Epalination of the process of transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_thirst_4_YOU
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

I_thirst_4_YOU

Guest
I know it has to do with Aristotelean Metaphysics but the body still looks like bread the His Blood still looks like wine.

What is it?

Does the accidents of the bread remain the same-or vice versa?

Or is it the substance that stays the same?

A bit confused.

I searched on the internet all i found was anti-Catholic stuff denouncing the doctrine.

Thank you
 
I_thirst_4_YOU said:
I know it has to do with Aristotelean Metaphysics but the body still looks like bread the His Blood still looks like wine.

What is it?

Does the accidents of the bread remain the same-or vice versa?

Or is it the substance that stays the same?

A bit confused.

I searched on the internet all i found was anti-Catholic stuff denouncing the doctrine.

Thank you
Click to expand...
The SUBSTANCE of bread and wine become the SUBSTANCE of the Body and Blood of Christ.

The APPEARANCE (technically called “accidents”) remain the APPEARANCE (chemical/physical composition, molecular structures) of bread and wine.
 
It’s definitely the substance which changes; the accidents remain the same.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

Here’s the quote that you would particularly be interested in: “Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.”

Hope that helps 🙂
 
The two attributes of any thing are (a) what it IS, and (b) how it is PERCEIVED (by both intelligent and non-intelligent “observers”)

Normal bread both IS bread, and is PERCEIVED as bread. Tastes like bread. Smells like bread. Acts like bread in a test tube and an electron microscope and however else you want to examine it.

When the bread is transubstantiated, however, it IS no longer bread. What it IS is Jesus Christ. However, it is still PERCEIVED by any possible means of perception to be bread.
 
Thank you very much for you help it is already cleared up my confusion
 
It’s all a lot of Aristotelian mumbo-jumbo which pretends to explain the presence of God in the Eucharist. We don’t know how it happens; we just believe in the mystery of the Eucharist. It can’t be expained.

Matthew
 
drafdog said:
It’s all a lot of Aristotelian mumbo-jumbo which pretends to explain the presence of God in the Eucharist. We don’t know how it happens; we just believe in the mystery of the Eucharist. It can’t be expained.

Matthew
Click to expand...
That’s what makes the Catholic faith a true gem. 🙂
 
Transubstantiation means that the substance of bread becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It’s another way of saying that the bread really and truly becomes the Body and Blood Of Christ, the Eucharist. It is important, though, to understand that transubstantiation doesn’t explain how that happens. There is no way we can comprehend that. It’s a mystery.

The accidents (the ways our senses perceive the Eucharist) remain unchanged. After the consecration, the Eucharist still looks, feels, tastes, smells, etc. like bread, but in substance it is not bread. It is really and truly the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

I hope that helps.🙂
 
francesco920 said:
Transubstantiation means that the substance of bread becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It’s another way of saying that the bread really and truly becomes the Body and Blood Of Christ, the Eucharist. It is important, though, to understand that transubstantiation doesn’t explain how that happens. There is no way we can comprehend that. It’s a mystery.

The accidents (the ways our senses perceive the Eucharist) remain unchanged. After the consecration, the Eucharist still looks, feels, tastes, smells, etc. like bread, but in substance it is not bread. It is really and truly the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

I hope that helps.🙂
Click to expand...
I couldn’t have said it any better.

And by the way, I like your signature quoting Pope Benedict XVI. It’s a beautiful quote.
 
drafdog said:
It’s all a lot of Aristotelian mumbo-jumbo which pretends to explain the presence of God in the Eucharist. We don’t know how it happens; we just believe in the mystery of the Eucharist. It can’t be expained.

Matthew
Click to expand...
Of course we know how it happens. It happens by the power of God.

Is there anything in the concept of transubstantiation that is incorrect? It is incorrect to say that the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, regardless of the fact that they still seem to remain only bread and wine? After all, that’s all that “transubstantiation” means.
 
VociMike,
There is a lot in “transsubstantiation” which is “incorrect.” The fact is that “accidents” and “essences” are imaginary constructs of a particular system of metaphysics and there is no reality to any of it except as a way of talking about ideas and realities beyond the framework of the senses. It’s only a way of talking about things; it is not “real” in the ordinary sense of the word. The Church labels me “anathema” if I don’t believe in transsubstantiation. That won’t get them anywhere as it is all a lot of hot air in the first place. We made a great mistake when we went with the Greco-Roman philosophers. We should have left it with the poets and story-tellers.
Try getting the Nicene creed dropped from the Mass and revert to the Apostles’ creed which is more ancient.

Matthew
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top