I believe in the Eucharist

[Bizob]

Scanner:

When I say I am college educated, it is not to make a prideful statement.

I guess what I am saying is if the Church is going to forward a pivotal beleif for the faithful (and by the judgemental tone of some here, the second poster, I would assume it is pivotal), I guess it should be simple. How can you beleive something when you don’t even understand what it is they are trying to get you to beleive? Especially if they are ministering it to a high school educated person?

You know?

I think I may be grasping it slowly - you are saying it is the body and blood of Christ, that a transmutation has occured at the physical level (like changing lead into gold like alchemists once tried to do) but our senses cannot discern it.

Right?

No, not a transmutation. Transubstantiation. The explanations above were quite good. But the terminology takes a while to get used to. What we’re using is Greek categories to speak of a Divine Mystery.

I think that one could simplify things to this level and have them still be correct. A substance is what a thing “really” is. For instance I am a Human Being (that is, a composite of body and soul). So, substance = Human.

How I was taught to understand accidents in philosophy was that you can change an accident without changing what a thing really is. So you could take my blond hair and make it brown, but I’d still be a human being. Hence hair color, eye color, gender, skin tone, etc, are all “accidents”. Because they could be changed, without altering the “human-ness” of my being.

So when we say that in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the bread and wine are substantially changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, we mean that by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the hands of the Priest they cease to BE bread and wine, while retaining the accidents thereof. That is why it’s said that Christ is “hidden” under the Sacred Species. The substance of “bread” and “wine” is gone, and the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ remain. It has been “transubstantiated”.

The Sacred Species still has the appearance of bread and wine. It still looks tastes, smells, just like bread and wine, but it is NOT. Maybe that helps. Or maybe not.

But as for hard to understand…well, blame Scholastic theology for this one. The Orthodox say “Its not bread and wine, its Jesus. We’re not quite sure how it happenes. And we’re OK with that”

Although, if the thread stays on this theological side, maybe it would be best to move it to “Sacraments” or another appropriate forum.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Scanner:

When I say I am college educated, it is not to make a prideful statement.

Me too. Believe me, I don’t pretend to have all the answers, I only hope I can relate the answers as I understand them from the Church (and if I fail to do so, I welcome correction).
(And I hope I have not come off as being judgemental – It is not my intent and if so I sincerely apologize)

Scanner:

I think I may be grasping it slowly - you are saying it is the body and blood of Christ, that a transmutation has occured at the physical level (like changing lead into gold like alchemists once tried to do) but our senses cannot discern it.

Right?

Something like * that, but still not precisely that. The “muta” part of transmuta*tion still implies a change of form, something we agree does not take place in the confection of the Eucharist. Similarly, it is not (as we agree) a physical, detectable change. It is a metaphysical change. A change of the substance.

But we can stay with the bad analogy for a moment: It is *like * the physical difference between water and hydrogen-and-oxygen. We can break the molecular bonds of water molecules and turn them into hydrogen-and-oxygen and we will still have the same stuff in our hands, but the substance is no longer water – It is the substances of hydrogen and oxygen (it will have the *accidents * of hydrogen and oxygen too). We can do the reverse as well.

This is an example of a substantial change that is also a chemical/physical change. The badness of this analogy is that the transubstation of bread-and-wine into Eucharist is a substantial change that is *not * chemical/physical. It is metaphysical.

 

[Bizob]

tee_eff_em:

But we can stay with the bad analogy for a moment: It is *like *the physical difference between water and hydrogen-and-oxygen. We can break the molecular bonds of water molecules and turn them into hydrogen-and-oxygen and we will still have the same stuff in our hands, but the substance is no longer water – It is the substances of hydrogen and oxygen (it will have the *accidents *of hydrogen and oxygen too). We can do the reverse as well.

This is an example of a substantial change that is also a chemical/physical change. The badness of this analogy is that the transubstation of bread-and-wine into Eucharist is a substantial change that is *not *chemical/physical. It is metaphysical.

