Is his body actually bread

  • Thread starter Thread starter truth5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
truth5 said:
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
Click to expand...
The bread and wine become the actual real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ during the Mass in the Liturgy of the Eucharist
 
But science has proven that at least some of the Eucharist is human flesh. In every Eucharistic miracle in which the host has changed into a physical piece of flesh and had been scientifically examined by independent laboratories have found that they all are human flesh, AB positive blood type, and cardiac tissue. Christ has even given those who reject the Host as the Body and Blood of Christ based upon physical appearances reason to believe, and yet it is simply ignored.
 
CRM_Brother said:
Christ has even given those who reject the Host as the Body and Blood of Christ based upon physical appearances reason to believe, and yet it is simply ignored.
Click to expand...
Yup, right in this thread we have people saying “parlor trick” and “metaphor”. It’s frankly insulting.

I can see why God doesn’t bother doing miracles when people don’t believe them when they happen.
 
It seems like it’s cleared up, but Catholics don’t (and have never) believed that the taste, appearance, texture, or even chemical composition change. Even though all those things stay the same, we believe that it is no longer truly bread but that it is Christ. Christ is fully (and not just spiritually) present in his body, blood, soul, and divinity in each particle. It’s not that Christ’s bicep is over here and his calf over there, or that Christ is broken or harmed or divided during consumption of the Eucharist. It’s simply him. What it appears to be is unchanged, but what it truly is is changed. I’ve heard some scholars say that the glory of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is the same as Christ’s glory will be when he returns at the end times, regardless of what we perceive. He is that physically there in Communion. It’s not just a symbol. It’s not just a spiritual presence. His presence is as real and present and physical in the Eucharist as it was to the disciples he physically appeared to after his resurrection (or before, even, as present as those who walked and talked with him across Galilee and Judea).
 
Last edited:
truth5 said:
Is this despite all scientific proof that it is not his body
Click to expand...
Scientific analysis that shows the Eucharist still has all the properties of bread only serves to confirm that Aquinas was correct in his articulation of transubstantiation. 😉

In all seriousness, though, (except in the case of Eucharistic miracles), any scientific analysis of the Eucharist is going to simply show that it still looks like a piece of bread, even down to the molecular level. That’s really beside the point, though, because Catholics have never argued that the appearance of bread transforms into the appearance of a body. It is the substance of it that changes. And that cannot be measured scientifically.
 
Last edited:
Steve,
I’m not questioning what the church teaches and it’s support in scripture. But the legit sources for the dogma do not actually answer the question as posed by a non-Catholic.

There is scriptural but not scientific evidence of the transformation.
 
If there were scientific evidence, we’d have no need of faith. Christ is asking us to have faith in His words. This is why so many turned away when he didn’t recant or explain his statements as other than what he said in John 6. They wanted what the OP is seeking. Belief because he sees with his eyes rather than faith to believe Christ’s words which he cannot see. This was a stumbling block for the many who had followed Him and walked away. It continues to be so even today.

The Eucharist is NOT a metaphor. The Eucharist is NOT a symbol. The Eucharist NOT a myth. The Eucharist is He whom we seek. The Eucharist is He for whom the martyrs died. It is Christ really and truly present. Our senses will never see, feel, taste, or smell Him there yet HE IS.
 
Last edited:
With one exception, there was no doubt or question about “the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist” until the reformers started attacking the authority of the church and it teachings, some 1400 years after the apostolic era.

There are these Protestant myths that the Church went astray immediately after the ascension of Christ and was teaching error until the Reformers came along. That is without foundation and is merely self-serving to the Protestant beliefs.

The Eucharist is a continuation of the incarnation of Christ. Protestants adhere to the idea of private interpretation of scripture, so they can twist any meaning out of the Bible. Does that sound right? Doesn’t truth get watered down if everyone goes their own way?

I’ve heard it was Martin Luther who asserted "There has always been some tradition about what the Bible means and Luther just started his own tradition. Where does the Bible justify that? To the contrary, St Paul was trying to get the seven churches he wrote to, to all be on the “same page” with the same belief and practice. Protestantism steps over this reality to make up rules for itself.
 
Theo520 said:
Steve,
I’m not questioning what the church teaches and it’s support in scripture. But the legit sources for the dogma do not actually answer the question as posed by a non-Catholic.

There is scriptural but not scientific evidence of the transformation.
Click to expand...
Re: science, and evidence of transformation
  1. Science can’t see, measure, or give evidence for the soul when we are conceived or the absence of the soul when we die, A major transformation…true
  2. Science can’t see, measure, or give evidence for sin on the soul. Another transformation
  3. Science can’t see, measure, or give evidence for heaven or hell. Another transformation coming
  4. Science doesn’t save us. Another transformation.
  5. Science can’t see, measure, or give evidence for baptism transforming us into a new creation
  6. etc etc etc
So HOW and most importantly WHY do we as Catholics even know these are important transformations ergo realities? Surely NOT from science. And let’s face it, science asks us to believe things science can’t prove.

For example

NASA says the universe is 13.7 billion years old +/- 2%

To which I say … REALLY? They measured the entire universe? Yet we use their numbers all the time as “evidence” for that point, because THAT’S what science says.

I’ll just say, the one who transforms the Eucharist, is the same one who spoke in the beginning and all that is came into existence. Without Him there would be no science. There would be nothing to measure. There would be no us.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
There is scriptural but not scientific evidence of the transformation.
Click to expand...
Actually, one of the most recent “bleeding host miracles” had scientific evidence - a blind laboratory test.

But I’m sure that persons without faith would find a reason why that was flawed or explain it away somehow.

Scientific evidence is pretty much useless because even when we get some, people who want to doubt find a basis to doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top