Is his body actually bread

  • Thread starter Thread starter truth5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

truth5

Guest
I have needed clarification on this for some time do catholics actually believe that in mass the bread is Jesus’ or is it a metaphor
 
Last edited:
40.png
Literal or symbolic? Partaking of the flesh and blood Sacred Scripture
Jesus calls himself the Gate and the Shepherd in other parables. What makes him not those things is that he later explains himself to the disciples, saying ‘this parable means xyz’ In the Bread of Life discourse, he does not do this. In fact, he doubles down- Many of his followers leave him. If it was just a symbol, Jesus can say as such! He does not- He instead reiterates what he said to the disciples.
Click to expand...
 
The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at the Mass, yes.

Baltimore Catechism:
When Our Lord said, “This is My body,” the entire substance of the bread was changed into His body; and when He said, “This is My blood,” the entire substance of the wine was changed into His blood.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if the topic title was a mistake, but Jesus’ body is not made of bread; rather, in the Eucharist (i.e. after the consecration) is present the body of Jesus while the accidents (appearances) of bread remain.

Interestingly, St. Thomas Aquinas actually answers this question (is the body of Christ made of bread?):
Since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above, some of these expressions may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that “bread is the body of Christ,” or, “bread will be the body of Christ,” or “the body of Christ is made of bread”; provided that by the word “bread” is not understood the substance of bread, but in general “that which is contained under the species of bread,” under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Why do people keep bringing up this “miracle”? Is this the sort of parlour trick we are using as evidence?
 
What do you mean, parlor trick? It’s been thoroughly studied and vetted by multiple scientists
 
It is true that (ordinarily, in the absence of a miracle), the host would appear to be bread. The accidents (what we can sense, by looking, touching, etc.) do not change; the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is that it is a change in substance (what it is in essence), not in accidents. Scientific testing would have nothing to say as to the substance of the consecrated host, as the substance of an object is not outwardly perceivable.

St. Thomas Aquinas on “whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the change?”:
It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord’s body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
Click to expand...
But, if somebody were to ask me as a Catholic whether we believe that the bread and wine at Mass become the body and blood of Christ, I would certainly answer yes.
 
Last edited:
Faith is faith. If the Lord does not return sooner, in 10,000 years people will still be reading the Bible and will still be reading Jesus’ words “… this is my body …”

It’s not only the words but it’s the words in the context of scripture along with the tradition of the Church. Under non-Catholic religions, I just started a thread on an Easy Primer on Judaism. You can read there how Judaism also relies on tradition, and in fact the Jewish scriptures cannot be understood without an oral tradition. That’s the point ! The New Testament requires the oral Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Only 5% of the universe is visible to science, science cannot even find the rest, but it “believes” there’s a lot more out there. Science is built on secular faith. The faith of science is in itself. But, religious faith is metaphysical, from the first verse of the Bible. For those who have the gift of religious faith, scientific proof is not required.

Even if the substance of bread remains unchanged physically, it has changed metaphysically such that a person is in immediate contact with the Divine. “We walk by faith not by sight.”

Science cannot understand a lot of things like love, hate, loyalty, betrayal, humor. Science is important but it will not never understand “everything.” The well known Neil Degrasse-Tyson wrote (in a AAA membership magazine of all places) that science can solve all problems, even if science created the problems in the first place. WADR that’s a pretty boastful claim; what, does he claim that science “solved” WWII?
 
Last edited:
truth5 said:
Is this despite all scientific proof that it is not his body
Click to expand...
Though there isn’t a molecular change, it’s still his body.
So it’s not his body but it is 🙂

To an outsider I say just take it as a very strong metaphor that Catholics won’t admit is a metaphor.
The divine presence can’t be scientificaly measured.
 