This is a bad example. I can’t help but think its confusing things. You can’t take Aristotelian catagories and equate them to modern science. It doesn’t work. Because in your analogy, you don’t have water molecules anymore, its something different.

Not that I’m an expert, but it just seems to me that its only clouding the issue.

 

[tee_eff_em]

To go wa-ay back to Scanner’s original (and not at all inappropriate) question, if I may re-phrase it: “What’s the problem with the 10%?”

10% of Catholics **believe ** that when receiving Holy Communion, they are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus Christ is really and truly present, but in a spiritual way.

The problem can be summed up by the emphasized words above. The 10% believe they are receiving bread and wine. The Church teaches they are receiving Jesus, and that bread and wine have left the building.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Bizob:

This is a bad example. I can’t help but think its confusing things. You can’t take Aristotelian catagories and equate them to modern science. It doesn’t work. Because in your analogy, you don’t have water molecules anymore, its something different.

Not that I’m an expert, but it just seems to me that its only clouding the issue.

[At the risk of hijacking the thread]
Yes, that’s why it is an analogy, not an explanation; and why I admit it is bad.

But I still think it has its place. I thought of it when I thought of what (I’m told) is Church teaching regarding when the Sacred Species cease to be Eucharist. I’m told that when the accidents of bread and wine are no longer discerned, then the substantial presence of Jesus no longer remains. It seems to me that the absenting of the accidents are chemical/physical changes (digestion, dissolution, et cetera), which are also substantial changes.

Our Lord is *not * “molecularly present” in the sacred species. But: When those molecules are transformed, his Eucharistic presence to them ceases.

(Or maybe I am only making things “as clear as mud” )

 

[Bizob]

[At the risk of hijacking the thread]
I’m told that when the accidents of bread and wine are no longer discerned, then the substantial presence of Jesus no longer remains. It seems to me that the absenting of the accidents are chemical/physical changes (digestion, dissolution, et cetera), which are also substantial changes.

Our Lord is *not *“molecularly present” in the sacred species. But: When those molecules are transformed, his Eucharistic presence to them ceases.

This would make sense, as accidents cannot exist by themselves. They must always exist IN a substance.

For instance, Plato would say that my milk participates in the form of “white-ness”. As my teeth, a car, or any number of white things all share in the same form of White.

Aristotle would say that “white-ness” is an accident of the substance milk. You could not have a color, without its attachment to a thing. So without the milk, my teeth, or a car having the accident “white”, white would not exist at all.

So when the accidents are gone, the substance is gone too.

And since St. Thomas was a Christian Aristotelian, there you go.

So. Yeah. Clear as mud

 

[Bizob]

Bottom line, you’re right.

tee_eff_em:

The Church teaches they are receiving Jesus, and that bread and wine have left the building.

tee_eff_em:

…hijacking the thread

On both counts.

 

[JimG]

Bizob:

This would make sense, as accidents cannot exist by themselves. They must always exist IN a substance.

My understanding is that in this one instance–transubstantiation–the accidents do exist by themselves. That is, they do not inhere in any substance.

Let me restate the definition: In the Eucharist, Jesus is present whole and entire, body and blood, soul and divinity, *under the appearances * (accidents) of bread and wine.

“Appearances” as used here means anything that is perceptible to the senses. There is no physical or chemical test which could discern the body of the Lord under the appearances of bread and wine.

“Under” the appearances, means that the accidens of the bread and wine do not inhere in Christs’ body. He does not take on the appearances of bread and wine, but subsists “under” them.

Consequently, when we break the host into two or more pieces, we are not breaking the body of Christ, which remains whole and entire under the appearances of each piece.

The substance of the bread and wine are gone. In what substance, then, do the appearances of the bread and wine inhere? In this one instance, they inhere in no substance.

You might metaphorically say that they act as a hologram; wherever the “appearances” of the bread and wine are (after consecration), there is the body and blood of Christ.

