Eucharist puzzle

[WillP]

I frankly fail to see how the molecular and atomic composition of bread can be said to be the molecular and atomic substance of flesh. I realize that the doctrine is based on a rationale arising from philosophical principles ultimately tracted to Plato (perhaps, best memorialized in his allegory of shadows on the cave wall).

Nonetheless, doesn’t this belief cause some problems. By way of example, and, to engage in something of a thought experiment, I recall an old Bogart flick where Bogart’s character was pretending to be a priest in order to hide out from someone or some group. Presumably, this fake priest said mass and distributed communion. Would anyone notice that they weren’t receiving the transubstantiated version? I suspect there would not be any detection of the difference. How then can you be certain that much of the grace you sense when you receive communion is not the product of your own imagination.

Stated another way, does it bother anyone that a priest might make a mistake or be in the wrong frame of mind or somehow not do the right things in performing this transsubstantiation, and, as a result, the transformation does’t take place? How would anyone really know the difference? That seems like a problem to me.

To carry the issue one step further, suppose Bogart’s character performed baptism? The infant, of course, then will not have been cleansed of original sin (as I understand the doctine). So under such circumstances, many tears later when the unbaptised individual dies, is he doomed to remain in limbo notwithstanding an exemplary and faithful life as a catholic?

 

[JaKael02]

I frankly fail to see how the molecular and atomic composition of bread can be said to be the molecular and atomic substance of flesh. I realize that the doctrine is based on a rationale arising from philosophical principles ultimately tracted to Plato (perhaps, best memorialized in his allegory of shadows on the cave wall).

Nonetheless, doesn’t this belief cause some problems. By way of example, and, to engage in something of a thought experiment, I recall an old Bogart flick where Bogart’s character was pretending to be a priest in order to hide out from someone or some group. Presumably, this fake priest said mass and distributed communion. Would anyone notice that they weren’t receiving the transubstantiated version? I suspect there would not be any detection of the difference. How then can you be certain that much of the grace you sense when you receive communion is not the product of your own imagination.

Stated another way, does it bother anyone that a priest might make a mistake or be in the wrong frame of mind or somehow not do the right things in performing this transsubstantiation, and, as a result, the transformation does’t take place? How would anyone really know the difference? That seems like a problem to me.

To carry the issue one step further, suppose Bogart’s character performed baptism? The infant, of course, then will not have been cleansed of original sin (as I understand the doctine). So under such circumstances, many tears later when the unbaptised individual dies, is he doomed to remain in limbo notwithstanding an exemplary and faithful life as a catholic?

My response will be insufficient. That being said, no rational explanation will satisfy your skepticism in the Eucharist. It takes real ‘deep’ faith.

That being said, I’ve had very strong spiritual encounters with the Eucharist that can only be explained by God. That comes post-faith, not pre-faith.

Please remain skeptical but open-hearted. Let God do the walking. You do not have to do it alone.

Please check out Eucharist miracles.

For a start:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

Thank you for reading.

james

 

[JaKael02]

Stated another way, does it bother anyone that a priest might make a mistake or be in the wrong frame of mind or somehow not do the right things in performing this transsubstantiation, and, as a result, the transformation does’t take place? How would anyone really know the difference? That seems like a problem to me.

Good question!

It is Jesus who creates the transsubstantiation. Not the Priest. The priest “frame of mind” is irrelevant here.

The Priest is just the visible action of an invisible reality that Jesus himself performs.

The priest only says the “words of consecration”. We hear him say them at Mass. So he can’t mess up unless he just skips it. But this is also why we have a set order of Mass and keep it relatively strict in wording.

It’s relatively simple and we can be comfortable knowing a valid Mass has occured.

Kindly,

James

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Nonetheless, doesn’t this belief cause some problems. By way of example, and, to engage in something of a thought experiment, I recall an old Bogart flick where Bogart’s character was pretending to be a priest in order to hide out from someone or some group. Presumably, this fake priest said mass and distributed communion. Would anyone notice that they weren’t receiving the transubstantiated version? I suspect there would not be any detection of the difference. How then can you be certain that much of the grace you sense when you receive communion is not the product of your own imagination.

