Is the consecrated host still made of wheat?

[DarkLight]

Just wondering, once transubstantiation has occurred, is the host still made out of wheat? It would seem odd to say it was made out of muscle/fat/etc. I’m not sure I see any in principle reason why it would be wrong to say so, as long as it was maintained that the wheat now composes the body of Christ rather than composing bread.

 

[fatherandrew]

To use the analogy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, “the substance” of the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood changes but “the accidents” remain. That is to say that the Host and the Wine become the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus during the Mass.

The appearance of bread and wine remain…the taste, flavor, principle of wheat and wine remain in the Consecrated Host and Precious Blood.

So in answer to your question the principles of wheat and wine (the “accidents” in philosophical terms) remain.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have made allowances for those who are allergic to wheat to receive gluten free hosts that are available from special distributors (we order ours from Canada) that can be used and consecrated at Mass in a separate ciborium so as to avoid cross contamination. Many people are severely allergic to gluten (wheat) and would not be able to receive the wheat Host at Mass. This special indult allows these people to receive the gluten free Host at Mass on Sundays or weekdays.

 

[DarkLight]

I’m not entirely sure what the “principle of wheat” refers to.

Then again, I don’t really think the substance idea is a particularly fruitful philosophical concept. Too many composition issues. Technically I think terms like “bread” are essentially convenient shorthands for certain collections of stuff we find it useful to have specific terms for - but there’s no real metaphysical distinction between the lump of matter we call “bread” and the result of a cooking mishap that we refer to as “that lump of stuff”. “Bread” refers to a certain arrangement of atoms and molecules that form some stuff we like to eat and derive certain nutritional benefits from.

 

[JM3]

CCC 1375…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.203

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

 

[DarkLight]

CCC 1375…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.203

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

I have absolutely no idea how any of this has any relation to what I actually asked.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Just wondering, once transubstantiation has occurred, is the host still made out of wheat? It would seem odd to say it was made out of muscle/fat/etc. I’m not sure I see any in principle reason why it would be wrong to say so, as long as it was maintained that the wheat now composes the body of Christ rather than composing bread.

Right, the physical properties of the bread remain. Then I think the above applies with the substance no longer remaining thus the real presence.

 

[DarkLight]

Right, the physical properties of the bread remain. Then I think the above applies with the substance no longer remaining thus the real presence.

“Substance” is still not a very helpful term for more than extremely general explanations, unless you happen to subscribe to a very specific aristotelian view on metaphysics. Which is not something the church has declared - indeed it is not within the realm of what the church considers itself to be declaring.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Substance” is still not a very helpful term for more than extremely general explanations, unless you happen to subscribe to a very specific aristotelian view on metaphysics. Which is not something the church has declared - indeed it is not within the realm of what the church considers itself to be declaring.

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_023.htm

“The term transubstantiation is taken from the Latin words trans (change) and substantia (substance). This term was incorporated into the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. However, its antiquity goes back to the early Greek Fathers of the Church who used the word meta-ousiosis. Literally, this means change of one ousia or being—that of bread and wine—into another ousia or being, that of Christ’s living body and blood.”

 

[DarkLight]

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_023.htm

Still not helpful. To accept the substance explanation (something not dogmatically declared) would be to take the church to be declaring not only about the nature of the consecration, but a very substantial metaphysical thesis about everyday objects. The idea that everyday objects have a “substance”, while fairly widely accepted in the period in which Aquinas was writing, is a hotly debated and more commonly than not rejected hypothesis today. Nor does the church hold herself out to be declaring such things - things that are not about faith or morals but merely the nature of everyday items.

Please understand I mean no rejection of the Real Presence or the church’s authority in this matter. It is simply my best understanding that when I pick up a piece of bread to make myself a sandwich, she has no desire to make any declaration about the nature of what I hold in my hands. But the explanation proffered here does presume such a thing - for there is nothing metaphysically special about bread as opposed to tables or shirts or any other everyday item.

I reiterate, while the substance explanation is simple enough for a basic declaration, it is hardly enough for any sort of serious metaphysical questions, unless one is willing to take the entire aristotelian metaphysics on board as it concerns all the various objects we encounter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well I’m very sorry I couldn’t be more helpful to you, you received your answer to question one, your were obviously wrong about substance, no? And you have more questions to satisfy your interest. I will allow someone else to help you, thanks.