JimG

 

[Scanner]

I’m sorry, I feel we are splitting advanced metaphysical and philosophical hairs and terminology, like trying to discern the difference between Jesus Christ and the Son of God. There may indeed be a difference but to the average Joe Schmoe, they aren’t going to perceive it.

And I don’t get the “accident” thing. An “accident” to me is an event that occurs by chance that is adverse. It shows a lack of intent.

So, if people aren’t going to perceive this advanced understanding and enlightenment you all apparently have (and that’s not meant in sarcasm) and then believe something wrong, then I hope they aren’t held accountable for it.

It’s one thing to obey something but another to beleive, right? I think the one poster essentially says, “Well, I beleive whatever is written in the Catechism. That makes me Catholic.” Well, it’s not that simple. What she is saying is she won’t question what is in the Catechism as right, she’ll defer to it’s authority. And I will too, even if I beleive differently. And that makes her Catholic (and hopefully me).

For me, taking the Eucharist is more than symbolic, it is communing with someone holy, the Lord Jesus Christ. And when something is holy, it always must be handled with appropriate reverence, which I beleive most preists do and most parishioners do. I think somebody brought that up.

I must say most of the descriptions of reality here are making me feel less worthy and wanting to receive the Eucharist. The thought that I am eating the actual transubstantiated (still don’t see the difference between that and transmuted) body of Christ, after the priest has supernaturally transformed it, seems, well, um, I have been avoiding this word for fear of banning/scolding, but cannibalistic.

I beleive Jesus wanted us to commune with him and each other on a regular basis but I don’t think he wanted us to cannibalize him on a ritualistic and regular basis. I could be wrong. Again, I will have to defer to the Church as the authority, even if I beleive differently.

I definitely need to pray on it.

 

[JimG]

Scanner:

I must say most of the descriptions of reality here are making me feel less worthy and wanting to receive the Eucharist. The thought that I am eating the actual transubstantiated (still don’t see the difference between that and transmuted) body of Christ, after the priest has supernaturally transformed it, seems, well, um, I have been avoiding this word for fear of banning/scolding, but cannibalistic.

A friend of mine going through RCIA once said, “I can believe everything the Church teaches, but I have a hard time believing that the little host is a piece of Christ’s body.”

My reply was that we don’t believe that the host is a piece of Christ’s body; we believe that it is the entirety of Christ’s body, the whole Christ.

We believe that if the host is divided, Christ’s body is not. We can subdivide the host into 10 (or more) pieces and each contains the entire Christ. Likewise, when we eat the Eucharistic host, we do not cannibalize Christ: His body is never subdivided.

And I certainly agree with your comment that
“taking the Eucharist is more than symbolic, it is communing with someone holy, the Lord Jesus Christ. And when something is holy, it always must be handled with appropriate reverence, which I beleive most priests do and most parishioners do.”

Amen to that, and there’s no need for metaphysics to get in the way of that basic fact.

JimG

 

[OhioBob]

Scanner:

I beleive Jesus wanted us to commune with him and each other on a regular basis but I don’t think he wanted us to cannibalize him on a ritualistic and regular basis. I could be wrong. Again, I will have to defer to the Church as the authority, even if I beleive differently.

I have been where you are with this issue. I certainly can’t explain it (although some of you on this thread have helped me come a bit closer to understanding the concept) but I believe it.

I cannot explain quantum mechanics, the workings of the human mind or why women buy so many pairs of shoes. But I accept those things without understanding why. In the same way I accept and believe the teachings of the Church even though I might not understand them or be able to explain them. I think you made a similar point as well.

I’m certainly not a theologian nor a philosopher, but I will throw my :twocents: into the fray. I tend to think of the “body and blood” of Christ present in the Eucharist as the “essence” of God’s humanity - the humility of the incarnation of God as fully human in Christ, not necessarily his actual, physical, human flesh and human blood. For me, some of the difficulty with transubstantiation comes from too close a focus on human characteristics and ascribing those to God. We don’t “eat” Christ, but we take a share of Christ’s essense and divinity into ourselves. For humans, that experience is most easily appreciated in the context of a meal.