Go down to Paschal Baylon and read how he could tell a Consecrated Host apart from altar bread.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/priesthd/euchpr05.htm

 

[Jacob18]

To carry the issue one step further, suppose Bogart’s character performed baptism? The infant, of course, then will not have been cleansed of original sin (as I understand the doctine). So under such circumstances, many tears later when the unbaptised individual dies, is he doomed to remain in limbo notwithstanding an exemplary and faithful life as a catholic?

Even an athiest can baptize if the intention is correct and limbo is not Catholic doctrine. The Eucharist question I will leave to someone better equipped to answer that.

 

[revert_jen]

I frankly fail to see how the molecular and atomic composition of bread can be said to be the molecular and atomic substance of flesh. I realize that the doctrine is based on a rationale arising from philosophical principles ultimately tracted to Plato (perhaps, best memorialized in his allegory of shadows on the cave wall).

I’m not a philosopher, but my understanding is that molecular/atomic composition is an accident. Transsubstantiation does not change the accidents of the Host, but only the substance (the essence of what it is) changes. A much better description than I can give is here: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha4.htm

Nonetheless, doesn’t this belief cause some problems. By way of example, and, to engage in something of a thought experiment, I recall an old Bogart flick where Bogart’s character was pretending to be a priest in order to hide out from someone or some group. Presumably, this fake priest said mass and distributed communion.

Well, he shouldn’t have. He also probably wouldn’t be able to do it convincingly–this was the days of Latin. Anyway, it probably wouldn’t be necessary for the disguise.

Would anyone notice that they weren’t receiving the transubstantiated version? I suspect there would not be any detection of the difference.

Probably nobody would notice.

How then can you be certain that much of the grace you sense when you receive communion is not the product of your own imagination.

Well, even it it weren’t the real Eucharist I received, I could receive grace from God without it being my imagination. I’m not very imaginative in that respect.

Stated another way, does it bother anyone that a priest might make a mistake or be in the wrong frame of mind or somehow not do the right things in performing this transsubstantiation, and, as a result, the transformation does’t take place? How would anyone really know the difference? That seems like a problem to me.

It’s actually very hard to do it so wrong that the Eucharist is not confected. The priest’s frame of mind is not an issue. Regardless of his frame of mind, whether he is in mortal sin, or distracted, or even doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, that would not make the Eucharist invalid. Basically if he is ordained, and isn’t playacting, and says the two crucial phrases in the Eucharistic Prayer, the Eucharist is valid. I’m oversimplifying, but not by a lot. I know the priests at my church are ordained, because they were put there by the bishop, who has records of that sort of thing. I can hear if the priest doesn’t say the crucial words, so that’s OK. It’s true that I don’t absolutely know that the priest isn’t purposely pretending, but I’ll trust God for the grace I need, given that I’ve done all I can.

To carry the issue one step further, suppose Bogart’s character performed baptism? The infant, of course, then will not have been cleansed of original sin (as I understand the doctine). So under such circumstances, many tears later when the unbaptised individual dies, is he doomed to remain in limbo notwithstanding an exemplary and faithful life as a catholic?

Actually, that’s just wrong. Anyone can perform a baptism, even a non-Christian, as long as they use water and use the Trinitarian form of words.

There is also baptism of desire, which means something along the lines of, “this person wasn’t baptized, through no fault of his or her own, and wanted to be baptized.” So even aside from the fact that the baby would actually have been baptized, it would be OK.

–Jen

 

[Julia_Mae]

Stated another way, does it bother anyone that a priest might make a mistake or be in the wrong frame of mind or somehow not do the right things in performing this transsubstantiation, and, as a result, the transformation does’t take place?

But it still does. See, God is real. He does as He does in spite of us, not because of us.

