Because, in the Eucharist, we are given the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity – not the physical characteristics of blood. That’s what ‘transubstantiation’ means, after all.
To add to this, the disciples agreed with you in your shock and many left Jesus when he proclaimed this. When Jesus asked the twelve if they to would leave Peter spoke for the group saying “where would be go, you have the words of eternal life!”
Here are a few links to help you understand the Church’s teaching and where it comes from.
We receive the Divinity, and the Body, Blood, and Soul of the resurrected Christ.
The Eucharist is just another example in the Bible of things that make you go, “How can that be?!”
Quantum physics confuses the life out of me, however I don’t doubt the understanding of truths that are beyond me. If you want to be confused you don’t have to go far. The Trinity is enough for me. Then again the Schrodinger Equation confuses me. However I have learnt not to let my stupidity get in the way of the truth. Decartes understood how the senses deceive and his examples are obvious to all of us. Transubstantiation relies on the words of Christ, repeated again in the face of obdurate opposition of many of His followers. As one wise post suggests, we have no where to go as He has the words of eternal life. How often children are confused, however there is a time to put away childish things and take up the wonder.
I saw a Facebook meme just the other day that I really wished I’d saved.
A good read on the Jewish roots of the Eucharist is a book by Brandt Pitre by the same name (The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist).
And not even just to the Real Presence, but to it being true flesh and blood, too. That is, testimony that it’s not just MORE than bread and wine, but NO LONGER bread and wine. Aquinas’ language to talk about the change was just developed later.
Yes, you’re right: He didn’t mention anything about it… And that’s why, in John 6, so many people left Him. You see, the ‘Bread of Life’ discourse – in its context, as it was taking place – wasn’t so much a theological seminar as it was a request, by Jesus, for folks to believe in Him. After all, the crowd had seen Him feed 5000 with 5 loaves & 2 fish; the apostles had seen Him walk on water. And now, Jesus is asking them to apply those lessons. Yes, it was a very difficult lesson to work on, but He was asking them to believe Him and trust in Him.
Jesus did, Himself! He ‘decided’ it at the Last Supper:
It’s an argument based in philosophy that, first, defines what ‘substance’ and ‘characteristics’ (well, actually, the term is ‘accidents’) are (and how the two are typically linked in a certain thing)…
…Ever hear someone call the Eucharist a ‘miracle’? These two things can only be what we say they are because Jesus Himself made it so: He promised it, and He did it, and He told us to do it in memory of Him. They can be separate only because it’s a miracle each time it happens.
Now you’ve taken the discussion a step farther. (It’s ok: there are Catholics who, when they hear what the Church teaches, think the same thing, and then get ticked off at the person who explained it to them, as if he’s saying something untrue.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary, Transubstantiation:“After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power.”
Really? Just look at the last couple of posts…especially the dialogue between Gorgias and daddygirl!
It’s dialogue like that which tends to distract people from what’s really important: Jesus died for our sins and then rose from the dead so that we may live! The rest is really superfluous.So would you say I don’t need to follow the commandments? I believe in Jesus Christ, that he is God and that he gave his life for the forgiveness of sins. Does that make it okay to go out and kill someone because I like his watch? Or to covet his wife because she’s hot? Or commit adultery? Or steal?Really? Just look at the last couple of posts…especially the dialogue between Gorgias and daddygirl!
People make it more confusing than it needs to be. In my opinion, when people are very confused by a theological issue, it’s because one part of their mind does not want to believe it. They end up wrestling with themselves instead of letting go and trusting. Trust is the essence of belief. If you analyze every miracle too hard, you won’t believe any of it.Really? Just look at the last couple of posts…especially the dialogue between Gorgias and daddygirl!
Anyone who professes faith in Christ would never do all those terrible things you mentioned.
Good point CatholicHockey. However, anyone who TRULY professes faith in Christ would never do any of those terrible things you mentioned. Those are very basic common sense commandments that are followed even by most secularists. My point is that I sometimes fear that the Catholic Church has a few too many bells and whistles that distract the faithful from what’s really important…the blood of the cross.
In cases like this, I sometimes find it useful to look at the question from a historical perspective. This is not a new question, by any means. Both Augustine and Ambrose wrote about it, in *De Doctrina *and *De Mysteriis *respectively. After that period it was largely forgotten. Several centuries passed without anyone raising any questions about it, until Charlemagne (768-814) initiated wide-ranging ecclesiastical reforms, including the standardization of the liturgy throughout the Empire. This in turn triggered a new spirit of inquiry in the Church, particularly in Benedictine monasteries.
Saints have done those things even after baptism, eventually they repented and became images of Christ (at least by their death).