Forms of Christ's presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atreyu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Atreyu

Guest
If you have some time and a strong stomach, have a read of this. I was first directed to this site by a post on a Protestant MB. I must confess that my first reading of this article made me lose my temper, and I responded with “what a load of ****” [this particular MB was not censored]. Anyway, after I’d made my apologies, the OP made this post:
I understand transubstantiation. A chemical analysis of the bread proves nothing changes. It is a lie – therefore easy to understand.
Click to expand...
to which I responded with
A chemical analysis of two or three who come together in Christ’s name show that there is no change in the chemicals of the two or three Christians and therefore Christ is not present.
Click to expand...
This was of course a reference to Matthew 18:20. Have I used a good argument here? I’m just wondering because I haven’t seen this particular argument used before. Any thoughts?
 
40.png
Atreyu:
If you have some time and a strong stomach, have a read of this. I was first directed to this site by a post on a Protestant MB. I must confess that my first reading of this article made me lose my temper, and I responded with “what a load of ****” [this particular MB was not censored]. Anyway, after I’d made my apologies, the OP made this post:
to which I responded withThis was of course a reference to Matthew 18:20. Have I used a good argument here? I’m just wondering because I haven’t seen this particular argument used before. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Hi Cats
‘‘Wow’’ this is adifferent angle. I must say that as a Prot the only thing that I question about my faith is the Eucharist. I’m not saying that this has made up my mind but it sure makes me think. I guess it does pose a question to Catholics, if You were to mix a poison in the bread before your priest blessed it and it were changed into the actual body of Christ, would you still take Communion?.
Thanks.
 
40.png
NonDenom:
Hi Cats
‘‘Wow’’ this is adifferent angle. I must say that as a Prot the only thing that I question about my faith is the Eucharist. I’m not saying that this has made up my mind but it sure makes me think. I guess it does pose a question to Catholics, if You were to mix a poison in the bread before your priest blessed it and it were changed into the actual body of Christ, would you still take Communion?.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
The simple answer is no – but only because it is not proper matter for the Eucharist. Therefore, it would not become the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Deacon Ed
 
There is a lot of Biblical reference for transubstantiation, but I don’t think that is your point. To me, my faith in the Church teaching and Bible makes it truth (“This IS my body” not “This reminds you of my body” or “This is LIKE my body”), so then are you saying that if Jesus came down here and spoke to you and said “This IS my body and blood, but to you a human being it does not look like it or hold any of the physical characteristics of it”, do you know enough to say that’s wrong?

Remember the story of Thomas? “Blessed are those that do not see yet believe.”
 
If you’re looking for the scriptural references to the Eucharist, this is an excellent post. I read this prior to my return to the Church and just cried.

Having been strongly influenced by a Protestant church in my 20’s, it was nothing short of a miracle for me to read this and understand and believe.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=40172

Hope it helps.
 
I think the comparison is fine. When two or three meet in His name, He is present, even if there is no physical evidence of His presence. He is present in the Eucharist, even if there is no physical evidence.

A satanic priest can tell the difference between a consecrated host and an unconsecrated host. If Christ were not present in it, that would not be possible.
 
So is the wheat or the gluten considered part of the accidents of the bread?
 
The only proper ingredients for Eucharistic hosts are wheat flour plus water. Adding poison would make it invalid matter! No transubstantiation could occur.

In any case, the change of substance effected by transubstantiation means that the accidents (appearances) of bread and wine remain. Accidents / appearances are all that is perceptible to our senses or to any scientific instrument. There is no way to physically verify transubstantiation— any more than there was at the Last Supper.
 
Over and above all the discussion given the OP of the other MB just doesn’t understand the word Substance. An education of that might be benificial.
 
Yes, many people have the idea that transubstantiation means that the chemical makeup of the ingredients of the bread and wine will change. That simply is not the case. The chemical makeup of of anything comprises part of what is perceptible to our senses. And what is perceptible to the senses is “appearances.”

Substance is the underlying reality of what something is.

Normally, appearances correspond to substance, because otherwise we could know nothing of reality. And God so arranges it that appearances correspond to substance.

But in the sole case of the Eucharist, he suspends those rules. The underlying substance changes. Appearances remain. And not only remain, but do not inhere in any substance. Underneath the remaining appearances, is the body and blood of our Lord.
 
Thanks everyone, for replying. I originally had this in the Non-Catholics forum and didn’t get a response. Thanks Joe, for moving it for me 🙂
40.png
mosher:
Over and above all the discussion given the OP of the other MB just doesn’t understand the word Substance. An education of that might be benificial.
Click to expand...
Yeah I would attempt to explain it to him, but unfortunately I was banned from the website. It’s only for a week, but I’m not sure I will post there again once the ban is over. After being called a heretic and a Mary worshipper, I’m not sure my stomach is up for it…
 
40.png
mosher:
Over and above all the discussion given the OP of the other MB just doesn’t understand the word Substance. An education of that might be benificial.
Click to expand...
So the gluten problem should remain even though it has become the Body and Blood of Jesus? I suppose I’m just misunderstanding the accidents/substance argument. I was thinking that if the gluten was an essential part of the bread, it would have to go… but… I’m just so confused. (Sorry, but I don’t need anything to shake my faith now, and if the Real Presence wasn’t real, I’d surely not be able to accept Christianity. :)) I’d appreciate some arguments addressing that problem.

-Rob
 
Yes, the gluten “problem” remains after consecration–if a person is allergic or reactive to gluten. Because the physical properties of gluten are part of the accidents of bread. And those accidents remain.

There is no way you can physically connect with the substance of anything. You can only perceive accidents–appearances–which are perceptible to your senses. And whatever is perceptible to the senses is the accidents / appearances. Those remain after the consecration, even though there is no substance of bread in which those accidents may inhere.
 
40.png
RobNY:
So the gluten problem should remain even though it has become the Body and Blood of Jesus? I suppose I’m just misunderstanding the accidents/substance argument. I was thinking that if the gluten was an essential part of the bread, it would have to go… but… I’m just so confused. (Sorry, but I don’t need anything to shake my faith now, and if the Real Presence wasn’t real, I’d surely not be able to accept Christianity. :)) I’d appreciate some arguments addressing that problem.

-Rob
Click to expand...
As JimG said … to understand what you are asking about all you need know is that in this world all things that are percievable to our senses are the accidents. So, that means that all physical properties are part of the accidents of the substance. Accidents in a sense give meaning to the substance to us because we cannot directly know the substance apart from its accidents.
 
And if their tests did actually prove a change, they would just call us cannibals again :cool:

“To those with faith, no miracle is necessary. To those without faith, no miracle is sufficient.”

Or something along those lines
 
The site you gave also says " More recently another term, called “accidents” has grown in importance along-side the term “substance”" which seems to totally disregard that Thomas Aquinas covered all this several hundred years before Trent. Basically the person who wrote this just doesn’t understand catholic theology, or the hsitory of it.
 
In regard to the lack of chemical change in the Eucharist…

You might point out that one could take cells from critical (yet still living) person and then take cells from the same person immediately after death. The cells would appear identical and yet clearly there would have been a fundamental change in reality as the human person is no longer present, but merely a corpse. Even though the material seems the same there has been a change in what the “thing” is. The fact is that the animation of a living person is a commonly acknowledged state of reality that is completely “essential” and is not immediately reflected in the “accidents” of the person. This should help to differentiate between “accidents” (what is physically sensible) and “substance” (what something “is”).

Hope this wasn’t too jumbled and confusing…God bless.
 
if god made everything in this world and rose christ from the dead why couldn’t he change bread and wine into the body and blood of his son.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top