Not a bit bothered by molecular level analysis. You bothered by quantum level non-locality?

 

[sllhouette]

I frankly fail to see how the molecular and atomic composition of bread can be said to be the molecular and atomic substance of flesh.

Whoa… wait a second there. Read that again. Then go eat a sandwich.

 

[tabycat]

Whoa… wait a second there. Read that again. Then go eat a sandwich.

Is he saying what I think he’s saying or, maybe he iposting it the wrong way?
By the way, don’t make that a meat sandwich!

Hopefilly it is the second one.

 

[atheistgirl]

But it still does. See, God is real. He does as He does in spite of us, not because of us.

Is it the intention of the priest then, that matters, and not the words?

I was under the impression a certain formula had to be followed.

Sarah x

 

[TimothyH]

I frankly fail to see how the molecular and atomic composition of bread can be said to be the molecular and atomic substance of flesh. I realize that the doctrine is based on a rationale arising from philosophical principles ultimately tracted to Plato (perhaps, best memorialized in his allegory of shadows on the cave wall).

The atoms themselves would have the appearance of whatever atoms make up bread and wine, not flesh and blood. The Catholic Church does not teach that there is a change at the atomic level.

The doctrine of has a basis in Old Testament scripture.

God made the universe out of nothing and can make matter appear and disappear at will. He was able to overcome the physical properties of matter and thereby step outside of the boundaries of nature when he walked on water. An entire river turned from water to blood in the Old Testament.

For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place. For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land. Fire in water maintained its own strength, and water forgot its quenching nature; Flames, by contrast, neither consumed the flesh of the perishable animals that went about in them, nor melted the icelike, quick-melting kind of ambrosial food. (Wisdom 19:18-21)

That matter can be made to change properies, change substance, and behave in ways which are contrary to its nature is not without precedent in the Old Testament scriptures.

-Tim-

 

[WillP]

The atoms themselves would have the appearance of whatever atoms make up bread and wine, not flesh and blood. The Catholic Church does not teach that there is a change at the atomic level.

The doctrine of has a basis in Old Testament scripture.

God made the universe out of nothing and can make matter appear and disappear at will. He was able to overcome the physical properties of matter and thereby step outside of the boundaries of nature when he walked on water. An entire river turned from water to blood in the Old Testament.

For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place. For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land. Fire in water maintained its own strength, and water forgot its quenching nature; Flames, by contrast, neither consumed the flesh of the perishable animals that went about in them, nor melted the icelike, quick-melting kind of ambrosial food. (Wisdom 19:18-21)

That matter can be made to change properies, change substance, and behave in ways which are contrary to its nature is not without precedent in the Old Testament scriptures.

-Tim-

i honestly don’t think you have answered the question. For example, one might make the statement that a circle is a square. However, it is a nonsensical statement because, by its very definition, squares are not circles.I would also hope that you would agree that the statement" a circle is a square" cannot be rationally justified by saying that the shape of the circle is only an accidental feature.

Accordingly, if you say that this combination of atoms (bread) is, in fact, a different combination of atoms (flesh of a particular person), aren’t you creating the same problem?After all, by definition, bread has “X” combination of atoms while human flesh has “Y” combination. Definitionally, it must mean something different to be wine as oppossed to human DNA.

Please allow me to say this one thing further, and, in doing so, please recognize that I ido not ntend to be offensive, but, truly the doctrine of transsubstantiation makes no sense to me. I am certainly aware that Platonic and Aristolelian concepts (as later amplified by Thomas) play heavily in the Church’s rationale behind this doctrine, but, the doctrine certainly must be evaluated within the context of 20th and 21st century science, and, when seen in that context, doesn’t the doctrine lend itself to valid criticism as being tautological in nature by maintaining that what, in one instant, was the specific combination of atoms by which wine is comprised, and, in the next instant, it becomes the specific combination of atoms which comprises the same DNA content as Christ? In effect, are you not saying that “a square” is not a square; rather it is “a circle”. Please tell me what I am missing?

