Modern understanding of Transubstantiation?

[Thorns]

My post did not state that there is no physical change - on the contrary. I agree that there is a physical change however the change is limited to the substance and not the accidents of the first substance. I was emphasizing that there is no natural explanation that will suffice when we are dealing with the supernatural…any attempt would be inadequate and even the greatest analogical similarities have greater dissimilarities.

The Eucharist is the most wonderful of subjects to discuss, however it would be less a wonder to discuss if we could just explain it away. The physical world is finite and we will never be able to use finite terms to fully explain the infinite. The fact that it is a miracle and a gift from God should never cease to fill us with awe.

God Bless,
CSJ

It would actually fill us with more awe if it were transformed as opposed to transubstantiated IMO.

 

[Usagi]

It would actually fill us with more awe if it were transformed as opposed to transubstantiated IMO.

Perhaps, but the goal is not for us to be awed by an amazing sight, but to eat and drink. Therefore Jesus comes to us under the appearance of something we can eat and drink.

Usagi

 

[Faith1960]

As one or two others have said, the Church’s definition does not depend on any particular understanding of the physical world. As far as it relies on any other branch of knowledge, it uses ( but is not dependet on ) the metaphysical explanation given by Thomas Aquinas ( you can study this in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, which you can find here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Metaphysics4.htm#2. It would be best to begin with Book lV.

In a nut shell, a Substance is any thing which has a nature or essence that has an actual existence. Physical substances are essences ( or natures ) which exist in a particular matter ( the " matter " of a horse or a man or a chunck of coal for example).

But you cannot see this substance. It has matter informed by a specific form ( horse, man, coal, etc.). And all the properties, powers, etc. associated with this substance is what you see and measure, sense, etc. Aristotle and Thomas both call these accidents because they are essential and they exist in the Substance.
They do not exist without the substance.

What the Church says is that this substance is changed completely into the body and blood of Christ. But all the accidents remain, but they remain all alone, they no longer have a substance in which they inhere. There are two miricals here. First the substances of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Secondly, the accidents of bread and wine remain, but in no substance or subject. The latter is a miracle because it is the only instance in which accidents exist, but in no subject.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the basic truth but does not go into such detail.

I should add that both Aristotle and Thomas spoke of First Substance and Second Substance. I always get them mixed up, but one refers to the Substance mentioned above, which cannot be seen or measued and the other to the individual thing that you can actually touch, measure, etc. ( metafysica.nl/subenac.html ).

But in Transubstantion, the whole substance ( first and second ) of the bread and wine ( first and second substance both, but without the accdents ) are changed into the whole substance of Christ ( both his first and second substances ), including all of his accidents, size, limbs, hair, human soul with all its attributes, and his Divinity as well. Thomas explainsi in the S.T. ( under the Real Presence ) that this is done, " according to the manner of the Sacrament. " You have to remember that we are speaking of Christ’s glorified body which is not limited or constrained by earthy limitations such as space and time. I don’t pretend to understand how this happens, but we believe that it is so.

I’m pretty sure the Church will never address this Definition again except by way of Chatechesis.

Linus2nd

Is the fact Jesus is glorified have anything to do with how the bread and wine become Jesus?

You said it very well. I think it helps if we " visualize " the accidents as a kind of vehicle carrying Christ to us. He accompanies the accidents but is not a part of them, nor are they a part of him. Yet, if they are not there, neither is he. They are a sign of his presence only. Also, we call the accidents bread and wine only before the consecration. After the consecration, the bread and wine no longer exist because thei substance has been changed into the body and blood of Christ. As difficult as it is to think about these things, people need to make an effort to do so.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

But the accidents of bread and wine remain…

Not to my knowledge.

Here are two means that I describe transubstantiation, plus one physical evidence of transubstantiation:

1. From simple biological science, I observe that a natural human lifespan is directly proportionate to the amount of energy consumed from others’ lives. Therefore, if I want to live forever, I must eat the life of one with an infinite amount of energy. Only God’s life has an infinite amount of energy, and the only way to consume the body of God is through the Eucharist.
2. From honest logic: if something looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. The Eucharist looks like God, shares the same message as God shares, and does what God does, therefore the Eucharist must be God. Prior to consecration, the bread and wine are not doing what God does, nor sharing God’s message.
3. Have you considered any of the Eucharistic Miracles, such as the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires?

