Question about Transubstantiation

[Allnamesused]

As a non-catholic, I’ve always wondered just what it meant to say that the bread and wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist is transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Honestly, I’m not attempting to be disrespectful towards anyone’s believes, but the whole thing seems…um…really really trying to think of a word other than silly…lets go with inexplicable.
I mean, clearly the two mundane substance make no physical transformation, so what does it mean to say that it’s the body and blood of Christ while it is still clearly bread and wine?

I ask, because I’ve always been drawn to the Catholic Church, I love the pope, the history, the moral stances on everything from abortion to war. I’ve considered joining for decades; but I feel like I would have to shut off part of my brain each time I received communion. I’m honestly hoping to be convinced here. FYI-I’ve read the bible and every quote you’re going to use to attempt to “prove” the real presence could easily be interpreted in some other way. I want to understand what it means.
thanks!

 

[tGette]

Well…

We could use your argument to say…
“How can Jesus Christ be God?”

If God is invisible and infinite…then how can God become a mere human?

In the same mystery that the God of the Universe has the power to become a part of His creation…by that same power…He can become bread and wine.

So…God became a man…now…God becomes bread.

This is God’s greatest act of humility. He allows us, His creation, to chew him and eat him. What greater example of humility is there than that?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

How, I don’t have the slightest idea, any more than I know how God made a tree. He made the tree he took the bread and wine and said said this is my body this is my blood. it is as simply as that the terminology of transubstantiation came about to fight the heresy after the reformation that it was just mere symbols, this did not happen in the east that is why the Orthodox churches never had to define ot they just state that it is.

 

[ncgolf]

As a non-catholic, I’ve always wondered just what it meant to say that the bread and wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist is transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Honestly, I’m not attempting to be disrespectful towards anyone’s believes, but the whole thing seems…um…really really trying to think of a word other than silly…lets go with inexplicable.
I mean, clearly the two mundane substance make no physical transformation, so what does it mean to say that it’s the body and blood of Christ while it is still clearly bread and wine?

Ok … I agree an interpretation can lead to various conclusions so lets go with some early Church history … let’s see how they view this topic. Remember at this time there was no Bible, no official Canon so these people were living as they were taught … as the faith was being handed down. I would submit to you is find supporting early church history that supports your supposition that nothing happens, that this whole belief that the Eurcharist being Jesus is silly. You have the luxury of reading a Canon … these people did not.

These from the Early Church Fathers …
You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.
St. Ambrose Of Milan, “The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:

Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ …
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, This is my blood’’, and he gave it to them alone.
Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.

You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ… Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus is His Body confected.
ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 295 - 373 A.D.) (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)

This too I consider evidence … historical evidence.

 

[tee_eff_em]

As a non-catholic, I’ve always wondered just what it meant to say that the bread and wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist is transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Honestly, I’m not attempting to be disrespectful towards anyone’s believes, but the whole thing seems…um…really really trying to think of a word other than silly…lets go with inexplicable.

Precise Catholics do not say the bread and wine are transformed – They say they are transubstantiated.

I mean, clearly the two mundane substance make no physical transformation, so what does it mean to say that it’s the body and blood of Christ while it is still clearly bread and wine?

As you note: Clearly no *physical transformation *takes place (Eucharistic miracles aside). Catholic teaching is that the *substance *(the *metaphysical *stuff that something really is) has changed, leaving the *accidents *(the physical, outward appearances) unchanged. The *physical *is measurable, observable, quantifiable (this is why the elements still *clearly *appear to be bread and wine). The *metaphysical *is not, and it does take faith to believe the change has taken place.

tee

 

[cazayoux]

I want to understand what it means.

Maybe another perspective will help.

Jesus is the bridegroom and his Church is the bride, right?
What other language do we see for marriage…
Mark 10:8
[8] and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

In communion, this is what happens … Jesus’ flesh and our become one.

