Does transubstantiation mean matter is an illusion?

[hansard]

I’ve always wondered why the physical consumption of god (any god) is even necessary. I ingest the body/blood/soul/divinity of Jesus, but to what end?
I can see it as a memorial (do this in memory of me), but if it’s the metaphysical body and blood of Jesus, then I have to wonder what it achieves.

“…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
It’s almost ridiculous that people take this literally, in light of everything that has just gone before in that chapter.

I can be just as close to God through prayer or, more importantly, by living justly and charitably and forgiving those who do me wrong. This was always the plan.

I know John 6 is seized upon as a justification. It makes me suspicious that these crucial statements appear only in the last gospel, written much later than the others. It’s a handy piece of revisionism, probably at the behest of the church’s leaders at the time.

It is also slightly problematic that we accept John 6 as literal - and I mean rolled-gold, unambiguously literal - and yet we accept so much else of what Jesus said on the level of the symbolic and metaphorical.

 

[schaeffer]

Transubstantiation is even a little more mysterious than we normally think. It is not just that Christ is present whole and entire, his complete body and soul, even though all we see is a small white wafer. Space is an accident, not a substance; so is temporal extension.

When you think about it, the communion host that I receive is Jesus, whole and entire. But so is the communion host received by the person in line behind me, or received by the whole congregation. Is Jesus thereby multiplied into hundreds of ‘copies?’ Not at all. Jesus is one. The Jesus I receive is not different than the Jesus anyone else receives. He is one, not many. So in a very real sense, by receiving the one Jesus, we are also united through him with one another. And not just united with those at the same mass. Those who received communion at any mass anywhere at any time receive the one and same Jesus that I receive now at this mass. I am united with all of them. It is communion, after all. Jesus remains one, not many.

This is what confuses me about the Eucharistic miracles, when the “flesh” is investigated apparently it is heart tissue. But people emphasize that after transubstantiation it is the whole of Christ’s body. When Eucharistic miracles occur what is found in the “blood”. Is that found to be blood, or likewise to be heart tissue.

But then I figure that it can be another instance in which there is a difference in appearance between substance and accidents. If Christ can come in the form of bread, he can likewise come in the form of heart tissue. Is that right?

 

[JimG]

This is what confuses me about the Eucharistic miracles, when the “flesh” is investigated apparently it is heart tissue. But people emphasize that after transubstantiation it is the whole of Christ’s body. When Eucharistic miracles occur what is found in the “blood”. Is that found to be blood, or likewise to be heart tissue.

But then I figure that it can be another instance in which there is a difference in appearance between substance and accidents. If Christ can come in the form of bread, he can likewise come in the form of heart tissue. Is that right?

That’s true. I’ve always found Eucharistic miracles to be a little confusing as to the doctrine of the Eucharist. In a Eucharistic miracle, the accidents change. In the Eucharist, the accidents do not change, but remain the accidents of bread and wine. I don’t think anyone has ever said one way or the other whether in a Eucharistic miracle the changed accidents actually inhere in the substance of Jesus. Is the heart tissue just heart tissue or is it the whole Jesus (as in the Eucharist)? No one knows.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

No; Christ is present sacramentally, not physically. What’s physically present is what can be sensed – that is, the accidents of bread and wine.

Linusthe2nd:

Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is a glorified physical body. And it is indeed present after the manner of the sacrament.

Yes; substantially, not physically.

I’ll even step back from something I said earlier here – rather than just an amorphous ‘substance’, we can say that there’s all of Christ in the True Presence. (But, it seems that Aquinas makes this claim only so that it cannot be asserted so that it wouldn’t be possible to say “ok… His flesh and blood are there, but that’s all.”) But, this presence is sacramental, and if we want to talk about the presence of ‘bones’, or even ‘arms and legs’, this presence exists only concomitantly, and not in its proper mode, but only in substance.

Yet it was a glorified body, not limited by the restrictions of finite matter or time. Christ cannot be sensed because that would make the Sacrament impossible. He chose to be invisible for that reason among others.

Interesting assertion. You seem to be saying that Christ is physically present in the accidents of His glorified body, but has chosen to be ‘invisible’ in his physical accidents. Since you point out the Summa Theologiae, perhaps you can show me where Aquinas says this?

Thanks!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes; substantially, not physically.