 

[DarkLight]

Well I’m very sorry I couldn’t be more helpful to you, you received your answer to question one, your were obviously wrong about substance, no? And you have more questions to satisfy your interest. I will allow someone else to help you, thanks.

I still don’t see how I’m wrong on substance. I’m honestly not sure how any of what you said answered what I asked. We know the church only pronounces dogmatically on matters of faith and morals - therefore her use of substance cannot be taken to be advancing a thesis on the nature of bread. It seems still that we could not say the host is made of proteins and fats and whatnot, for the same reason it would be nonsensical to ask which part of Jesus’s body it is made from. Nor is there any reason in principle that a human body could not be composed of flour and other such things, while still remaining a human body.

 

[JM3]

I have absolutely no idea how any of this has any relation to what I actually asked.

You asked,

once transubstantiation has occurred, is the host still made out of wheat?

The answer to your question is found in the CCC. Is the Host still made out of wheat? No.

CCC 1375…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.203

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . “Bread” refers to a certain arrangement of atoms and molecules that form some stuff we like to eat and derive certain nutritional benefits from.

There is a huge difference in how you and I conceptualize reality.
For me, bread does not refer to just a certain arrangement of particles.
When I assert this it isn’t from some airy-fairy philosophical notions, but from the basic day to day living that you seem to acknowledge above.

God created and maintains the physical universe, so it is His Word that is the ultimate reality.
Jesus said “This is my body.” That makes it His body.
However, else your senses, their extensions in the form of scientific instruments and your world view puts it together, His statement makes it so.

You are overthinking the matter, using the concepts that you’ve been taught in science class.
You won’t get far that way in areas that don’t have to do with science. And, most of life has little to do with science.
Treat your love-interest as a collection of molecules and see where that gets you.
You will have to broaden your understanding, otherwise it will all seem absurd.

That’s my answer. Hopefully, it helps.

 

[DarkLight]

There is a huge difference in how you and I conceptualize reality.
For me, bread does not refer to just a certain arrangement of particles.
When I assert this it isn’t from some airy-fairy philosophical notions, but from the basic day to day living that you seem to acknowledge above.

God created and maintains the physical universe, so it is His Word that is the ultimate reality.
Jesus said “This is my body.” That makes it His body.
However, else your senses, their extensions in the form of scientific instruments and your world view puts it together, His statement makes it so.

You are overthinking the matter, using the concepts that you’ve been taught in science class.
You won’t get far that way in areas that don’t have to do with science. And, most of life has little to do with science.
Treat your love-interest as a collection of molecules and see where that gets you.
You will have to broaden your understanding, otherwise it will all seem absurd.

That’s my answer. Hopefully, it helps.

Nothing to do with science and everything to do with a philosophy degree - which actually does happen to be my job. And you’re the one who assumed what I said about inanimate objects applies to people - it doesn’t. I simply disbelieve there is some “airy-fairy philosophical notion” that makes bread different from any of the many collections of matter that we have no name for. Nor am I stating a view that is uncommon among Christian, or even among faithful Catholic, philosophers. Philosophy moves on from Aristotle after all - I think with a little study you would find the substance notion as difficult to coherently maintain as what I put forward. What looks simple is not always; I reject the idea that things like bread have substance because after study I find it more complicated and less in line with everyday reality than other views.

I have said repeatedly that I fully agree that it is His Body. What I am asking about is how we should treat the composition of that. I believe that I am made of fats and proteins and water and yet what I am is not any of those things - and it would be possible for me to be made of entirely different things and still be me. Maybe not possible under the laws of physics, but still quite possible. As such I can ask what the Host is “made of” while still acknowledging it to be Christ’s Body, because His Body could be composed of many different things.

I am not denying that it is not bread or that it is Christ’s Body. I am merely asking what that Body is composed of, since there is no necessity that a body be composed of what it commonly is. So far no one has actually answered that question, instead pointing me to other things that answer a different question than what I asked.

 

[DarkLight]

A clarificatory note: I believe that it would be possible for God to change things so that my body was composed entirely out of wheat, and that I would not thereby cease to be me. I presume that during Christ’s life the same was true for Him - he could have been changed miraculously to have been composed of some other substance than what human bodies are normally composed of, while still being fully man and fully God. So it is with those in mind that I ask whether it is possible to say that the host is still composed out of wheat - since I do not thereby preclude that its essence is that of Christ’s Body.

 

[alicesirvin]

hi guys