That is why, I believe, that Christ instituted the Eucharist in the form He did. To provide humans with a tangible means of taking God’s grace into ourselves in a way that we can appreciate with our limited cognitive faculties (as opposed to divine omniscience). Wasn’t Christ smart?

Whether I can understand the undelying metaphysical dimensions of it or not, I appreciate God humbling himself in that fashion so as to take on the form of bread and allow me as a human being to share in divine life in a manner that I can relate to. Allowing me to appreciate the nearness of God without forgetting his transcendence.

I’ve exceeded my “deep thoughts” quotient for today, so I have to rest now.

 

[system]

“Well, I beleive whatever is written in the Catechism. That makes me Catholic.” Well, it’s not that simple. What she is saying is she won’t question what is in the Catechism as right, she’ll defer to it’s authority. And I will too, even if I beleive differently. And that makes her Catholic (and hopefully me).
.

You really had me thinking on this one…I remember back when I had beliefs that were contrary to what is in the catechism, and basically to some fundamental Catholic teachings. But, at the time I did defer to its authority. It didn’t stop me from being Catholic and I sort of figured I must be missing something (told myself they must be right and I must be wrong)…lo and behold, after praying about it frequently, and quite some time later, I’ve dropped my beliefs and have actually come around to believing the Church’s teachings on those issues.

If you really can’t bring yourself around (yet) to believing certain things, than deferring to its authority is the first step, then hopefully, through prayer and faith, one would come to believing them also.

JELane

 

[Bizob]

JimG:
“Under” the appearances, means that the accidens of the bread and wine do not inhere in Christs’ body. He does not take on the appearances of bread and wine, but subsists “under” them.

Philosophically speaking, I’m pretty sure that it’s an impossibility to say that accidents exist on their own. While you might be correct, it just doesn’t sound right to me. Know what I mean? Unfortunately, I’m not an advanced enough student of philosophy to catch the finer distinctions such as this one. Oh well.

But perhaps, quoting the catechism might help. Or at least, give us a solid reference point to keep talking.

**1375 **It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered. 204

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed… Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature. 205
– End Quote

What we have in the Mass is Christ’s real body and real blood. The very same that was broken and shed on the Cross, and the very same that rose from the tomb.

To quote John 6:55,56
"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. "

 

[Bizob]

Scanner:
And I don’t get the “accident” thing. An “accident” to me is an event that occurs by chance that is adverse. It shows a lack of intent.
Just so you know “Accident” is a philosophical term that has no meaning with what we mean when we say accident. As in, a car accident.

But, this issue is one very close to my heart. My belief in the Real Presence is what brought me back home to the church. And is, of course, a major part of my spirituality.

 

[JimG]

Bizob:

Philosophically speaking, I’m pretty sure that it’s an impossibility to say that accidents exist on their own. While you might be correct, it just doesn’t sound right to me.

I know what you mean! From a philosophical standpoint, it seems an impossibility. But then, transubstantiation itself seems an impossibility.

The Catechism addresses the Real Presence in paragraph numbers 1374 through 1377, but doesn’t explain transubstantiation in much detail.

Trying to find more detail on this, I came across the following from an article in the Homiletic & Pastoral Review posted on Catholic Culture.

The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change: we know it only by faith in God’s word.

After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “. . . the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject.” St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God directly sustains the quantity of bread (or wine) in being, and that the other accidents inhere in the quantity. For quantity is the fundamental accident: the others, such as color, exist as quantified—as having extension.
The entire article can be found at: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2578

JimG

 

[karisue]

My answer wasn’t listed; there was no option for YES!! ABSOLUTELY!! WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT!!

So I picked the closest thing to that: “Yes.”

 

[karisue]

T.A.Stobie:

Listen to the Mass on EWTN (shortwave or TV) on any day that has readings concerning the Eucharist, such as the Feast of Christ the King, Holy Thursday, and so on. Solid homilies on the true presence. Many aspects of it well covered.