Thanks for sharing such good food for thought! I look forward to further discussion!

The Eucharist from the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires was FedEx’d from one lab to another. Wouldn’t that be against church rules? Couldn’t someone tamper with it?

Yes it is supernatural but we also believe that the bread literally AND physically changes. I can see your explanation sufficing for the soul, for example, because the soul is immaterial and strictly spiritual. You do realize that Catholicism teaches the bread and wine physically and literally change, not just spiritually? If something undergoes a physical change, it should by definition, be able to be explained physically as well. Not that I doubt the word of God, but anyone can claim anything in any philosophy and there has to be a reasonable way, objectively, to separate truth from falsehood.

How,can it physically change when the a incidents remain? I’m just not getting this.

 

[Faith1960]

No, this too is not correct.

Transubstantiation does not happen when I eat beans. The beans don’t become my flesh. The beans are used by my body but they don’t become my body.

Neither does the bread turn into the flesh of Jesus. There is no meat. It is the substance of his body, not his thigh muscle. The Eucharist is not the flesh of Christ but the entire substance of his body.

-Tim-

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

This is not correct.

The the soul of Jesus is not affixed to the matter of the bread. The bread is gone. The bread ceases to exist. It only appears to be bread. There is nothing for Christ’s soul to affix to. It has become completely Jesus. It is the Lord.

The Eucharist is not a human being. If the Eucharist were a human being then we would see a 165lb man with arms and legs. The Eucharist is not a living body. The Eucharist is the real presence of Christ - it is the entire substance of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity. It is not his physical presence of the human person but the real presence of the substance of Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity.

You will never hear a theologian refer to the physical presence of Christ but only the real presence. You will never hear of a theologian refer to actual flesh or a physical body or a human person. There have been miracles where flesh has appeared, but these are not the norm.

The Eucharist which Christ left us is not his physical body but his real presence in the substance of himself. It is a subtle distinction.

-Tim-

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

Faith1960:

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

Also, I’m struggling with the bread being gone when it’s there…

 

[thenobes]

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

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

Also, I’m struggling with the bread being gone when it’s there…

It might be helpful to understand that the human soul, a spiritual substance, is the director of the organization of matter into what is known as a human being.

Thus if soul is affixed to matter, that matter, perforce, is a living body. It’s part of the substance of a living body.

And since Christ’s soul, after the consecration of the bread, is affixed to the matter of the bread, it is a human being. The substance of bread no longer exists.

However, since Christ is also God, the flesh and blood of that human being, in the matter of that which was formerly bread, is glorified, and has properties beyond that which we are acquainted with in an ordinary person.

And that is why Christ is the bread you see in the Eucharist, because that is the form He wished to present Himself to us in.

peace
steve

 

[Faith1960]

It might be helpful to understand that the human soul, a spiritual substance, is the director of the organization of matter into what is known as a human being.

Thus if soul is affixed to matter, that matter, perforce, is a living body. It’s part of the substance of a living body.

And since Christ’s soul, after the consecration of the bread, is affixed to the matter of the bread, it is a human being. The substance of bread no longer exists.

However, since Christ is also God, the flesh and blood of that human being, in the matter of that which was formerly bread, is glorified, and has properties beyond that which we are acquainted with in an ordinary person.

And that is why Christ is the bread you see in the Eucharist, because that is the form He wished to present Himself to us in.

peace
steve

We say the bread doesn’t exist but it does. Sorry, I just don’t get it.

 

[davidv]

We say the bread doesn’t exist but it does. Sorry, I just don’t get it.

This is not true. The Church says that only the appearance of bread exists.

 

[Faith1960]

This is not true. The Church says that only the appearance of bread exists.

I know. That’s what I don’t get. And if I don’t get it soon, I might leave the CC and become Lutheran or UCC. Probably UCC because it close to my house.

 

[davidv]

I know. That’s what I don’t get. And if I don’t get it soon, I might leave the CC and become Lutheran or UCC. Probably UCC because it close to my house.