Cheers!

michel

 

[cazayoux]

I guess I’m a homestyle Catholic, too!!!

michel

 

[ralphinal]

We must start with what is substance. We can understand substance as that which makes up an object. Matter is substance. However, when you look at matter in its most basic form, you end up with space and charged particles. So, for all intents and purposes, substance is empty space and charged particles. Doesn;t sound like much.

Now, what makes me different from any other man on earth? Our substance is identicle. If you blasted me into components, I am mostly water with a few solid particles, worth less than $10.00. If you blatsted two into components, you could not tell us apart. However, I am more than that. All of us are. There is more to a person than $10.00 worth of matter.

Transubstantiation says, basically, that even though we see, touch, and taste bread and wine, that quality that makes it bread and wine is no longer there. It has been replaced with Jesus’s body, blood, soul, and divinity. Just like I am more than water and solid matter, so is the Consecrated Bread and Wine.

I hope this helps.

 

[tGette]

We must start with what is substance. We can understand substance as that which makes up an object. Matter is substance. However, when you look at matter in its most basic form, you end up with space and charged particles. So, for all intents and purposes, substance is empty space and charged particles. Doesn;t sound like much.

Now, what makes me different from any other man on earth? Our substance is identicle. If you blasted me into components, I am mostly water with a few solid particles, worth less than $10.00. If you blatsted two into components, you could not tell us apart. However, I am more than that. All of us are. There is more to a person than $10.00 worth of matter.

Transubstantiation says, basically, that even though we see, touch, and taste bread and wine, that quality that makes it bread and wine is no longer there. It has been replaced with Jesus’s body, blood, soul, and divinity. Just like I am more than water and solid matter, so is the Consecrated Bread and Wine.

I hope this helps.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi ralphinal,

A discussion about substance can get into fairly deep waters rather quickly. Its sometimes difficult to get a handle on it in venues such as this – perhaps the best way is in a classroom or with a good book and a easy chair. A pipe could help too.

I think, though, that we might need to tweak your explanation a bit.

We must start with what is substance. We can understand substance as that which makes up an object. Matter is substance.

That’s not quite the traditional understanding. Matter, in the way you are using it (i.e. material “stuff”) isn’t substance. This can be easily seen because there are spiritual substances, which have nothing to do with matter.

However, when you look at matter in its most basic form, you end up with space and charged particles. So, for all intents and purposes, substance is empty space and charged particles. Doesn;t sound like much.

Substance is a philosophical, rational concept. It is not something physical. . . it can’t be pictured or imagined. Those little particles you are speaking of are not the *substance of the thing they compose. *Even those little particles have substance and accidents.

You have been discussing physical or corporeal substances (remember there are spiritual substances too). But you seem to be equating tiny bits of physical stuff with the substance. Maybe you are using the commonplace understanding of “substance” as used in chemistry? (I.e. “this is a blue substance. . .” ) Substance, as used when speaking of the Eucharistic change, is not that kind of “substance.”

The traditional understanding is that corporeal substances are composed realities. They are composed of matter and form. But the “matter” in this case is not “matter” in the sense of little bits of stuff (atoms, or particles, etc.), but rather “prime matter”. Prime matter is just uniformed “reality”, but its impossible to imagine just “prime matter”. . .prime matter and form are joined to compose a material thing . All corporeal things are composed of the same “prime matter” with different forms. Atoms and particles too. This means that an atom has substance, it is not the substance.

What do you think? Maybe I was just misunderstanding the substance of your post.

VC

 

[abucs]

I would also find the answer in investigating matter.
For me it’s not just that the eucharist is a substance from God but that all matter is from God.

Of course as a Catholic i accept that the Eucharist is special in that it contains the essence of Jesus - God.

If we take the analogy of the computer then the pixels we see are a projection of the computer generations in the CPU box running according to programmed software logic.

Or if we take the TV example then the colours we see are a projection from the internal workings of the TV following hardwired logic after receiving the air vibration from the antenna.

The pixels or the colours make sense relative to a viewer on the screen and all can look completely pedestrian depending on the programming.

That’s the way i see matter - quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons etc. That is, that God is the underlying stimuli if you like and His creation produces the matter we see that is relative to us and makes up our reality.

The difference being that we are amongst creation rather than just watching it.

In this way i see all matter as being projected from God. The fact that he would instigate the Eucharist in a special way is not something that i need to ‘shut down part of my brain’ about.

On the contrary, meditating on the Eucharist opens up my mind to try and understand what matter is and how it relates not just with ourselves, but to an underlying reality from which it comes.
It also makes me think about the underlying reality as a being, and that matter comes from that being in a secondary way.

Whatever you think of the Eucharist, if you take it seriously, you have to see the world as a projection i think, from a primary source outside our material investigations - God.

When you do this you are more likely to see life as a relationship with God and focus on who God is relative to you and your reality.

My 2c worth.

 

[asheebeyle]

Hello guys, are you interested of making money by yourselves? Start a nursing agency, build fortunes in nursing agency business, nurse staffing agency, medical recruiting business. Plus nurse staffing software package. If you are interested just visit our website. Thanks!

 

[ralphinal]

Hi ralphinal,

A discussion about substance can get into fairly deep waters rather quickly. Its sometimes difficult to get a handle on it in venues such as this – perhaps the best way is in a classroom or with a good book and a easy chair. A pipe could help too.

I think, though, that we might need to tweak your explanation a bit.

That’s not quite the traditional understanding. Matter, in the way you are using it (i.e. material “stuff”) isn’t substance. This can be easily seen because there are spiritual substances, which have nothing to do with matter.

Substance is a philosophical, rational concept. It is not something physical. . . it can’t be pictured or imagined. Those little particles you are speaking of are not the *substance of the thing they compose. *Even those little particles have substance and accidents.

You have been discussing physical or corporeal substances (remember there are spiritual substances too). But you seem to be equating tiny bits of physical stuff with the substance. Maybe you are using the commonplace understanding of “substance” as used in chemistry? (I.e. “this is a blue substance. . .” ) Substance, as used when speaking of the Eucharistic change, is not that kind of “substance.”

The traditional understanding is that corporeal substances are composed realities. They are composed of matter and form. But the “matter” in this case is not “matter” in the sense of little bits of stuff (atoms, or particles, etc.), but rather “prime matter”. Prime matter is just uniformed “reality”, but its impossible to imagine just “prime matter”. . .prime matter and form are joined to compose a material thing . All corporeal things are composed of the same “prime matter” with different forms. Atoms and particles too. This means that an atom has substance, it is not the substance.

What do you think? Maybe I was just misunderstanding the substance of your post.

VC

You took my post one step farther than I did. I wanted to show that matter is one aspect, like a person is matter but there is something that makes each of us more. Things have matter and substance, using the two terms from philosophy. I was trying not to get to deep.

You are correct.

 

[tee_eff_em]

You took my post one step farther than I did. I wanted to show that matter is one aspect, like a person is matter but there is something that makes each of us more. Things have matter and substance, using the two terms from philosophy. I was trying not to get to deep.

You are correct.

A good *personal *illustration of substance and accidence is the phenomenon of continuous identity (which is an example of maintaining substance while transforming accidents). I will address the OP:
[user]Allnamesused[/user], you are not the same person you were when you were an infant, nor when you were a child, nor ten years ago, nor ten minutes ago, nor ten seconds ago. You have grown and transformed, you have taken in resources and incorporated some of them into yourself and expelled others as waste. You have taken in ideas and information and created memories. No doubt you have forgotten some things too (What did you eat on your 500th day of life?).

BUT: Have you ever stopped being you? If you claim that you have, when did you stop being the *you *of yesterday and become the *you *of today? How did you know? How do you know you are *you *and not somebody else?

You have maintained a continuous identity, in spite of the many transformations you have undergone. Part of the reason this is possible is that *you *identifies a substance, in which the changing accidents of you inhere.

tee

 

[tGette]

Hello guys, are you interested of making money by yourselves? Start a nursing agency, build fortunes in nursing agency business, nurse staffing agency, medical recruiting business. Plus nurse staffing software package. If you are interested just visit our website. Thanks!