Thank you God for EWTN. :clapping:

Oh! I must share that this past Lent, a local parish had a “Bible study” about the Passion movie. The last evening, we had a different priest substitute for the then traveling pastor. He got off the track of the guideline’s questions, and preached for about an hour about the Eucharist, Confession, and the beauty of the priesthood. I was crying. It was the most beautiful, passionate talk I had ever heard about the Eucharist and the Sacraments. My husband, a convert, was also moved. I’m sure everyone in the room was. If only it had been recorded! Fr. Dan, wherever you are, God bless you.

Those great priests are out there, but they need our love and encouragement.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

DrCat:

True, but how many Catholics who don’t believe bother to watch (or listen to) Mass on EWTN?

Meanwhile, I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments concerning EWTN.

John

How many Catholics – or people, in general – have even HEARD of EWTN?

I came across it by accident when I was hitting buttons on my remote control and happened to hit 3 buttons – not two – as I did usually.

And of the 3 buttons, the first number that I hit happened to be the first digit of the 3-digit channel number for EWTN on my cable TV company’s lineup.

and… of Catholics… how many even HAVE cable TV, at all?

The Catholics that are in my parish whom I’ve asked if they get EWTN tell me they don’t have cable TV. And if they did, they never heard of EWTN.

It’s not like EWTN televises their channel’s existence anywhere. You just have to KNOW that it exists.

A couple of Catholics I know, once I’ve told them of EWTN’s existence, tell me they can’t afford cable TV, anyway… if they scraped for the bucks to get cable, it would have to be the level of service that the local cable TV company provides that’s along the same level as if you had the bucks to get HBO or SHOWTIME.

Like I said… I found out about EWTN only because I happened to have hit:

3 buttons (which I never do unless I’m keying in the 3 digits for Bravo)…

and the first button was the first digit for EWTN channel.

 

[karisue]

tee_eff_em:

I’ll give my take on the difference.

No. What separates the 10% is that they don’t believe the wafer and wine are transformed – They believe that what they are receiving are bread and wine. The Church teaches us that we are receiving Jesus, even though he *looks like *bread and wine. Does that help?

Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament. This is a tautology (a statement true by necessity) because Jesus is the Blessed Sacrament. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, the Eucharist is Jesus. Jesus can’t be the Eucharist without being *present in *the Eucharist. (That’s the tautology part)

Notice the words I did not use above, *viz *“bread” and “wine” – The Church cannot say “Jesus is present in the bread and wine” because the Church teaches that the bread and wine are no longer present in the Blessed Sacrament. The the Sacred Species still bears the *appearances *of bread and wine, but those substances (bread and wine) are no more, having been changed into the substance of Jesus. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, *appearing *as if bread, *appearing *as if wine, but not *being *those things at all.

(If I have not clearly answered your question, please let me know what I can do to help.
If anyone thinks I have made an error above, I welcome correction.)

So, it sounds like the 10% believe in consubstantiation, and the 30% believe in transubstantiation.

 

[hsmom2four]

Bonnie:

I think the majority of average Catholics do not believe that Christ is the Eucharist, mostly because they haven’t been taught. I base my opinion on what I see (& hear!) at church, especially during Mass.

In some cases, they have been taught incorrectly. When my dd was preparing for First Communion, the DRE said there were 3 requriements of her:

1. Know that the host was “special bread.” (no mention of Jesus or Real Presence)
2. Know that the Mass was our “family meal.” (no mention of the Sacrifice of the Mass)
3. Be of the correct age. (even that can be debatable)

Barf! This was the kind of stuff that was emphasized in their fluffy religion books, too. You gotta teach these kids when they are young. Don’t give me that “they’re too young to understand.” If they are too young, they shouldn’t be receiving Communion. However, I find that most kids by First Communion age (the official age is “around the age of 7;” however, pastors can make exceptions to this) ARE ready and CAN understand the basic theology behind this. Most of this we believe on faith anyways. Didn’t Jesus extoll the faith of children? I know my kids inspire me by their faith all the time. :getholy: