Is this apologetic argument of the Host correct? If not, can you help me?

[MT1926]

Is it like a CA radio show apologist said, that “Jesus could, if He willed, appear in any form He wishes.”

Agreed

I think the best response I ever heard to this question was: “What your God can’t do this”

Matthew 19:26

 

[CB_Catholic]

I thought my argument was a good one. It helps me see how the Eucharist can be Jesus real body just like He said it is.

Does anyone agree with me? Or should I scrap this apologetic argument altogether?

Scrap it altogether. You are dealing with matters of faith, not science. Nothing is impossible with God. It is a mystery which we really cannot explain. Ask your Protestant friends if they believe God is incapable of doing something. Catholics don’t think that God is not able to do anything. If Jesus said it’s His body and blood, then it just is. If they don’t believe it, it is their problem. They don’t believe what God said and deny He is able to change bread and wine into his body and blood. Do not, as (name removed by moderator) said, get hung up on the word “transubstantiation”.

Not all Protestants believe as your friends do. Many, many believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood, but don’t use the word transubstantiation. They just accept the fact that it is, without explanation.

And in the East, it is called a Mystery.

 

[Faith1960]

Agreed

I think the best response I ever heard to this question was: “What your God can’t do this”

Matthew 19:26

So is it safe to say He takes on the FORM of bread and wine when transubstantiation occurs , while the substance changes into His flesh and blood?

 

[CB_Catholic]

So is it safe to say He takes on the FORM of bread and wine when transubstantiation occurs , while the substance changes into His flesh and blood?

I would not say He takes on the form of bread and wine. The substance changes, the appearance does not. It is already in the form of bread and wine, Jesus does not “take” on a different form. He is who He is.

 

[Joe_5859]

The problem with the argument is, even if it were correct (which I don’t think it is), it is simply your own speculation. There is no Church document that outlines a scientific explanation of the mechanics of transubstantiation at the atomic level. If someone comes up with some scientific facts that poke holes in your argument, they will then think they have disproved the Catholic teaching when all they have done is invalidate your own speculation.

 

[Faith1960]

I would not say He takes on the form of bread and wine. The substance changes, the appearance does not. It is already in the form of bread and wine, Jesus does not “take” on a different form. He is who He is.

I disagree. Just like Hetokk on a different form after the Resurrection and wasn’t recognized, He can take on the form of bread and wine while the substance changes.

 

[Faith1960]

And how does He do that? And please don’t say it’s a mystery. There’s some way of explaining it to us slow folks.

 

[MT1926]

So is it safe to say He takes on the FORM of bread and wine when transubstantiation occurs , while the substance changes into His flesh and blood?

I am not a church scholar so to be on the safe side, I would say it is safe to say:

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.”206

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).

Matthew19:26

 

[Faith1960]

I am not a church scholar so to be on the safe side, I would say it is safe to say:

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.”206

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).

Matthew19:26

That confuses me more.

 

[MT1926]

That confuses me more.

I’m sorry about that Faith.

I agree with Deacon Jeff’s response:

“Great question. How? I don’t know. Nor do I feel the need to know.”

That is why I loved the response “What your God can’t do that”.

Some times it amazes me that we Christians believe God can do all things, but when Jesus says:
32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.33For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.”34They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.37All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;39and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.40For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”42They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”43Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves.44*No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.45It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.46Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.47Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.48I am the bread of life.49Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.50This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.51I am the living bread[a]which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”*53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;54he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.55For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.56He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.58This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”59This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.
The Words of Eternal Life
60Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”61But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?62Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

Some Christians say oh he was speaking figuratively. My goodness he says he is the bread of life so many times you would think he was hitting them over the head with a loaf of bread. But it is the last verse that sums it all up: “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” Can you just imagine in Acts “And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.” They must of recalled what he said and it all became clear. “With God all things are possible.”

Here is 3 videos I found on the subject. It doesn’t really give a definitive answer but maybe it will help you accept the “mystery”. I especially liked the 3rd one.

catholic.com/video/explaining-transubstantiation
catholic.com/video/how-can-we-know-jesus-is-really-present-in-the-eucharist
catholic.com/video/another-way-to-explain-the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation

God Bless,

Matthew 19:26**

 

[e_c]

And how does He do that? And please don’t say it’s a mystery. There’s some way of explaining it to us slow folks.

I think you had another thread about just this. The language of “form of bread and wine” is correct. The more popular (and useful) word is “species.”

OP - here is your argument all dehydrated, as far as I can tell:

Premise 1: Flesh and bread are made of electrons and protons.
Premise 2: They are indistinguishable when one focuses on parts that small.
Premise 3: No physical change occurs during transubstantiation.​

Conclusion: The former bread electrons and protons, when looked at after transubstantiation, are now flesh electrons and protons and are indistinguishable as having changed and could be “normal flesh” electrons and protons for all one knows if he hasn’t “zoomed out.”

