Modern understanding of Transubstantiation?

[Rob_Arnzen]

In discussing the matter, especially in modern times, it seems difficult to appreciate the distinction between substance and appearances. We think of ‘substance’ as ‘matter,’ but that’s not the philosophical meaning of it. Substance is what’s really out there. Appearances are what gets into our senses. Because we can’t get what’s really out there into our senses. We can know it only by through the mediation of appearances. In fact, appearances are all that we can perceive of anything.

Precisely.

One of the problems is that in English the word “substance” is equivocal.

It is used to describe what something is made of - “that sword is made of the substance steel” - in very physical terms, and people tend to accept that definition when they encounter “substance” in theology and philosophy.

The philosophical meaning of transubstantiation is so apt that it has been used by non-Catholic theologians who share a Catholic belief in the Eucharist.

Oddly people seem to have no problem believing the coffee cup in their hand as they read the news on their computer is made of atoms of various elements which they cannot see, but have apoplexy when it’s pointed out that even atoms have a reality which cannot be perceived directly by the senses.

.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I still don’t get it but I’m in good company. I looked up accidents,and substance and critics are saying Jimmy Akin doesn’t explain it correctly either, so if he can’t understand this there’s little hope for the rest of us.

I confess that I haven’t read what Jimmy Akin has said. It is not necessary that you understand the philosophical manner the Church has used to explain what happens in Transubstantion. All you have to believe is that what Christ said is true. He is God and God does not lie.

When we receive the Sacrament we are receiving the Creator of the universe. He created it out of nothing, he can surely make Himself present behind the appearances of bread and wine. And when we receive Him we are receiving the same body and blood, flesh, bones, hair, etc. through which he presented Himself after His Resurrection. After His Resurrection He appeared in His glorified body - a body that was not limited by the physical limitations of the physical world. He could walk through walls, doors, He could move from place to place, instantaniously, at a mere wish, He could be present, whole and entire, at many places at the same instant.

And since His glorified body is no longer limited by the physical restrictions of our material universe, He is present, wholy present, in each particle of the bread, each drop of the wine throughout the whole world at the same instant.

Just believe what He said and remember, as the Apostles did, that He cannot lie, that He is God, that He can do and does do what He says. Have faith in Him, He made you, He loves you, He wants to be with you.

God Bless

 

[Faith1960]

I confess that I haven’t read what Jimmy Akin has said. It is not necessary that you understand the philosophical manner the Church has used to explain what happens in Transubstantion. All you have to believe is that what Christ said is true. He is God and God does not lie.

When we receive the Sacrament we are receiving the Creator of the universe. He created it out of nothing, he can surely make Himself present behind the appearances of bread and wine. And when we receive Him we are receiving the same body and blood, flesh, bones, hair, etc. through which he presented Himself after His Resurrection. After His Resurrection He appeared in His glorified body - a body that was not limited by the physical limitations of the physical world. He could walk through walls, doors, He could move from place to place, instantaniously, at a mere wish, He could be present, whole and entire, at many places at the same instant.

And since His glorified body is no longer limited by the physical restrictions of our material universe, He is present, wholy present, in each particle of the bread, each drop of the wine throughout the whole world at the same instant.

Just believe what He said and remember, as the Apostles did, that He cannot lie, that He is God, that He can do and does do what He says. Have faith in Him, He made you, He loves you, He wants to be with you.

God Bless

After reading up more about substance and accidents and their philosophical meanings I think I’m getting it now.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

After reading up more about substance and accidents and their philosophical meanings I think I’m getting it now.

That’s good but unnecessary. See my post to you on the other thread on the Eucharist.

Linus2nd

 

[Faith1960]

I confess that I haven’t read what Jimmy Akin has said. It is not necessary that you understand the philosophical manner the Church has used to explain what happens in Transubstantion. All you have to believe is that what Christ said is true. He is God and God does not lie.

When we receive the Sacrament we are receiving the Creator of the universe. He created it out of nothing, he can surely make Himself present behind the appearances of bread and wine. And when we receive Him we are receiving the same body and blood, flesh, bones, hair, etc. through which he presented Himself after His Resurrection. After His Resurrection He appeared in His glorified body - a body that was not limited by the physical limitations of the physical world. He could walk through walls, doors, He could move from place to place, instantaniously, at a mere wish, He could be present, whole and entire, at many places at the same instant.

And since His glorified body is no longer limited by the physical restrictions of our material universe, He is present, wholy present, in each particle of the bread, each drop of the wine throughout the whole world at the same instant.

Just believe what He said and remember, as the Apostles did, that He cannot lie, that He is God, that He can do and does do what He says. Have faith in Him, He made you, He loves you, He wants to be with you.

God Bless

Somewhere along the line someone said He isnt in the Eucharist because of His glorification.

 

[davidv]

Somewhere along the line someone said He isnt in the Eucharist because of His glorification.

Whoever that someone was, they were not providing information consistent with Church teaching.

The consecration transforms the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

 

[Faith1960]

Whoever that someone was, they were not providing information consistent with Church teaching.

The consecration transforms the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. They said that He is in the Eucharist by God’s power, not that He was able to be in the Eucharist because His body is glorified.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Maybe I wasn’t clear. They said that He is in the Eucharist by God’s power, not that He was able to be in the Eucharist because His body is glorified.

That is correct. Jesus was in the Eucharist at the Last Supper while he was in his non-glorified body.

 

[thenobes]

That is correct. Jesus was in the Eucharist at the Last Supper while he was in his non-glorified body.

