Is transubstantiation permanent?

[AnyFriendofGod]

TriumphGuy, thank you! Yes, this is the definitive answer.

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).

 

[QuasiCatholic]

…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).

What if the bread goes moldy? Granted that’s not likely to happen with modern communion wafers since they are so dry. But with other types of unleavened bread or the leavened bread used in Orthodox churches, that seems like it would be a problem eventually.

So the bread is consecrated. It becomes the body of Christ under the species of bread and remains so until the appearance of bread is no longer there. And then we let it sit … at some point it is still recognizable as bread, but very moldy, disgusting bread.

Is that still Jesus?

 

[Gorgias]

What if the bread goes moldy? And then we let it sit … at some point it is still recognizable as bread, but very moldy, disgusting bread.

Is that still Jesus?

The mold? No. Mold isn’t bread, so it can’t be the Eucharist. The parts that are still distinguishable as having the appearance of bread, however, remain the Eucharist.

(Not that it’s being asked, but just because it makes sense to mention it here: ) At that point, it would be appropriate to put the (moldy) Eucharist into a glass of water and let it dissolve. Then, when it no longer has the appearance of bread, the water should be poured onto the ground (not down a sink!). That would be the appropriate way to handle Eucharist that – for whatever reason – has been neglected and will not be consumed.

 

[JimG]

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

Quote:
7. 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).

Thank you for providing the appropriate reference. It would astonish me if any priest taught that the Eucharistic presence does not endure. That has been constant Church teaching since the beginning. On the other hand, sometimes nothing astonishes me anymore.

 

[Lapey]

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!

CCC 1377

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

Once consecrated always consecrated. I had an instructor once who said statements opposing Church teaching, much like the priests who have been quoted here. I too believe it is easier to think this because we would hate to imagine our Lord being desecrated, but it happens often!

 

[AnyFriendofGod]

CCC 1377

I had an instructor once who said statements opposing Church teaching, much like the priests who have been quoted here. I too believe it is easier to think this because we would hate to imagine our Lord being desecrated, but it happens often!

Hi Deacon,

Knowing my friend who quoted her priest, I think this was most likely a very devout priest who at one point was given incorrect information. There are priests who can be shown the proper documents who are more than willing to stand corrected, and there are priests who have no intention of abandoning their own opinions. I would think that the priest my friend knows would be the former kind of priest. He’s mistaken, yes on something important, but he would probably not be the defiant type!

 

[Shirtless]

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!

That is true in the Roman Rite, but in the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church, there is no specific point at which transubstantiation can be said to occur. It may be anywhere from the time of the Great Entrance to the Epiclesis (the latter following the words of the Consecration).

 

[triumphguy]

That is true in the Roman Rite, but in the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church, there is no specific point at which transubstantiation can be said to occur. It may be anywhere from the time of the Great Entrance to the Epiclesis (the latter following the words of the Consecration).

And in Methodism they don’t believe in the real presence at all so there’s no problem…

 

[Gorgias]

That is true in the Roman Rite, but in the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church, there is no specific point at which transubstantiation can be said to occur. It may be anywhere from the time of the Great Entrance to the Epiclesis (the latter following the words of the Consecration).

Strictly speaking, you can say similar things about the Latin Liturgy, too.

Is it Eucharist after the epiclesis (certainly not before!)? After the elevation of the host? Or only after the elevation of the chalice?

The only really safe thing we can say is that we know it’s the Eucharist at the completion of the Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[smichhertz]

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!

Technically correct, but also not. Jesus had the power to come down from the cross but He didn’t. I doubt He removes His presence from the Eucharist when terrible things like this happen.

This is why things like this are so offensive. I pray for forgiveness for these people. The best case scenario is they did so in ignorance, and not in any true intention of harming the Eucharist.

 

[Brendan]

Technically correct, but also not. Jesus had the power to come down from the cross but He didn’t. I doubt He removes His presence from the Eucharist when terrible things like this happen.
t.

Not only that, but He submitted Himself to ridicule, scourging, verbal and physical abuse in countless forms. But even under all of that, He never removed His Divine Nature from His human one.

He could have prevented all that sacrilege to His Body, but chose not to.