Luther's Consubstantiation .... or Catholicism's Transubstantiation

[Nita]

Nita,

I think you’ve patterend your language after* mysterium fidei*, am i correct?

Hi Verbum,
No. Actually I was using the language from the article by Fr. Kearns that I had quoted on my first post (#106) on this thread. brb (see his post #108) found Fr. Kearns words contradictory. My analogy was an attempt to help him understand how they were not contradictory. And what that boils down to was trying to explain the difference between something being substantially present and something being physically present. I know others before me had tried to explain but had been unable to get it conveyed to him in a way where it “clicked” for him. I thought an analogy might work better.

I had typed a post regarding the analogy you proposed, but lost it. It had a good preface, too, something along the lines of knowing that you dont want to get wrapped up in the intricacies of the analogy and miss the point of the analogy. But, I wanted to opine that I thought the analogy suffered from a fatal flaw that made it unusable as applied to transubstantiation.

ooooooooooo! I just knew someone would get after the flaws.

I wasn’t using the analogy to try and explain the Eucharist - but to show just generally even how a physical reality can be present and yet that reality no be present physically (in a physical way that can be detected by the senses). That was the concept brb found contradictory.
I’m aware of potential/actual; I was trying to be simpler, not more complex.

As I said twice (posts #126 and #129), I’m getting more and more hesitant to use analogies; they always seem to get sidetracked from the point one was trying to make – and then because the analogy gets discredited in some way, others may conclude the point it was trying to make is also invalid.

 

[Luvtosew]

No… had not seen or heard of this video. This is exactly on point !!! Thanks for sharing link. Everyone should take the 5-6 minutes to view this vid, and can express your impressions thereof on this Thread, as this clearly speaks to the topic of scientific investigation of the Catholic Eucharist …

Thank you I just did, for the second time. First thing that comes to my mind is why the Church would allow some scientist to disect the host, second thing that comes to mind is so much for all of Jesus being present completely and wholly in even a crumb of he host. Third thing that comes to mind is this is a hoax. Fouth thing to come into mind why do we need miracles and why are we putting Gods word to a test. Believe me it would be better for this video to be taken off the internet.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

ooooooooooo! I just knew someone would get after the flaws.

I wasn’t using the analogy to try and explain the Eucharist - but to show just generally even how a physical reality can be present and yet that reality no be present physically (in a physical way that can be detected by the senses). That was the concept brb found contradictory.
I’m aware of potential/actual; I was trying to be simpler, not more complex.

As I said twice (posts #126 and #129), I’m getting more and more hesitant to use analogies; they always seem to get sidetracked from the point one was trying to make – and then because the analogy gets discredited in some way, others may conclude the point it was trying to make is also invalid.

Yep.

I knew you werent using then analogy to explain transubstantiation, but well, see how brb took it.

My difficulty is that using that analogy to show how something can be present in its physical reality yet not physically present strains what it means to be present in its physical reality, because it depends on being the same organism. Its similar to saying that a cat is present in its physical reality when you look at the kitten. It (“Boots”) is present because it (“Boots”) is present.

I know what you mean about analogies., horribly tricky explosive things in a discussion. We should swear off them you and I. After all, analogies are like. . . What?

VC

 

[Philthy]

So, you believe the Transubstantiated hosts we receive @ each Mass are not as ‘miraculous’ as Luciano’s miracle ? Christ spoke regarding his physical [healing] miracles vs spiritual healings & forgiveness of sins … and said the later were the greater miracles.

Hi brb3-

You didn’t actually answer my question: " If this were the case, then why would the “miracle” at Luciano be any more miraculous than what happens at every Mass?..So why is Luciano declared “miraculous”? Try answering the question and don’t distract yourself with what I may or may not believe or think. Simply answer it based upon what you believe and think…unless you can’t and if that’s the case simply say so.

The fact remains that Luciano was declared a “miracle” when, in fact, according to you nothing out of the ordinary occurred that should prompt such a declaration. And so, I reiterate: " If this were the case - that what happened at Luciano is no different than what happens at every Mass - then why would the “miracle” at Luciano be any more miraculous, declared miraculous or paid than what happens at every Mass?..

Do you have an answer or no answer?

So, you believe the Transubstantiated hosts we receive @ each Mass are not as ‘miraculous’ as Luciano’s miracle

I neither said this nor believe it. There is a difference between what happened at Luciano and what happens every day at Mass, and that difference is not accurately expressed as, in your words, “not as miraculous”.

 

[brb3]

I thought an analogy might work better.

ooooooooooo! I just knew someone would get after the flaws.

Nita … don’t give up on your analogy of acorn & tree. It is not flawed. Christ frequently talked about seeds, planting thereof, and the substances/products that developed from them.