St Ambrose,

We can’t really say that Jesus was always in His non-glorified body at all times during His life prior to His Resurrection. Take for instance His Transfiguration. It’s surely is a display of His Glory. So who is to say that the Eucharist is just a different manner of Him displaying His Glory?

peace
steve

 

[Aloysium]

. . . the word “substance” is equivocal. It is used to describe what something is made of - “that sword is made of the substance steel” - in very physical terms, and people tend to accept that definition when they encounter “substance” in theology and philosophy. . . .

The problem here is fundamentalist science - Scientism. The models that are utilized to explain how matter behaves and interacts are seen as what is really out there.

Most people aren’t insane; when they talk to you they understand that they are relating to a person.
But, ask some people what constitutes a human being, and the long and the short of it will be that we are all about anatomical structures and physiological processes, biochemistry and physics.

The eucharist is a miracle and a mystery. Reality to me is the Word of God. Whatever has been revealed is what it is.
I did try for the longest time to make sense of the Eucharist - making sense of course means trying to wedge its reality through the very limited cognitive template, which I use to understand the world.
I couldn’t do it, and it all made sense once I stopped trying.

 

[Richca]

I still dont get it. If we’re eating the whole substance of Jesus’ body how can it not be his flesh, bones etc?

Good point. The whole substance of Jesus’ body is his entire body, his flesh, bones, nerves, heart, etc (cf. ST IIIa, Q. 76, Art. 5, reply to objection 2). The matter of Jesus’s body belongs to the substance of his body and a human body is made out of matter as well as all of its parts. A change of the whole substances of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ involves not only a change in the substantial forms of the bread and wine but their matter as well. For the matter of Christ’s body and blood is not the same matter as was in the bread and wine before the consecration.

At the consecration at the Mass of the bread and wine then, the whole substance, i.e., the substantial form and the matter, of the bread and wine are changed into the form and matter of Jesus’ body and blood. Thus, Jesus said “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (John 6:53-55). And at the Last Supper, Jesus said “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”

After the consecration, the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine remain without a subject, i.e., without a substance and without matter by divine power (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent and ST IIIa, Q.77, Art. 1).

Hence, the substantial conversion which takes place in the Eucharist is unique with a name all its own, namely, transubstantiation which means a change of substance, of the whole substance. The substantial changes which occur in nature are formal changes because the same matter is the subject of the change but taking on different forms.

I guess I’m not grasping the difference between Real Presence and physical presence. Can somebody help me?

 

[jochoa]

After reading up more about substance and accidents and their philosophical meanings I think I’m getting it now.

That is good to hear! I encourage you to continue seeking understandings which help shed light on the Catholic Teaching because Church Teachings are Truth.

Here is an additional means to see the Substance of Jesus in the Mass:
Recently, I started to see the Sanctuary as Jerusalem, therefore…
Upon entering the Mass, when we sign ourselves with holy water, I see us receiving Baptism in the River Jordan.
During the procession, I see Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.
During the Penitential Act, I see Jesus having mercy on the adulterous woman.
During the readings and homily, I see Jesus preaching in the temple.
During the Nicene Creed, when we declare Jesus is God, I see Jesus declaring, “…before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then when the Crucifix leaves the Sanctuary to prepare for Offertory, I see Jesus hiding to prepare for Crucifixion.
When the gifts are offered, I see the soldiers handing Jesus over to the high authorities.
When the priest hands the wine to the deacon, and the deacon pours the wine into the chalice, I see Pontius handing Jesus over to the soldiers for scourging.
When the priest washes his hands, I see Pontius washing his hands.
When the priest breaks the Body, I see Jesus crucified and dead.
When the priest and others consume the Body and Blood, I see Jesus resurrected.
During the dismissal, I see Jesus going out to minister to the world.
And as we sign ourselves with the holy water, I see the start of Jesus’ public ministry!

Thanks for sharing your struggles with the Faith because considering them helps me grow deeper in the Faith!

 

[Nixbits]

I’d like to express my thanks to JThomasAlden for starting this thread and for his patience above-and-beyond the call of duty in trying to get a clear answer. Thanks also to the many others who have contributed to the discussion. It’s been very interesting.

I now understand the issues rather better than I did before, but I find the arguments for Transubstantiation even less convincing than previously.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I find the arguments for Transubstantiation even less convincing than previously.

Is it an issue with Transubtantiation or the philisophical system that defines it?
I personally sort of grasp the idea of accidents and such, but I am not very secure with the understanding and keep having to go back, “How’s that go again?”.

What I do know is what Jesus said, and when the Priest says “This is my body/blood.” the communion wafer becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is what happens in reality.

I can’t say I understand it any more than I understand what makes the colour red that exists in my visual world different from green or middle C, or whether the colour when seen out there, is in my head, my mind, in the object itself. I guess that is what accidents, forms, substance and all those technical words are meant to describe.
Whether they actually explain anything at all, I reserve judgement. Other people are satisfied; I don’t get it.
That way of thinking is not a part of me, like a language one rarely uses, where one must translate each word into one’s native tongue in order to communicate.

Ultimately the truth is that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. It feeds my soul as it feeds my body. I join with him on the cross as He takes on and pays the price for my sins. Eating of His body and blood, He, who is the living Way, grows in me. I am transformed into a son of God.

I don’t actually need an explanation. It is a mystery (meaning awesome unfathomable reality).
I don’t think I will ever be able to fit that reality into the limited mental framework that helps me connect to and understand the physical world.
It doesn’t really matter. I don’t actually know much about anything when it comes right down to it.