I’ll even step back from something I said earlier here – rather than just an amorphous ‘substance’, we can say that there’s all of Christ in the True Presence. (But, it seems that Aquinas makes this claim only so that it cannot be asserted so that it wouldn’t be possible to say “ok… His flesh and blood are there, but that’s all.”) But, this presence is sacramental, and if we want to talk about the presence of ‘bones’, or even ‘arms and legs’, this presence exists only concomitantly, and not in its proper mode, but only in substance.

Interesting assertion. You seem to be saying that Christ is physically present in the accidents of His glorified body, but has chosen to be ‘invisible’ in his physical accidents. Since you point out the Summa Theologiae, perhaps you can show me where Aquinas says this?

Thanks!

The Dogma of the Church is that the Whole Christ, body and blood, soul and Divinity is substantially present under the species. As far as I am concerned a body, whether it is under its natural, earthly form or in its glorified, eternal form is still physical. It certainly is not immaterial, it is not a spirit. Now if you want to nuance the term " substantially " that is up to you. I will stick to physical and glorified.

You will have to read Aquinas yourself, I don’t feel like arguing.
newadvent.org/summa/4.htm
Read questions 74, 75, 76, and 77.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[GaryTaylor]

The line between matter and energy is becoming more and more blurred. Likewise, the idea of mind/soul over matter is becoming more intriguing as a valid scientific question.

Transubstantiation is a lot easier to explain in the 21st century of quantum weirdness than it was 100 years ago.

You say that transformation of bread into flesh and wine into blood is completely unobservable but science is starting to realise that there is ‘stuff’ and phenomenon which we may never be able to observe because, as scientists are beginning to admit, we are getting close to the apparent limit of our observational capability.

We can’t keep making better and better Hadron Colliders.

We are approaching the point at which we can’t know ‘more’ about physics unless and until we transcend the laws of physics.

I think so too which addresses the premise of the question.

But the transformation of bread into flesh and wine into blood is completely unobservable, even in theory.

OK, and as to directly above I think this is completely compatible

what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of “substance” or deepest reality).

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usccb.org%2Fprayer-and-worship%2Fthe-mass%2Forder-of-mass%2Fliturgy-of-the-eucharist%2Fthe-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm&ei=NNXdVLbgN8SdNrOMhNgE&usg=AFQjCNFhmtP_tf4QzAobcXX-KVj2oiP8dQ

 

[Brendan]

The Dogma of the Church is that the Whole Christ, body and blood, soul and Divinity is substantially present under the species. As far as I am concerned a body, whether it is under its natural, earthly form or in its glorified, eternal form is still physical. It certainly is not immaterial, it is not a spirit. Now if you want to nuance the term " substantially " that is up to you. I will stick to physical and glorified.

You will have to read Aquinas yourself, I don’t feel like arguing.
newadvent.org/summa/4.htm
Read questions 74, 75, 76, and 77.

Pax
Linus2nd

Gorgias is correct.

Christ is not physically present. Physics describes accidental properties, such as mass, color, atomic\chemical makeup.

None of that is present in the Eucharist. What is physically present is about 4 grams of starchy hydrocarbons, proteins and traces of water in a generally off-white circular form of approx. 2cm in diameter and 2mm thick.

But all of that are accidental properties.

The SUBSTANCE of the Eucharist is the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Of those 4, only the Body and Blood of Christ have physical elements, but none of those are present.
The Soul and Divinity are spiritual entities, and thus have no physical presence at all, either in the Eucharist nor in Heaven.

 

[GEddie]

Gorgias is correct.

Christ is not physically present. Physics describes accidental properties, such as mass, color, atomic\chemical makeup.

None of that is present in the Eucharist. What is physically present is about 4 grams of starchy hydrocarbons, proteins and traces of water in a generally off-white circular form of approx. 2cm in diameter and 2mm thick.

But all of that are accidental properties.

The SUBSTANCE of the Eucharist is the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Of those 4, only the Body and Blood of Christ have physical elements, but none of those are present.
The Soul and Divinity are spiritual entities, and thus have no physical presence at all, either in the Eucharist nor in Heaven.

Not “hydrocarbons”!

Wax is neither valid matter for confection of the Sacrament, nor, certainly, to put into our bodies!

Methinks you meant to say “carbohydrates.” Bread and Body have those in common.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Brendan]

Not “hydrocarbons”!

Wax is neither valid matter for confection of the Sacrament, nor, certainly, to put into our bodies!

Methinks you meant to say “carbohydrates.” Bread and Body have those in common.

ICXC NIKA.

You are correct

 

[Vico]

Gorgias is correct.

