Shouldn't the wine taste like blood?

[carol_marie]

I’ve always believed in consubstantiation (it’s a craker and wine but it’s also the body and blood of Christ) so when I partake I’m not suprised that it still tastes like wine & a cracker. If transsubstantition is true and nothing of the wine remains, shouldn’t it taste like blood? Everyone knows what blood tastes like and I’ve never heard a Catholic say the wine actually tastes like blood. Please explain.

 

[martino]

Transubstantiaion is a change of substance, not a change of accidents. The bread is changed in a substancial way into the Body of Christ, however it maintains all of its accidental properties, which are those things perceived by the human senses.

So to be more accurate you could say that nothing of bread and wine remains except for their accidental properties. They appear to be bread and wine, they taste and feel like bread and wine, human reason would tell us they are bread and wine, but we know that they are in fact the Body and Blood of Christ. This is why the Eucharist is considered to be one of the greatest mysteries.

 

[carol_marie]

But isn’t that what Lutherans believe also… it looks like a cracker and wine but it’s actually Jesus’ body and blood. I guess I don’t understand where we disagree?

 

[tee_eff_em]

carol marie:

But isn’t that what Lutherans believe also… it looks like a cracker and wine but it’s actually Jesus’ body and blood. I guess I don’t understand where we disagree?

I’m not a Lutheran, and I can’t say what they believe corporately, if anything.

But you correctly stated the definition of “consubstantiation” above. “Transubstantiation”, as martino said, means the substances of the bread and wine have been completely replaced by the substance of Christ’s body and blood. It would be therefore incorrect to speak of the elements being bread and wine any longer – Only body and blood (under the appearances – The accidents – of bread and wine)

accidentally,
tee

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

carol marie:

I’ve always believed in consubstantiation (it’s a craker and wine but it’s also the body and blood of Christ) so when I partake I’m not suprised that it still tastes like wine & a cracker. If transsubstantition is true and nothing of the wine remains, shouldn’t it taste like blood? Everyone knows what blood tastes like and I’ve never heard a Catholic say the wine actually tastes like blood. Please explain.

Sometimes it does look and taste like Blood, believe me it has happened to me. However to answer your question. It is the Body of Christ, not the Body of Christ and bread. (Lutheran view). It looks, tastes, smells, feels like bread however it is not, it is totally and only the Body of Christ. (Catholic view) Same is applied to the Blood of Christ.

 

[headman13]

tee_eff_em:

I’m not a Lutheran, and I can’t say what they believe corporately, if anything.

But you correctly stated the definition of “consubstantiation” above. “Transubstantiation”, as martino said, means the substances of the bread and wine have been completely replaced by the substance of Christ’s body and blood. It would be therefore incorrect to speak of the elements being bread and wine any longer – Only body and blood (under the appearances – The accidents – of bread and wine)

accidentally,
tee

As resident Lutheran I will explain what we mean by Consubstantiation. The Apologia of the Augsburg Confession says “we defend the doctrine received in the whole church that in the Lord’s Supper the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are truly offered and received with those things that are seen, bread and wine” Consubstantiation is the teaching that the communicant receives the true Body and true Blood of Christ “in, with, and under” the bread and the wine. We believe, teach and confess the real, substantial presence of Christ in the elements in the Sacrament of the Altar. St. Paul doesn’t say an unworthy communicant is “guilty of the bread” but rather he says that if you partake unworthily you are “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” Full Stop. The problem is of course in the Aristotelan distinction between “accidents” an “essences”—what is essence, what is accident…“It only looks like bread, but is in reality Body” The doctrine of “Consubstantiation” is an attempt to move away from the idea of “magic words” and to be true both to the words “This IS my Body” and “The BREAD that we break is it not a participation in the Lord’s Body…” ( 1 Corinthians 10:16)

We Lutherans take it in the neck from both sides:

1. from the *Catholics * for not going all the way to Transubstantiation, where the Bread and wine cease to Exist and are transformed into the Body and Blood.
2. from the Calvinists who teach that the Real Presence is ONLY SPIRITUAL because Jesus’ Resurrection Body can only be in one place and that is in Heaven at the Right Hand of God. "Is it the Real Presence of the Spiritual Christ or the Spiritual Presence of the Real Christ??
3. from the Zwinglians & Radical Reformation types who teach that it is “JUST GRAPE JUICE AND CRACKERS”; the Lord’s Supper is an Ordinance–NOT a Sacrament–set up by Jesus JUST as a Memorial Meal, nothing more or less.