And, we bring bread and wine [the final substances of the planted seeds] to the Mass … and Christ enters into them and transforms them into Himself, by miraculous means. The most miraculous cell in our bodies is the Pluri-potent StemCell. Since Christ was fully man, … He had StemCells. Stem Cells are the ‘mammalian equivalent’ of plant seeds.

 

[brb3]

BTW, Jesus is not present physically in the Eucharist; His body is not present “physically” – neither His whole body or just one cell.

How could you possibly know this ? This borders on heresy.

Its a mystery, a miraculous one, that man/woman can’t yet explain. But, Christ said the Eucharist was his Body & Blood … and Catholics must not doubt Him, or suggest He didn’t mean what He said.

 

[ivebeenshown]

How could you possibly know this ? This borders on heresy.

Because we know from the history of Church teaching that only the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of body and blood, while the accidents of bread and wine remain. The accidents are the physical properties.

Its a mystery, a miraculous one, that man/woman can’t yet explain. But, Christ said the Eucharist was his Body & Blood … and Catholics must not doubt Him, or suggest He didn’t mean what He said.

Correct. But just as the bread and wine exists as substance (underlying reality/identity) and carries typical accidental qualities (physical, tangible qualities), so can the body and blood of Christ be substantially present without any of the typical accompanying accidents of body and blood.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But just as the bread and wine exists as substance (underlying reality/identity) and carries typical accidental qualities (physical, tangible qualities), so can the body and blood of Christ be substantially present without any of the typical accompanying accidents of body and blood.

I dont think brb3 considers seeing the molecules of thie eucharist to be the same thing as perceiving accidents. And because of this, he or she can agree with your statement above but maintain that a microscope can view cells in the eucharistic host.

VC

 

[Nita]

How could you possibly know this ? This borders on heresy.
.

No way is it heresy. How can it be contrary to Church teaching if the Church** never **taught it!!!

If you read my original post with the understanding given there for Jesus being present “physically” (that is, where the physical accidents of a body can be detected in some way), then you know that it is not heresy. You know as well as I do that what is physically detectible to us is bread and wine and not a human body and blood. The Church has never taught that the tangible/accidental properties (what can be detected with the senses - with or without the aid of laboratory equipment) of Jesus’ body are present in the Eucharist. Instead, she specifically teaches that the accidental properties in the Eucharist are those of bread and wine. Perhaps you need to take time out and do a little studying about what the language used by the Church actually means.

You keep trying to propose that Our Lord’s body and blood are present in the Eucharist in a tangible way - physically. Now that is something the Church has never taught. So be careful who you accuse of heresy.

Its a mystery, a miraculous one, that man/woman can’t yet explain. But, Christ said the Eucharist was his Body & Blood … and Catholics must not doubt Him, or suggest He didn’t mean what He said

I know it’s a mystery, and a miraculous one - something we cannot understand but accept on faith. You are the one who keeps trying to make it explicable in a material way - a tangible proof rather than just faith.

 

[brb3]

The accidents are the physical properties.

Correct. But just as the bread and wine exists as substance (underlying reality/identity) and carries typical accidental qualities (physical, tangible qualities), so can the body and blood of Christ be substantially present without any of the typical accompanying accidents of body and blood.

The accidents are what we perceive as present … bread and wine. But, they are no longer bread / wine. They are Christ [body/blood/soul/divinity]. A truely TRANSFORMATIVE process has occurred … not just a co-existance of substances. To say/infer otherwise … its to fall back into Luther’s Consubstantiation way of thinking. Namely, that both Christ & bread/wine are present … after consecration. I too, used to believe this … [that Christ resided INSIDE, WITHIN, UNDER the vast areas of empty space of the atom/molecules of bread and wine]. Christ "cloaked’ [within, inside, under] the wine/bread molecules. But, our Church clearly taught against this understanding … in Trent, when they spoke against Luther, and others, who taught this or other similar ideas.

I’m not saying I know how it works, as a scientist might, as I have no lab proof. But, I know alot of what Catholics are saying here doesn’t jive with what Trent says. And, Trent claims it’s revelation on this matter is the FINAL revelation and teaching of the Church on the topic !!!

 

[Nita]

CCC 1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures **as long as **the Eucharistic species subsist. …

When the Eucharistic species of bread and wine no longer subsist then the Eucharistic presence of Christ no longer endures. When a miracle occurs where the species changes from that of bread and wine into flesh and blood, Jesus’ Eucharistic presence no longer endures.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

.
But, I know alot of what Catholics are saying here doesn’t jive with what Trent says. And, Trent claims it’s revelation on this matter is the FINAL revelation and teaching of the Church on the topic !!!

brb3,

I’m concerned that you might be missing a point or two, is that a concern watsoever of yours or do you feel that you your position is unassailable?

Is there any room for the possibility you might be misinterpreting Trent? Or overlooking the history of what the Church teaches on this subject?