Christ is not physically present. Physics describes accidental properties, such as mass, color, atomic\chemical makeup.

None of that is present in the Eucharist. What is physically present is about 4 grams of starchy hydrocarbons, proteins and traces of water in a generally off-white circular form of approx. 2cm in diameter and 2mm thick.

But all of that are accidental properties.

The SUBSTANCE of the Eucharist is the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Of those 4, only the Body and Blood of Christ have physical elements, but none of those are present.
The Soul and Divinity are spiritual entities, and thus have no physical presence at all, either in the Eucharist nor in Heaven.

Material objects are composed of molecules, which have both accidents and substance of the molecules. So, it may be easier to convey with knowledge that the substance of the molecules of bread and wine change, yet the accidents of the molecules of bread and wine do not.

 

[Brendan]

Material objects are composed of molecules, which have both accidents and substance of the molecules. So, it may be easier to convey with knowledge that the substance of the molecules of bread and wine change, yet the accidents of the molecules of bread and wine do not.

Correct, everything that can me measured by physics remains, thus it is bread and wine that are physically present.

But the entire substance changes.

And thus why the Church teaches that Christ is Substantially present in the Eucharist.

Which is not to imply a lesser reality than being physically present, but a greater one.

 

[JimG]

Gorgias is correct.

Christ is not physically present. Physics describes accidental properties, such as mass, color, atomic\chemical makeup.

None of that is present in the Eucharist. What is physically present is about 4 grams of starchy hydrocarbons, proteins and traces of water in a generally off-white circular form of approx. 2cm in diameter and 2mm thick.

But all of that are accidental properties.

The SUBSTANCE of the Eucharist is the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Of those 4, only the Body and Blood of Christ have physical elements, but none of those are present.
The Soul and Divinity are spiritual entities, and thus have no physical presence at all, either in the Eucharist nor in Heaven.

The substance is the reality of a thing. The accidents are only what we perceive with our senses. Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist and that includes his entire body, even though we cannot perceive it. Transubstantiation does not eliminate Jesus’ body, it is merely hidden from our view because we do not perceive it. Human beings are a composite of matter and spirit, body and soul; Jesus as human does not lose his humanity in the Eucharist. He is still a composite of body and soul. He is present entirely and completely, in his humanity and in his divinity.

After transubstantiation, the substance of the bread is entirely gone, although we still perceive the accidents of it, though they do not inhere in any substance.

 

[CarmelJerome]

I’m a Protestant with a question about transubstantiation. I understand the basics of the doctrine and the philosophical terms behind it, so you needn’t rehash those. The issue I see is that, if the bread and wine “really and truly” transform into flesh and blood, why is there no accompanying chemical change? There is no change in how the elements appear, nor in how they taste, or how our bodies digest them. If you put them under a microscope and didn’t know they had been blessed, you would think they were ordinary bread and wine.

Under normal circumstances, when God transforms something, you can tell. Jesus changed the water into wine; presumably the color changed, and we know that the taste changed. When God said, “Let there be light,” there was light – an observable change.

But the transformation of bread into flesh and wine into blood is completely unobservable, even in theory. I know the argument is that the accidents are unchanged but the substance changed, but under ordinary circumstances, what makes blood blood is its chemical makeup.

It seems like the doctrine of transubstantiation makes matter an illusion in much the same way Gnosticism did. You can’t trust your senses. The physical isn’t what matters. It’s the “spiritual” that matters. Am I misunderstanding anything? Is there a standard Catholic response to this type of charge? I can’t be the first one to have said it.

I hope I haven’t offended. Please understand that I’m earnestly looking for an answer, not trolling.

The Eucharist is unique in that the substance alters, but the accidents remain. The matter us nit an illusion - if the wine and bread were illusions then any matter would suffice for the sacrifice. The appearances are true signs of the reality which only the priestly power of Christ is capable of accomplishing.

 

[Brendan]

The substance is the reality of a thing. The accidents are only what we perceive with our senses. Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist and that includes his entire body, even though we cannot perceive it. Transubstantiation does not eliminate Jesus’ body, it is merely hidden from our view because we do not perceive it. Human beings are a composite of matter and spirit, body and soul; Jesus as human does not lose his humanity in the Eucharist. He is still a composite of body and soul. He is present entirely and completely, in his humanity and in his divinity.

After transubstantiation, the substance of the bread is entirely gone, although we still perceive the accidents of it, though they do not inhere in any substance.

Exactly, my point is that physicality deals exclusively with accidental properties ( mass, color, etc…)

That is why Christ is not physically present.