Uhm…I’m pretty sure that was off-topic.

LOL!

 

[tGette]

A good *personal *illustration of substance and accidence is the phenomenon of continuous identity (which is an example of maintaining substance while transforming accidents). I will address the OP:
[user]Allnamesused[/user], you are not the same person you were when you were an infant, nor when you were a child, nor ten years ago, nor ten minutes ago, nor ten seconds ago. You have grown and transformed, you have taken in resources and incorporated some of them into yourself and expelled others as waste. You have taken in ideas and information and created memories. No doubt you have forgotten some things too (What did you eat on your 500th day of life?).

BUT: Have you ever stopped being you? If you claim that you have, when did you stop being the *you *of yesterday and become the *you *of today? How did you know? How do you know you are *you *and not somebody else?

You have maintained a continuous identity, in spite of the many transformations you have undergone. Part of the reason this is possible is that *you *identifies a substance, in which the changing accidents of you inhere.

tee

 

[tGette]

Originally quoted by Verbum Caro
Hi ralphinal,

A discussion about substance can get into fairly deep waters rather quickly. Its sometimes difficult to get a handle on it in venues such as this – perhaps the best way is in a classroom or with a good book and a easy chair. A pipe could help too.

I think, though, that we might need to tweak your explanation a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphinal forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
We must start with what is substance. We can understand substance as that which makes up an object. Matter is substance.

That’s not quite the traditional understanding. Matter, in the way you are using it (i.e. material “stuff”) isn’t substance. This can be easily seen because there are spiritual substances, which have nothing to do with matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphinal forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
However, when you look at matter in its most basic form, you end up with space and charged particles. So, for all intents and purposes, substance is empty space and charged particles. Doesn;t sound like much.

Substance is a philosophical, rational concept. It is not something physical. . . it can’t be pictured or imagined. Those little particles you are speaking of are not the *substance of the thing they compose. *Even those little particles have substance and accidents.

You have been discussing physical or corporeal substances (remember there are spiritual substances too). But you seem to be equating tiny bits of physical stuff with the substance. Maybe you are using the commonplace understanding of “substance” as used in chemistry? (I.e. “this is a blue substance. . .” ) Substance, as used when speaking of the Eucharistic change, is not that kind of “substance.”

The traditional understanding is that corporeal substances are composed realities. They are composed of matter and form. But the “matter” in this case is not “matter” in the sense of little bits of stuff (atoms, or particles, etc.), but rather “prime matter”. Prime matter is just uniformed “reality”, but its impossible to imagine just “prime matter”. . .prime matter and form are joined to compose a material thing . All corporeal things are composed of the same “prime matter” with different forms. Atoms and particles too. This means that an atom has substance, it is not the substance.

What do you think? Maybe I was just misunderstanding the substance of your post.

VC

 

[O.S.Luke]

Philosophy and metaphysics are simply the wrong disciplines to use with the supernatural - and certainly, the Mystery of Faith qualifies as the supernatural.

The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. Why try to explain a mystery? That’s what sacramentum means, BTW.

O+

 

[ralphinal]

Philosophy and metaphysics are simply the wrong disciplines to use with the supernatural - and certainly, the Mystery of Faith qualifies as the supernatural.

The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. Why try to explain a mystery? That’s what sacramentum means, BTW.

O+

I have always thought that we nevr tried to explain it until it was challenged by non-Catholics. Is that wrong? Is the history of it as a doctrine not tied to heresy?

 

[JimG]

I want to understand what it means.
thanks!

What it means is this: The substance of the bread and wine is gone. In its place is Jesus whole and entire. The appearances of bread and wine remain.

What are the appearances of bread and wine? It is everything which is perceptible to the senses, or by perception to any scientific instrument. All you can see and touch and taste are the appearances, you can’t get at the substance.

The appearances may be multipled (multiple communion wafers); Jesus is not. He remains only one, under the appearances of many communion wafers.

As a result, to paraphrase St. Paul, we though many, because we receive the one Eucharist, are united in him, because he is one.