Great…? What does that do for us? How exactly would this be useful in persuasion other than perhaps rhetorically?

Also, where are the Soul and Divinity electrons?

 

[Harry123]

Furthermore, could you please address my objections in my first reply? If Aristotelian ‘substance’ functions on an atomic scale, then what actually is a “flesh atom” if all the atoms in our flesh (including those of Jesus!) came to be incorporated into flesh from the atoms of other organic matter, including but not limited to the atoms of bread? When I eat a piece of bread and the organic molecules of bread are incorporated into my body, under your incoherent paradigm here either my “flesh” is actually “bread” or somehow the bread atoms have transubstantiated into atoms of my flesh. Under the first conclusion we can’t intelligently talk about there ever existing the substance of flesh since the atoms constituting all flesh come from the atoms of other substances, regressing ultimately to the atoms of hydrogen and helium in the stars. Under the second conclusion we must assume that every act of metabolism is an example of miraculous transubstantiation. Which is it?

I agree with everything you say here. Its a bit like a heap of bricks (which represent protons, neutrons and electrons). They can be combined to form any thing you want. You can use them to form a house, a castle or a garage. One person might look at a house made of these bricks (a host) and think that actually this house has the potential to be re-arranged into a castle (Jesus body). So he rearranges the bricks into a castle. The bricks were always a castle in one sense (they could be anything really), its just now he’s re-arranged the bricks to make them look like a castle. All thats changed is how the bricks look. The bricks never changed.

OP - here is your argument all dehydrated, as far as I can tell:

Premise 1: Flesh and bread are made of electrons and protons.
Premise 2: They are indistinguishable when one focuses on parts that small.
Premise 3: No physical change occurs during transubstantiation.​

Conclusion: The former bread electrons and protons, when looked at after transubstantiation, are now flesh electrons and protons and are indistinguishable as having changed and could be “normal flesh” electrons and protons for all one knows if he hasn’t “zoomed out.”

Great…? What does that do for us? How exactly would this be useful in persuasion other than perhaps rhetorically?

Also, where are the Soul and Divinity electrons?

That’s a good summary. What it shows is that what we see is all an illusion. Everything we see is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. This is what the matter we actually see is made up of. When we call something bread, its not actually bread, its just thats the way it looks and tastes because of the arrangement of the building blocks. You could just as easily re-arrange these same building blocks to form human flesh.

So when we say that the host is Jesus body after consecration, this is a scientifically accurate statement. If you zoom in on the sub atomic particles you will find that they are indistinguishable as to what they are. Zoomed out, it might look like bread. But zoomed in to get a real close look at the matter of what the host is made up of, it could be anything.

To unbelievers, this might help them see that what they see at mass (a physical host, piece of bread) doesn’t have to be what you physically see but in fact could be something completely different, like Jesus body.

In any case, it looks like this is an argument i’ll be dropping. Because if even Catholics don’t like this, i don’t think anyone else will. I think anyway. Maybe non-believers would see this argument differently.

 

[JimG]

Appearances are that which is perceptible to the human senses. In the Eucharist, the appearances don’t change; they remain the appearances of bread and wine.

All of chemistry and physics deals with appearances, since we can never directly touch the underlying substance itself, whether of the Eucharist or anything else.

 

[Faith1960]

I agree with everything you say here. Its a bit like a heap of bricks (which represent protons, neutrons and electrons). They can be combined to form any thing you want. You can use them to form a house, a castle or a garage. One person might look at a house made of these bricks (a host) and think that actually this house has the potential to be re-arranged into a castle (Jesus body). So he rearranges the bricks into a castle. The bricks were always a castle in one sense (they could be anything really), its just now he’s re-arranged the bricks to make them look like a castle. All thats changed is how the bricks look. The bricks never changed.

That’s a good summary. What it shows is that what we see is all an illusion. Everything we see is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. This is what the matter we actually see is made up of. When we call something bread, its not actually bread, its just thats the way it looks and tastes because of the arrangement of the building blocks. You could just as easily re-arrange these same building blocks to form human flesh.

So when we say that the host is Jesus body after consecration, this is a scientifically accurate statement. If you zoom in on the sub atomic particles you will find that they are indistinguishable as to what they are. Zoomed out, it might look like bread. But zoomed in to get a real close look at the matter of what the host is made up of, it could be anything.

To unbelievers, this might help them see that what they see at mass (a physical host, piece of bread) doesn’t have to be what you physically see but in fact could be something completely different, like Jesus body.

In any case, it looks like this is an argument i’ll be dropping. Because if even Catholics don’t like this, i don’t think anyone else will. I think anyway. Maybe non-believers would see this argument differently.

Deacon, what do you have to say about this post, above?