 

[fred_conty]

I frankly fail to see how the molecular and atomic composition of bread can be said to be the molecular and atomic substance of flesh. I realize that the doctrine is based on a rationale arising from philosophical principles ultimately tracted to Plato (perhaps, best memorialized in his allegory of shadows on the cave wall).

Nonetheless, doesn’t this belief cause some problems. By way of example, and, to engage in something of a thought experiment, I recall an old Bogart flick where Bogart’s character was pretending to be a priest in order to hide out from someone or some group. Presumably, this fake priest said mass and distributed communion. Would anyone notice that they weren’t receiving the transubstantiated version? I suspect there would not be any detection of the difference. How then can you be certain that much of the grace you sense when you receive communion is not the product of your own imagination.

Stated another way, does it bother anyone that a priest might make a mistake or be in the wrong frame of mind or somehow not do the right things in performing this transsubstantiation, and, as a result, the transformation does’t take place? How would anyone really know the difference? That seems like a problem to me.

To carry the issue one step further, suppose Bogart’s character performed baptism? The infant, of course, then will not have been cleansed of original sin (as I understand the doctine). So under such circumstances, many tears later when the unbaptised individual dies, is he doomed to remain in limbo notwithstanding an exemplary and faithful life as a catholic?

You mentioned Bogart pretending to be a priest and offering a Mass. You were asking if the bread he used was changed, and it was not changed because only a priest can make the change happen. So the people received plain bread. By the way, I loved that movie.

But that dosen’t necessarily mean that the people didn’t benefit from receiving the bread which they thought was the real body of Jesus. This is because God looks at the heart.
If they thought this was his real body and prayed and loved him as such, they would receive goodness from Jesus according to their love for him. This is called a spiritual communion.

And we are encouraged to make a spiritual communion if we cannot go and receive real Communion. And the way to do that is “Please come into my heart sweet Jesus, and make your presence and goodness known to me in my soul.” And then the person makes acts of faith, hope, love,thanksgiving,praise, and so on, to him for a few moments to him who they invited into their interior home.

There is another aspect to this as well. If a priest were teaching a class, and he was demonstrating how the priest changes the bread into the body, and took bread into his hands,
and then said the words of the change into the body, but did not intend to actually make the change in his mind, because he was merely teaching, then it remains bread.

However, a priest becomes a priest in order to do this very thing, so the chances of one with holding his intention at Mass to make the change would be very remote.

You also asked could he make a mistake? I don’t know of any. The change is very simple, and so are the words.

Could he be in the wrong frame of mind? This is a good question because this brings up what a sacrament requires to be good. All 7 sacraments require the right intention, which we discussed above. It requires the right words. It requires a priest, except Baptism in emergencies. And it requires things necessary for the sacrament, such as water in Baptism.
Nothing else is required. So a wrong frame of mind does not interfere with the sacrament, unless it is intent which was previously explained. Also the condition of his soul or his body is not required, or how he feels that day, or sickness, or any other thing.

You asked if Bogart baptised someone, what might take place. In the case of baptism, it would depend on what his intention was. A priest or deacon is the normal person to administer baptism. But anyone with the right intention, right words, and water, can perform baptism.
However the way Bogart portrayed the priest in this movie, I would have strong doubts about how good his baptism would be.

So what would happen to the child if it died without baptism? That has been discussed in so many other threads, that I would recommend that you do a search here on “children not baptised” or something similiar. For this is really a another complete topic.

Hope you understand and have a great day.

 

[JDaniel]

I frankly fail to see how the molecular and atomic composition of bread can be said to be the molecular and atomic substance of flesh. I realize that the doctrine is based on a rationale arising from philosophical principles ultimately tracted to Plato (perhaps, best memorialized in his allegory of shadows on the cave wall).

