused because if a priest turned the bread into a different substance like the flesh of a man we could test this and see that its composition is different.

Jesus is present in the Eucharist itself like he is present in all things. Am I getting close to understanding?

Everyone kind of jumped all over me for the 21st century thing. I just mean that we have a better understanding of the physical world now than in the bronze age when Jesus was on earth. If some one says this was bread now its flesh I can test that claim and likely disprove it but we believe it is Jesus under the appearance of bread an wine not actual blood and flesh.
 
My all too fallible human comprehension and senses have their limits, and beyond that point I have to decide whether or not to take a ‘leap of faith and trust’.

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” [John 6.35]

If Jesus says - “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” - John 6.54] - well that is good enough for me.

Always remember that God’s limitations are not the same as our’s.
 
Let’s review several different understandings of the Eucharist.

The Zwiglian model, that Jesus is present in communion only symbolically. Communion is physically bread and wine, and has no spiritual component. Heresy.

The Anglican model, that Jesus is spiritually present in the Eucharist. Communion is physically bread and wine, and spiritually Jesus. Heresy.

The Lutheran model, that Jesus is spiritually and physically present in the Eucharist and the substance of bread and wine remains. Communion is physically both bread and the body of Christ, and spiritually Jesus. Heresy.

The Catholic model, that Jesus is spiritually and physically present in the Eucharist and the substance of bread and wine does not remain. Communion is physically and spiritually Jesus, and not bread and wine. Orthodox.
I get confused because if a priest turned the bread into a different substance like the flesh of a man we could test this and see that its composition is different.
No. Substance is what a thing is, and it is not directly accessible to the senses. Accidents are the appearances of a thing. The substance of the Eucharist is Jesus, but the accidents are those of bread and wine.
Jesus is present in the Eucharist itself like he is present in all things. Am I getting close to understanding?
No. Jesus’s presence in the Eucharist is not just an extension of his omnipresence.
Everyone kind of jumped all over me for the 21st century thing. I just mean that we have a better understanding of the physical world now than in the bronze age when Jesus was on earth. If some one says this was bread now its flesh I can test that claim and likely disprove it but we believe it is Jesus under the appearance of bread an wine not actual blood and flesh.
Jesus walked the Earth well after the end of the bronze age.
 
Thanks for the great responses and information.

The Eucharist is Jesus “Under the appearance of bread and wine” as some said. This makes more sense to me.

I get confused because if a priest turned the bread into a different substance like the flesh of a man we could test this and see that its composition is different.

Jesus is present in the Eucharist itself like he is present in all things. Am I getting close to understanding?

Everyone kind of jumped all over me for the 21st century thing. I just mean that we have a better understanding of the physical world now than in the bronze age when Jesus was on earth. If some one says this was bread now its flesh I can test that claim and likely disprove it but we believe it is Jesus under the appearance of bread an wine not actual blood and flesh.
The accidents of the bread and wine are still present. The touch, smell, taste, etc. are not changed. However, transubstantiation means that the substance of the bread and wine has been replaced by the substance of Christ. Therefore, not only is Christ present body, blood, soul and divinity, but the bread and wine is NOT present, only the appearance remains.

Remember that God created everything, including time, so Jesus’ teachings are not, cannot, be limited by the time he chose to enter history and reveal them to us. The more we learn about the physical world, the more reason we have to praise God for creating such a masterpiece universe. Authentic science, authentic study of creation, will never lead us away from our creator.
 
OK…so it is still bread and wine in appearance but it is ACTUALLY body and blood after transubstantiation. Talk about a leap of faith. I like those other thoughts on it better, like the Anglican model devoutchristian mentioned.
 
OK…so it is still bread and wine in appearance but it is ACTUALLY body and blood after transubstantiation. Talk about a leap of faith. I like those other thoughts on it better, like the Anglican model devoutchristian mentioned.
Yet Jesus said “this is my body”, not “this is my soul”, and the Church has always interpreted his words in the Catholic understanding.
 
OK…so it is still bread and wine in appearance but it is ACTUALLY body and blood after transubstantiation. Talk about a leap of faith. I like those other thoughts on it better, like the Anglican model devoutchristian mentioned.
Yes it is a leap of Faith, but no more so that believing that a 1st Century Jewish man was God Incarnate.

That is much MORE of a leap of Faith that the Eucharist will ever be.
 
OK…so it is still bread and wine in appearance but it is ACTUALLY body and blood after transubstantiation. Talk about a leap of faith. I like those other thoughts on it better, like the Anglican model devoutchristian mentioned.
The Anglican’s are rationalizing what they’ve experienced for 400 years. They lost the sacramental priesthood soon after they broke away from Rome, and have been accidentally directing worship towards a piece of bread for sometime afterwords.

Eventually, they realized God was not truly there, and revised their beliefs regarding Communion to avoid objective idol worship. Thus Anglican theology does not explain the Catholic view.

The only way to come to learn the truth of the Eucharist is to have faith in God. Visiting adoration may be worthwhile for you. It was during an exposition of the Eucharist during my confirmation retreat that I realized the full significance of Christ’s physical presence before me. (Now I feel slightly awkward whenever He gets stuck in my teeth after communion… :D)
 
Yes .Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.

At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes- the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

In other words, whatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality-for example, that which was wine and is now Christ’s blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.

The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ’s body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God’s will to maintain them.

What of Christ’s body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: Christ’s body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ’s own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.

This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic. But like so much in this book, what is here is only a beginning; you have the rest of life before you.
 
Yes .Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.

At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes- the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

In other words, whatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality-for example, that which was wine and is now Christ’s blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.

The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ’s body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God’s will to maintain them.

What of Christ’s body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: Christ’s body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ’s own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.

This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic. But like so much in this book, what is here is only a beginning; you have the rest of life before you.
Thanks for this excellent presentation of the doctrine.

Christ doesn’t “take on” the appearances of a small round host or a drop of wine. After the consecration, the substance of bread and wine are gone, and those appearances of bread and wine do not inhere in Christ’s body or any substance whatever. But under those appearances Christ is present, complete, whole, and entire. I remember once someone commenting that they had a hard time believing that in communion they received ‘a little piece of Jesus.’ I replied that we do not believe that. In communion you receive all of Jesus, his whole body and blood, his whole person.
 
Yet Jesus said “this is my body”, not “this is my soul”, and the Church has always interpreted his words in the Catholic understanding.
But he was talking about a piece of bread he had in front of him at the time not a cracker 2000 years later. Did Jesus say that when we partake in a similar bread breaking ritual that bread also his body or was he just talking about the last supper?

I mean your telling me it is bread, but its really his body, but it looks exactly like bread, but its flesh and I have no evidence it’s flesh just take my word for it.

Does the bible say “man can have the power to transform bread into Jesus flesh”?
 
But he was talking about a piece of bread he had in front of him at the time not a cracker 2000 years later. Did Jesus say that when we partake in a similar bread breaking ritual that bread also his body or was he just talking about the last supper.

I mean your telling me it is bread, but its really his body, but it looks exactly like bread, but its flesh.

Does the bible say “man can have the power to transform bread into Jesus flesh”?
He said “Do this in memory of me”.
 
So because he said that my local priest has magic powers.
No magical powers. The powers are Sacramental.

The priest has Sacramental powers to forgive sin (no magic there), and Sacramental powers to bestow the Grace of Baptism and Confirmation ( no magic there either)

Likewise, he has the Sacramental power (via the Sacrament of Holy Orders) to act as a conduit to the Holy Spirit and confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top