Is transubstantiation permanent?

[AnyFriendofGod]

Hi,

Tragically, a tabernacle has been stolen from a local church, with the Blessed Sacrament still in it. I am heartbroken that “they have taken my Lord and I don’t know where they have put him.” I hope it was not stolen by people who intend to desecrate the Host. A friend of mine said a Mercedarian priest she knows “always taught that Jesus has the power to put Himself into the bread on the altar and He has the power to remove Himself if He chooses to. That always comforts me when I hear about abuse of the Eucharist.”

Is this correct? I asked in Ask an Apologist but it’s not among the questions they’ve answered. I’d appreciate if anyone can confirm this.

Thank you!

 

[Brendan]

Christ remains in the form of Bread for as long as the appearance of bread remains.

So in the case you mention, yes, Christ is still present in the tabernacle when it is stolen, and many time, He is tossed by the roadside or in the trash.

Pray for those who do this.

 

[TheDoctor]

I did a quick search and did not find any articles on this. Can you please post a link?

 

[QuasiCatholic]

I’m going to go with the OP’s priest on this.

The priest doesn’t magically transform the bread or command Jesus to do his bidding. He asks him to show up. So if Jesus can decide to show up, I don’t see why he couldn’t decide to leave again whenever he wants.

 

[JimG]

Transubstantiation is permanent as long as the species of bread remains.

 

[triumphguy]

Hi,

Tragically, a tabernacle has been stolen from a local church, with the Blessed Sacrament still in it. I am heartbroken that “they have taken my Lord and I don’t know where they have put him.” I hope it was not stolen by people who intend to desecrate the Host. A friend of mine said a Mercedarian priest she knows “always taught that Jesus has the power to put Himself into the bread on the altar and He has the power to remove Himself if He chooses to. That always comforts me when I hear about abuse of the Eucharist.”

Is this correct? I asked in Ask an Apologist but it’s not among the questions they’ve answered. I’d appreciate if anyone can confirm this.

Thank you!

Christ had the power to remove Himself from the cross if he chose… but he didn’t.

Transubstantiation remains while the appearance of bread and wine remains.

 

[triumphguy]

I’m going to go with the OP’s priest on this.

The priest doesn’t magically transform the bread or command Jesus to do his bidding. He asks him to show up. So if Jesus can decide to show up, I don’t see why he couldn’t decide to leave again whenever he wants.

It’s not magic it’s a sacrament.

It’s not just a sacrament the Eucharist is the participation in the one holy sacrifice of Christ’s death and resurrection, as instituted at the Last Supper, and as re-presented at all masses in all places throughout all of time.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

It’s not magic it’s a sacrament.

It’s not just a sacrament the Eucharist is the participation in the one holy sacrifice of Christ’s death and resurrection, as instituted at the Last Supper, and as re-presented at all masses in all places throughout all of time.

Yes, but it’s still up to God whether he shows up or not. All we can do is ask nicely.

 

[triumphguy]

Yes, but it’s still up to God whether he shows up or not. All we can do is ask nicely.

Since the Eucharist was instituted by Christ and is a once and for all time event (and not a series of random events whereby God chooses to show up or not) we can’t actually say that.

The priest says “hoc est enim corpus” and this, literally, IS Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity while the appearance of bread remains.

God, in Jesus, made his choice at the Last Supper and on the Cross.

That’s the awesomeness of God!

 

[AnyFriendofGod]

I didn’t think QuasiCatholic was saying it was magic. He was saying it isn’t. But… I think the truth is, Jesus actually has chosen to make Himself “obedient” to a priest who validly consecrates a host. If the consecration is valid, Jesus “shows up”, or to put it more accurately, changes the substance of the bread so that it is no longer bread, but is His body. “Asking nicely” is not the same thing as saying the words that cause the bread to become his body.

I would think that as others have said, Jesus is present in the Eucharist as long as it remains bread. So I wonder why my friend’s priest thinks otherwise.

 

[Gorgias]

"QuasiCatholic:

Yes, but it’s still up to God whether he shows up or not. All we can do is ask nicely.

No. There’s never a question, in a valid Mass, of “whether [Christ] shows up or not”. He always does.

I think the truth is, Jesus actually has chosen to make Himself “obedient” to a priest who validly consecrates a host.

I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think that we could characterize it as Jesus making Himself ‘obedient’. Rather, He’s simply promised that He would be present in the ‘breaking of the bread’. That’s not really obedience, but just being true to His word…

I would think that as others have said, Jesus is present in the Eucharist as long as it remains bread.

Mind if I pick nits? The Eucharist isn’t bread. It’s the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It has the appearance of bread; and it remains the Eucharist while those appearances are present.

So I wonder why my friend’s priest thinks otherwise.

Just my opinion, but… it hurts us to think of Eucharistic desecration; so, in a way, we think it hurts Christ. It’s easier on us to think that desecration doesn’t occur. But, in all honesty, Christ isn’t injured, harmed, or lessened in dignity when the Eucharist is desecrated.

 

[JimG]

Jesus does not “remove” himself from the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is not reversible. When the species of bread ceases to have the appearances of bread, Jesus is no longer present. But transubstantiation is not reversible. That’s why the tabernacle is kept locked.

 

[Shirtless]

Hi,

Tragically, a tabernacle has been stolen from a local church, with the Blessed Sacrament still in it. I am heartbroken that “they have taken my Lord and I don’t know where they have put him.” I hope it was not stolen by people who intend to desecrate the Host. A friend of mine said a Mercedarian priest she knows “always taught that Jesus has the power to put Himself into the bread on the altar and He has the power to remove Himself if He chooses to. That always comforts me when I hear about abuse of the Eucharist.”