Since the Eucharist is the central mystery of the Catholic faith, there is much to “not get” about it.

I would suggest that review of the Catechism explanation is in order. Start at article 1322.

 

[JimG]

It might be helpful to understand that the human soul, a spiritual substance, is the director of the organization of matter into what is known as a human being.

Thus if soul is affixed to matter, that matter, perforce, is a living body. It’s part of the substance of a living body.

And since Christ’s soul, after the consecration of the bread, is affixed to the matter of the bread, it is a human being. The substance of bread no longer exists.

However, since Christ is also God, the flesh and blood of that human being, in the matter of that which was formerly bread, is glorified, and has properties beyond that which we are acquainted with in an ordinary person.

And that is why Christ is the bread you see in the Eucharist, because that is the form He wished to present Himself to us in.

peace
steve

Timothy H. already explained this, but I wanted to add some thoughts. Christ’s soul is not ‘affixed’ to the matter of the bread. As you note, the bread is gone, having been changed into Jesus. It’s true that Jesus soul is present, as is his body and blood, and his divinity—all of him. But nothing of Him is ‘affixed’ to the bread. Only the appearances of bread remain, and they do not inhere in Jesus.

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.

We think that because we’ve got scientific instruments that can effectively peer into the micro measurments of matter, that we can now perceive reality directly. But we cannot. All that we can perceive, whether directly through our senses or with the aid of scientific instruments, is appearances.

Fortunately for us, because of the way that the universe is made, appearances are a good guide to reality. They have to be, because all of physics and chemistry is a study of appearances. It is only in the case of the Eucharist that appearances are held in place without inhering in an underlying substance. The appearances of bread and wine remain. The underlying reality is Jesus in his fullness.

Why would we believe such a thing? Only because Jesus went to great pains to tell us of it. “THIS,” he said, referring to the bread “IS my body.” And holing the chalice, he says’ “THIS IS my blood.”

If he says it, what reason do we have to doubt it?

 

[Faith1960]

Timothy H. already explained this, but I wanted to add some thoughts. Christ’s soul is not ‘affixed’ to the matter of the bread. As you note, the bread is gone, having been changed into Jesus. It’s true that Jesus soul is present, as is his body and blood, and his divinity—all of him. But nothing of Him is ‘affixed’ to the bread. Only the appearances of bread remain, and they do not inhere in Jesus.

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.

We think that because we’ve got scientific instruments that can effectively peer into the micro measurments of matter, that we can now perceive reality directly. But we cannot. All that we can perceive, whether directly through our senses or with the aid of scientific instruments, is appearances.

Fortunately for us, because of the way that the universe is made, appearances are a good guide to reality. They have to be, because all of physics and chemistry is a study of appearances. It is only in the case of the Eucharist that appearances are held in place without inhering in an underlying substance. The appearances of bread and wine remain. The underlying reality is Jesus in his fullness.

Why would we believe such a thing? Only because Jesus went to great pains to tell us of it. “THIS,” he said, referring to the bread “IS my body.” And holing the chalice, he says’ “THIS IS my blood.”

If he says it, what reason do we have to doubt it?

What about the thread titled Fungus on Dallas Host? I’ve invited people to post their thoughts on that subforum but nobody cares to do so.This Eucharistic Miracle was tested at 2 or more labs and was FedEX’d without a guardian. If there is proof EMs are real, I can grasp what you’re saying, if not, then I don’t.
How can we know it wasn’t ampered with and isn’t sending Jesus FedEx without a guardian against Church rules?

 

[thenobes]

Timothy H. already explained this, but I wanted to add some thoughts. Christ’s soul is not ‘affixed’ to the matter of the bread. As you note, the bread is gone, having been changed into Jesus. It’s true that Jesus soul is present, as is his body and blood, and his divinity—all of him. But nothing of Him is ‘affixed’ to the bread. Only the appearances of bread remain, and they do not inhere in Jesus.

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.

We think that because we’ve got scientific instruments that can effectively peer into the micro measurments of matter, that we can now perceive reality directly. But we cannot. All that we can perceive, whether directly through our senses or with the aid of scientific instruments, is appearances.