 

[JimG]

Exactly, my point is that physicality deals exclusively with accidental properties ( mass, color, etc…)

That is why Christ is not physically present.

Jesus is wholly and substantially present. The fact that we do not perceive the accidents of Jesus does not mean that consecration has extracted them from him. We see only the accidents of bread and wine. Jesus has his own proper accidents, which still belong to him. He has not lost them.

A couple of quotes:

“Earlier I mentioned confusion among Catholics about the implications of Christ’s Eucharistic presence, and I posed the question: Do we receive (for instance) Christ’s head and arms and feet? Many today would be uncomfortable with an affirmative answer, which would savor, to them, of a grossly materialistic view of the Real Presence. Yet it is the right answer. Suppose we didn’t receive those parts: then the same would have to be said of all the other parts of his body. So there’d be nothing left! We would not be receiving his body.”

therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/transubstantiation.htm

"Jesus is therefore in the Blessed Sacrament “whole and entire: the Soul, the Body and Blood of Christ, with all their component parts. In heaven a complete human nature is united to the divine nature in one. . . person. It is a denial of the faith to suppose that in this sacrament there is anything less.”

From an article by Fr. John Hardon
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha5.htm

 

[Gorgias]

The substance is the reality of a thing. The accidents are only what we perceive with our senses. Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist and that includes his entire body, even though we cannot perceive it. Transubstantiation does not eliminate Jesus’ body, it is merely hidden from our view because we do not perceive it.

Stating it this way, though, is problematic. It makes it seem that all that’s going on is a divine shell game – it’s there, but we can’t see it; it’s a matter of perception, not reality.

That’s not the case at all. By saying Christ is ‘wholly’ present, we do not imply that He’s physically present – we mean that He is truly present in the entirety of His substance.

Jesus as human does not lose his humanity in the Eucharist. He is still a composite of body and soul. He is present entirely and completely, in his humanity and in his divinity.

Substantially? Yes. Physically? No.

 

[GEddie]

Thank you Jim G for the references.

“Head, arms and feet” are crucial to the Sacrament. Just as in John 6, the crowd had difficulty with the idea of consuming someone’s head and limbs, we have difficulty believing the head and limbs are really there.

But without the head and limbs, there is nobody there!!!

Transubstantiation is more incredible the more I think of it. Not only could we not absorb the decamegacaloric content of a full-sized human body; the bones, etc, could not be processed by our bodies in their “normal” state. Our LORD reduces Himself down to be received by us

ICXC NIKA

 

[JimG]

I am fine with saying that Jesus is not “physically” present in the Eucharist, as long as we understand that “physically” refers to accidents, which are the appearances of things, not the reality. But Jesus is “bodily” present in the Eucharist including all his component parts. If he is not present bodily, corporeally, with all his parts, he is not really there as a human being, and that would make the Eucharist false.

So he is present bodily, though we can not perceive him, perceiving only the appearances of bread and wine which inhere in no substance whatever.

It’s even a little misleading to say that he reduces himself down for us. His mode of presence is such that if we break the Eucharist in two, we do not thereby break Jesus. If we cut it into four or 10 pieces, Jesus remains whole and entire under the appearances of each piece. And if we consecrate hundreds of Eucharistic wafers, we do not thereby multiply Jesus. He remains one. He has but one body. He can neither be multiplied nor divided in the Eucharist.

 

[Vico]

I am fine with saying that Jesus is not “physically” present in the Eucharist, as long as we understand that “physically” refers to accidents, which are the appearances of things, not the reality. But Jesus is “bodily” present in the Eucharist including all his component parts. If he is not present bodily, corporeally, with all his parts, he is not really there as a human being, and that would make the Eucharist false.

So he is present bodily, though we can not perceive him, perceiving only the appearances of bread and wine which inhere in no substance whatever.

It’s even a little misleading to say that he reduces himself down for us. His mode of presence is such that if we break the Eucharist in two, we do not thereby break Jesus. If we cut it into four or 10 pieces, Jesus remains whole and entire under the appearances of each piece. And if we consecrate hundreds of Eucharistic wafers, we do not thereby multiply Jesus. He remains one. He has but one body. He can neither be multiplied nor divided in the Eucharist.

A problem is introduced by limiting physical to only the accidents, since essence is the unformed physical matter.

And since supernatural grace is a participation in the divine nature, it represents a physical communion of man with God: an accidental union accomplished by a created gift of God