Nonetheless, doesn’t this belief cause some problems. By way of example, and, to engage in something of a thought experiment, I recall an old Bogart flick where Bogart’s character was pretending to be a priest in order to hide out from someone or some group. Presumably, this fake priest said mass and distributed communion. Would anyone notice that they weren’t receiving the transubstantiated version? I suspect there would not be any detection of the difference. How then can you be certain that much of the grace you sense when you receive communion is not the product of your own imagination.

Stated another way, does it bother anyone that a priest might make a mistake or be in the wrong frame of mind or somehow not do the right things in performing this transsubstantiation, and, as a result, the transformation does’t take place? How would anyone really know the difference? That seems like a problem to me.

To carry the issue one step further, suppose Bogart’s character performed baptism? The infant, of course, then will not have been cleansed of original sin (as I understand the doctine). So under such circumstances, many tears later when the unbaptised individual dies, is he doomed to remain in limbo notwithstanding an exemplary and faithful life as a catholic?

Will:

You are probably looking at from a high school chemistry class perspective. I remember seeing graphics of atoms, when in high school and college, with a large nucleus at the center, and some nearby rings, each containing an electron. Of course, we were told that the electron ring was a mere depiction as the electron(s) might be anywhere in that “shell.” Now we know that the average electron shell is 50,000 times larger than the entire nucleus. Further, we know that the electron is a “point particle.” Do we know what a “point particle” is?

In case some don’t, it’s a “point.” Now, a “point” is an exigency without dimension. A line consists of points, for example, but no point is representative of a line. Nor can a point be added to it to provide dimension. Only a very small line segment is representative of a line. Likewise, a “point particle” is dimensionless. You can try to “stack” them, but you will soon find that even stacking them will not produce dimension. Stack them as high as you wish, place the pile right next to a single “point particle” and you will notice something odd. You won’t be able to tell them apart!

Now, an atom’s nucleus consists of protons and neutrons. These consist of fermions and bosons. which are themselves - you guessed it: “point particles.” Let’s take a look at a hydrogen atom. It consists of a single proton and a single electron - two point particles. And, the electron’s shell is 50,000 times larger (?) than that proton nucleus. They say a hydrogen atom has “mass,” though. It is said to be 1.00794 amu. Thus, dimensionless point particles plus a relatively huge amounts of nothingness, I guess, can have mass (not a religious service). But, from where? Well, you can play around with that question.

One interesting theory is that there are two different kinds of space - the component within the outermost orbit of the electron, if we can still call it an “orbit,” and the atom’s nucleus. It is also the component in between protons and neutrons and between the electrons of a molecule, and in outer space, where it separates the soup. Let’s call the two kinds of space discrete and continuous. It is the theory of a far smarter person than me, that what we experience is discrete space at the explicate level, and what God, if you will, functions at is continuous or, infinite, space at the implicate level. Science really has no idea what the stuff is. But, we know that there is nothing there that might impede an electron’s ability to move around within that shell freely - except when in the presence of a field. Also, it has been written, that God is within all things.

In any event, what are we to make of this? Take it a step further, and we realize that perhaps what we are “seeing” and what scientists are experiencing are configurations of space points (we’ll call them s-points) that form space frames (we’ll call s-frames). Well now, continuous space, aka, infinite space, might just consist of a lattice of s-frames and s-points, just as we’ve seen depicted in the WMAP graphics. If that’s the case, then material things are probably nothing more than various configurations of s-frames of s-points. This means that, at the fundamental level, all things consist of the same rather limited menu of stuff in differing configurations.

That said, then, it is only the difference of the configurations of the same stuff of discrete space, that, at the explicate level, appears to us as bread or body. Notice, I said “appears to us.”

If we could see the universe as God might, in my opinion, what we would probably see is an infinite lattice with trillions of little bumps, located in a finite space. These non-descript little bumps are material things. So, at the level that God works, it would not be arduous for bread and body to be the same - except in appearance, at the level of discrete space, i.e., the explicate level.

And that’s an explanation of it from a quasi-scientific point of view. You’re welcome to prove it wrong.

God bless,
jd