Fortunately for us, because of the way that the universe is made, appearances are a good guide to reality. They have to be, because all of physics and chemistry is a study of appearances. It is only in the case of the Eucharist that appearances are held in place without inhering in an underlying substance. The appearances of bread and wine remain. The underlying reality is Jesus in his fullness.

Why would we believe such a thing? Only because Jesus went to great pains to tell us of it. “THIS,” he said, referring to the bread “IS my body.” And holing the chalice, he says’ “THIS IS my blood.”

If he says it, what reason do we have to doubt it?

If His human soul is not adfixed to matter, that is, has a body, then that human nature has died.

What I am saying is, just as when some atoms become part of your body we can no longer call the matter they possess as different from you. They are matter directed in appearance by the organizing principle of your soul.

In any case, I don’t believe that appearances necessarily inhere in any substances. They only follow the laws that God wishes them to follow.

peace
steve

 

[JimG]

If His human soul is not adfixed to matter, that is, has a body, then that human nature has died.

What I am saying is, just as when some atoms become part of your body we can no longer call the matter they possess as different from you. They are matter directed in appearance by the organizing principle of your soul.

In any case, I don’t believe that appearances necessarily inhere in any substances. They only follow the laws that God wishes them to follow.

peace
steve

Yes, in the Eucharist, Jesus’ soul is affixed to his own body, which is not the bread! Jesus is present completely, body and soul, and divinity. I was only making the point that the appearances of the bread do not inhere in Jesus.

 

[JimG]

What about the thread titled Fungus on Dallas Host? I’ve invited people to post their thoughts on that subforum but nobody cares to do so.This Eucharistic Miracle was tested at 2 or more labs and was FedEX’d without a guardian. If there is proof EMs are real, I can grasp what you’re saying, if not, then I don’t.
How can we know it wasn’t ampered with and isn’t sending Jesus FedEx without a guardian against Church rules?

I’m not really that familiar with the Eucharistic miracles. Plus, I don’t think that Eucharistic miracles are particularly instructive when it comes to trying to understand the real presence.

Because what happens in a Eucharistic miracle? The appearances change! Just the opposite of what happens in the Eucharist normally, where the appearances don’t change.

While the miracle may help a particular individual to increase faith, I have not found it so, personally, because it is different than what occurs in every Mass.

 

[Faith1960]

I’m not really that familiar with the Eucharistic miracles. Plus, I don’t think that Eucharistic miracles are particularly instructive when it comes to trying to understand the real presence.

Because what happens in a Eucharistic miracle? The appearances change! Just the opposite of what happens in the Eucharist normally, where the appearances don’t change.

While the miracle may help a particular individual to increase faith, I have not found it so, personally, because it is different than what occurs in every Mass.

Then that brings us back to substance. Maybe I just don’t know what substance is…i think it was said that substance is what it really and truly is but that just makes no sense to me, due to the accidents not changing.

 

[JimG]

Then that brings us back to substance. Maybe I just don’t know what substance is…i think it was said that substance is what it really and truly is but that just makes no sense to me, due to the accidents not changing.

If you want God to make the accidents change every time the Eucharist occurs, in order to convince you, then you’ll have to take it up with him. I can’t help you there.

 

[Faith1960]

If you want God to make the accidents change every time the Eucharist occurs, in order to convince you, then you’ll have to take it up with him. I can’t help you there.

A few credible EMs would be plenty.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Then that brings us back to substance. Maybe I just don’t know what substance is…i think it was said that substance is what it really and truly is but that just makes no sense to me, due to the accidents not changing.

It isn’t surprising that it makes no sense. Even Aristotle would never have envisioned a substance without accidents, nor accidents without substance.

The Church has used this definition however, as the most convenient and safe way of describing what happens in the Eucharistic miracle. The Church wants us to understand that the accidents (appearance) of bread and wine remain, yet the substance (the reality) is that it is now the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This is consonant with what Jesus Himself said, and what Scripture has to say.

 

[Faith1960]

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.

 

[davidv]

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.

There is plenty of hope for all of us, if we dare to pursue it. Hope springs from our faith in Jesus and our trust in the Church He established for us.