Last edited:
There is much to learn, begin with the Catechism section on the Eucharist:

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#1324
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
truth5:
Is this despite all scientific proof that it is not his body
Click to expand...
Though there isn’t a molecular change, it’s still his body.
So it’s not his body but it is 🙂

To an outsider I say just take it as a very strong metaphor that Catholics won’t admit is a metaphor.
Click to expand...
I’ll just say, massive numbers of Catholics don’t / didn’t come to faith nor accept martyrdom, for a myth or metaphor.
40.png
Theo520:
The divine presence can’t be scientificaly measured.
Click to expand...
Yet

scientifically speaking
  1. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead having been dead and in the tomb for 3 days. Haven’t seen science do anything close to that.
  2. Jesus was dead for 3 days, and in the tomb, and rose from the dead just as He said He would
🤔
Science has to take a back seat here 😎
 
@steve-b,
Please link to the scientific evidence the OP is asking for.
 
There is science and there is junk science, and there is ignorance to of the Catholic faith - the Church indisputably founded by Christ for your salvation.
  1. You agreed to respect the faith. Kindly ask, rather than tell, OK?
  2. Our Lord is sacramentally present. It is not meat and blood, as many ill-informed fundamentalists and evangelicals have recently made up.
  3. It is both a Sacrament, converying the life, the grace that is in Christ’s Body and Blood, but also a sign of that which it signifies. Either/or is a false argument.
  4. Jesus said it was His Body and Blood. You don’t believe that? Problem 1.0
  5. You eat bread. Your body converts that into flesh and blood. Are you claiming that Christ cannot do the same? Even when He clearly and specifically states it? Problem 2.0
  6. The Eucharist has been celebrated for 2,000 years. Your peculiar belief popped up out of nowhere a couple hundred years ago. Problem 3.0
  7. You are claiming, incredibly, that 1.5 billion living Catholic and Orthodox Christians are all 100% wrong and that YOU and YOUR opinion, YOU and YOUR 91% censored bible are 100% correct. Now, I may be very stupid, but please explain how that is not pride and/or arrogance.
  8. You have been horribly mislead by well-meaning but absolutely wrong teachers.
  9. So many of us, myself included, have chosen the Catholic Church. From plumbers to PhDs, those who seek the truth rather than validation of their personal opinion will find that truth in the Catholic Church.
I admire your faith and your zeal. Both are very commendable in a Christian. It is what you have been taught that is causing all of YOUR difficulties.
 
steve-b said:
The OP asked if Catholics believe the bread at mass is Jesus or a metaphor

So I provided the following
Click to expand...
Thanks, I had missed your links.

The metaphor of God’s spirit is part of everything could explain the bible quote. Your link didn’t include a wit of comment explaining how the bread becomes his actual body, but doesn’t have any apparent physical change, which is the question I heard.

The other two links also sidestepped answering the question on physical chang IMHO. I read a spiritual change that has no physical manifestation.

I also disagree with calling in “merely figurative” or a “Mere Symbol”. I’d say it was profoundly figurative, or profoundly symbolic.

I tend to think the martyrs did it for God, not for how someone perceives a piece of bread.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
steve-b:
The OP asked if Catholics believe the bread at mass is Jesus or a metaphor

So I provided the following
Click to expand...
Thanks, I had missed your links.

The metaphor of God is part of everything could explain the bible quote. Your link didn’t include a wit of comment explaining how the bread becomes his actual body, but doesn’t have any apparent physical change, which is the question I heard.
Click to expand...
When Jesus said to His apostles Do this ποιεῖτε (open the link) Do WHAT? They are to Do what Jesus just did. Change bread and wine into His body and blood. And here is where Jesus gave THEM the authority and power to do that. Not on their own but Jesus doing this in THEM
40.png
Theo520:
The other two links also sidestepped answering the question on physical chang IMHO. I read a spiritual change that has no physical manifestation.

I also disagree with calling in “merely figurative” or a “Mere Symbol”. I’d say it was profoundly figurative, or profoundly symbolic.
Click to expand...
There is No mistaking what the Church teaches here.

Canons on the Eucharist from Trent

See all the anathemas for thinking and believing error not truth, in particular the first 4 canons
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top