I was under the impression that you are realtively new to the Catholicn Church and also only recently learned of Eucharistic miracles. Is there any possibility you might be acting hastily by saying that all the other Catholics are wrong?

VC

 

[Luvtosew]

Verbum Cara,

Brb3 is not the only one that holds his view of the Eucharist. When I first came to this CAF I read many times his view from other posters and began reading RC writings on the Eucharist and I must say one does come away with his view as they always bring up John 6 Bread Discourse as their arguement for it. His view is everywhere.

I was raised that the host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, never questioned, but always felt it was his spiritual essence, never his real flesh and blood in it,
Now I don’t know what is the RC teaching on it ,but I do believe it is the same view that Brb3 has from what I’ve been reading and listening to on EWTN. Also Protestants believe that Catholics think they actually eat the physical body of Jesus and that is why we are referred to as cannibals.

I have to say I do wish the RCC would come out and make some sort of definitive clear statement about their belief as the beliefs about it are all over the place and with all these so called miracles shown on the net its not helping. If Brb3 is wrong in his thinking then many others are as well, but I don’t think its their misunderstanding, more the way it is taught.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Luvtosew,

I am speaking of brb3 assertion that flesh type molecules are visible under a microscope.

Can you share with me any Catholic on this forum, or anyone else that you know of, who holds this view?

I know you have difficulties with the eucharist and understanding the Catholic teaching, but lets focus on this one point so we dont confuse things.

VC

 

[Luvtosew]

Luvtosew,

I am speaking of brb3 assertion that flesh type molecules are visible under a microscope.

Can you share with me any Catholic on this forum, or anyone else that you know of, who holds this view?

I know you have difficulties with the eucharist and understanding the Catholic teaching, but lets focus on this one point so we dont confuse things.

VC

No, I’ve been on here for 2 years and hear it all the time, many posters have referred to the miracles of the Eucharist. I don’t remember their names. I never had a problem for 50 years as I never read anything, I just believed God did whatever he did with it, but I do indeed have a problem now with the teaching on it and also the sacrifice of the mass, learning more about it. The best thing I could of done was never get on the internet.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Luvtosew,

Permit me to clarify, if possible, what i mean.

Brb3 has assserted that at a normal mass, after the host is consecrated, and there is no visible change to the host (i.e no Eucharistic miracle properly so called) that were you take said host and place it under a microscope you would then see, through the power of magnification, flesh type molecules instead of bread type molecules.

I have not seen anyone else on these forums assert that, nor encountered it elsewhere.

Have you?

Thanks!
VC

 

[Luvtosew]

Saying they can put it under a microscope and see cells and tissue no, but the belief that Jesus is actually present bodily in the Eucharist I have read a lot on forums, so natually that would lead one to believe that microscipic exam would reveal that.

I have read from RC writings where people were willing to give up their life for the Eucharist and well I do believe Jesus can certaintly take care of himself.

I also remember the story of the young girl in history who kept going back to the Church at night and with her tongue licked the Eucharist off the floor and on the 31st day they caught her and killed her. I don’t remember the story or want to research it but I did at the time and found it , and one poster on here actually said his Priest told this story in their homily, and well I wonder why a child about 8ish I think would risk her life to do this.

.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Saying they can put it under a microscope and see cells and tissue no, but the belief that Jesus is actually present bodily in the Eucharist I have read a lot on forums, so natually that would lead one to believe that microscipic exam would reveal that.

So, you see where brb3 stands alone on his assertion about the microscope.

(as a side note,if you havenr seen any Catholic make that assertion then we shoud question, i woud suggest, why not. Your inference that it is natural to think that indicates that you also may be misunderstanding the Catholic teaching, does it not? Otherwise, you would expect to find many many Catholics who think you can see Christ under a microscope.)

VC

 

[Luvtosew]

So, you see where brb3 stands alone on his assertion about the microscope.

(as a side note,if you havenr seen any Catholic make that assertion then we shoud question, i woud suggest, why not. Your inference that it is natural to think that indicates that you also may be misunderstanding the Catholic teaching, does it not? Otherwise, you would expect to find many many Catholics who think you can see Christ under a microscope.)

VC

While I don’t believe I’d see Christ under a microscope, I would agree that I find the RC teaching extrememly confusing on this issue , what I’m not confused about is how I see the Eucharist. I have read so much RC teaching on the Eucharist and I will just believe how I always have. I really believe they lead people to believe the physical aspect of Jesus in the Eucharist .

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I never have been able to understand how a person can believe that that their invisible soul is in their own body but that it would be impossible for the substance of Jesus’ body and blood which is also invisible to be in the hosts of the Eucharist?

Is the real answer that they worship themselves and their own invisible souls but can’t believe and worship in the invisible substance of Christ?