Metaphysics and our stance on abortion

[Richca]

So there’s two ways to look at this. The non-believer would say it’s a fraud. And the faithful have to take it on faith. Tastes like wheat gluten to me Can this be proven by reason or does it have to be on faith. Faith and reason go hand in hand.

Bill

yes, it taste like wheat because the accidents of the bread remain after the consecration and transubstantiation. It is easier for us to eat the flesh of Christ under the appearance of simple bread than it would be to eat his flesh in its real appearance as many people might recoil from eating Christ’s flesh under its real appearance, though the body of Christ is not just the body of a mere man but that of the eternal Son of God and it is life-giving. We believe the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ because Christ said so in his discourse of the bread of life in the gospel of St. John and at the last supper, and christians since apostolic times have always understood this to be the case. This is the constant tradition and teaching of the Church. Our belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist is founded then on the very words of Jesus himself who is God.

We cannot prove from reason or science that the miracle of transubstantiation occurs in the eucharist; again, we take it on the word of Christ. However, there have been a number of eucharist miracles where real human flesh and blood appear in the eucharist, some of which are still on display today. The Scripture says “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6). Our belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist is an exercise of our faith which God wants of us and it is meritorious. For the ‘just man lives by faith" and faith is one of the theological virtues and gifts God gives us. If Christ instantly appeared sensibly at the consecration at Mass, then there would be no need to exercise our faith in the eucharist. Jesus, while he lived on earth, generally demanded faith in him when he performed miracles for people as the gospels relate. It even took an act of faith to believe that Jesus was God in the flesh while he was on earth. Many people took him for a mere man because Jesus’ Godhead is invisible to our sight. His doctrine and miracles manifested his divinity.

As I noted above, we cannot prove from reason or science the miracle of transubstantiation, it is a supernatural miracle performed by God and beyond sense experience. However, we can attempt to offer some kind of explanation to the best of our reasoning capabilities of what takes place in transubstantiation, realizing at the same time that there are points of doctrine concerning the Real Presence that are beyond human comprehension and understanding but which we hold not to be beyond the almighty power of God. The Catechism of the Council of Trent devotes a few pages explaining what the Church means by transubstantiation which explanation is the same as that given by St Thomas Aquinas in his works and especially his Summa Theologica and his treatise on the eucharist. Our present Catechism of the Catholic Church does not go into the detail of transubstantiation as the Catechism of the Council of Trent does. The doctrine of transubstantiation in our present catechism is the same of course as the Council of Trent which dogmatically defined that the miracle of the eucharist involves a change of substances and is fittingly called transubstantiation. Using the philosophical principles and concepts of Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas gives us the best “reasonable” explanation we have of the doctrine of transubstantiaton which is in conformity with the Church’s faith concerning the Real Presence; not to prove the miracle but of what takes place. The Catechism of the Council of Trent uses the same teaching as Aquinas.