Is this correct? I asked in Ask an Apologist but it’s not among the questions they’ve answered. I’d appreciate if anyone can confirm this.

Thank you!

Meaning absolutely no disrespect to anyone, I have full confidence that Jesus is able to take care of Himself in this situation.

 

[JimG]

Priests and EMHC’s are instructed to ensure that anyone receiving communion consumes the host immediately. They are not to attempt to leave the church with it, pocket it, or do anything other than to consume the host immediately. This is precisely to avoid desecration of the body of Christ. Protection of the Eucharist is a serious matter.

St. Tarcisius was martyred while protecting the Eucharist from desecration.

 

[Shirtless]

Jesus does not “remove” himself from the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is not reversible. When the species of bread ceases to have the appearances of bread, Jesus is no longer present. But transubstantiation is not reversible. That’s why the tabernacle is kept locked.

Just out of curiosity, can you cite a church document to support your answer, particularly since you presume to speak on what Jesus does or does not do?

About 40 years ago, a Roman Catholic priest told me that transubstantiation subsists only if the Host is used for a proper purpose. Thus, if one is stolen for use in a Black Mass (satanic ritual), we should worry, because the Host is merely bread at that point.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, just wondering if you have any documentary evidence of your position.

Frankly, though, I am not particularly worried about this, because the thief has no power to inflict any harm on Jesus!

 

[triumphguy]

Just out of curiosity, can you cite a church document to support your answer, particularly since you presume to speak on what Jesus does or does not do?

About 40 years ago, a Roman Catholic priest told me that transubstantiation subsists only if the Host is used for a proper purpose. Thus, if one is stolen for use in a Black Mass (satanic ritual), we should worry, because the Host is merely bread at that point.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, just wondering if you have any documentary evidence of your position.

Frankly, though, I am not particularly worried about this, because the thief has no power to inflict any harm on Jesus!

Maybe you heard him wrong, or you mis-remembered…

Christ remains wholly present as long as the accidents remain.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

1. Do the consecrated bread and wine cease to be the Body and Blood of Christ when the Mass is over?

No. During the celebration of the Eucharist, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, and this they remain. They cannot turn back into bread and wine, for they are no longer bread and wine at all. There is thus no reason for them to change back to their “normal” state after the special circumstances of the Mass are past. Once the substance has really changed, the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ “endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” ( Catechism, no. 1377). Against those who maintained that the bread that is consecrated during the Eucharist has no sanctifying power if it is left over until the next day, St. Cyril of Alexandria replied, “Christ is not altered, nor is his holy body changed, but the power of the consecration and his life-giving grace is perpetual in it” ( Letter 83, to Calosyrius, Bishop of Arsinoe PG 76, 1076]). **The Church teaches that Christ remains present under the appearances of bread and wine as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain **(cf. Catechism, no. 1377).

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Meaning absolutely no disrespect to anyone, I have full confidence that Jesus is able to take care of Himself in this situation.

I had a similar thought.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Let’s think about this for a moment. This coming week we remember Christ’s enemies doing the worst thing they could to Him by nailing Him to a cross and killing Him.

He accepted this to pay for the sin’s of everyone, including whoever stole the tabernacle mentioned in the original post. 2000 years ago He modeled a response for us by asking God to forgive them because they didn’t know what they were doing.

The day those Roman soldiers died they instantly appeared before Him to answer for their sins. Except for the Centurian who converted, it was not a good day for those people, and it won’t be a good day for whoever stole the tabernacle either. We need to pray for them.

Jesus won then, and is still winning now.

Hoping we all have a good Holy Week.

 

[CbusCatholic]

There have been Eucharistic miracles that have occurred about 500 years ago and the Blessed Sacrament is still worshipped after all this time. Although God is omnipotent, Jesus is always present in the Eucharist because he freely allows Himself to be.

I will pray for the return of your tabernacle and the people who stole it
God Bless!

 

[AnyFriendofGod]

No. There’s never a question, in a valid Mass, of “whether [Christ] shows up or not”. He always does.

I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think that we could characterize it as Jesus making Himself ‘obedient’. Rather, He’s simply promised that He would be present in the ‘breaking of the bread’. That’s not really obedience, but just being true to His word…

Mind if I pick nits? The Eucharist isn’t bread. It’s the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It has the appearance of bread; and it remains the Eucharist while those appearances are present.

Just my opinion, but… it hurts us to think of Eucharistic desecration; so, in a way, we think it hurts Christ. It’s easier on us to think that desecration doesn’t occur. But, in all honesty, Christ isn’t injured, harmed, or lessened in dignity when the Eucharist is desecrated.

I had used the word “obedient” because I had heard a priest use it before, but “being true to His word” is much better! And thank you for the correction, of course it isn’t bread and I meant to say appearance of bread as well!

I also agree with your thoughts about harming Jesus, and that was part of my question that wasn’t chosen to be answered in the Ask an Apologist forum. I do believe that Christ suffered during his Passion for all sins, including the horrible sin of desecration of the Eucharist, but that he does not suffer again in Heaven when the sin occurs. It is more the sadness that someone would try to harm him, along with the thought that the person committing the offense has something terrible to answer for at his death.

I do believe that the priest is mistaken when he says that Jesus can choose to cause a reversal of transubstantiation. Since I couldn’t find anything on it myself I had hoped an apologist on staff might be able to provide something definitive.

Thanks for the responses!