That’s sort of the spectrum. I was raised in a small Lutheran community that has always sought to avoid arguing over the MECHANICS of the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Sacrament while affirming the true essential Presence with enthusiasm. All the theologizing about “HOW” the Presence occurs has usually produced more heat than light. When I was working on my doctorate at a prominent Lutheran seminary I can remember fistfights nearly breaking out over “WHEN” the Real Presence occurs: is it the whole Anaphora, must there be an *anamnesis * and an epiklesis?Is it JUST the Words of Institution that effect it?, is it just when the Communicant recieves the Body & Blood? Seems to me to be a lot of scholastic wool gathering and sophistry. I prefer to accept the truth of the Real Presence in faith as a gift.

Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth I of England was once asked about her stand on Transubstatiation, she replied to the effect that “Whatever Jesus meant when He said it is what I mean when I receive it.” Me too.

 

[Brendan]

If transsubstantition is true and nothing of the wine remains, shouldn’t it taste like blood?

What you are describing would be Transaccidendation, the changing of the accidents.

Water does this when it freezes, it’s accidents change, but not it’s substance. Ice doesn’t feel the same as steam, but it’s substance is the remains the same.

The Eucharist is Transubstantiaion, which is the opposite. The feel, taste, texture remain the same but the substance itself changes.

 

[carol_marie]

Thanks for your replys. It gives me food for thought (ha! No pun intended) Headman, I viewed your profile wondering if you attended a Lutheran church near me and read that you list your religion as ORTHODOX PROTESTANT CATHOLIC. Say what??

 

[Fergal]

Folks!

The great miracle of our Mass is that bread and wine are changed into the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The greater miracle is that they remain under the appearance of bread and wine.

God Bless
Fergal
Naas
Ireland

 

[headman13]

carol marie:

Thanks for your replys. It gives me food for thought (ha! No pun intended) Headman, I viewed your profile wondering if you attended a Lutheran church near me and read that you list your religion as ORTHODOX PROTESTANT CATHOLIC. Say what??

*Orthodox : *holding sound doctrines, esp. those as formulated in the great Christian Creeds in the 1st 7 Ecumenical Councils
Protestant: actually a Lutheran pastor
Catholic: member of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” that we confess in the Creed

am of course much closer to my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters than to those of, say, a Baptist or Holiness inclination.

 

[coralewis]

no the wine stays wine physically but is the Precious Blood spiritually

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

coralewis:

no the wine stays wine physically but is the Precious Blood spiritually

After Consecration it retains the physical charaistics of wine and bread (in most instances) but is in reality, actually the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

carol marie:

I’ve always believed in consubstantiation (it’s a craker and wine but it’s also the body and blood of Christ) so when I partake I’m not suprised that it still tastes like wine & a cracker. If transsubstantition is true and nothing of the wine remains, shouldn’t it taste like blood? Everyone knows what blood tastes like and I’ve never heard a Catholic say the wine actually tastes like blood. Please explain.

Well, you should know that the prefix “sub” is very difinitive in the word substance. Sub, means under, below, or inside, or really, what is concealed. In other words, substance isn’t what is in appearance, or what is shown, but what is concealed, on the inside, or below, or beneath. In other words, Christ is in the form of bread and wine. In John 6, the people complained and said “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Well, how did he give his apostles his flesh to eat in the last supper? UNDER THE FORMS OF BREAD AND WINE! The bread at mass that is transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ looks, feels, smells, and tastes like bread, but it really isn’t bread underneath, below the material. The bread doesn’t smell like human flesh, look like human flesh, taste like human flesh, or feel like human flesh because it’s not supposed to. The wine at mass that is transubstantiated looks, smells, feels, and tastes like wine, but it’s still the precious blood of Christ, not in appearance, but in actuallity. There was once, a miracle in Italy, I think, when a priest didn’t believe in transubstantiation, and when he consecrated the host, it turned into ACTUAL, TANGIBLE HEART TISSUE! They tested it and it matched what was on the shroud of Turin. There have also been miraculous occasions of bleeding hosts. As a matter of fact, there was a miracle in Portugal of a bleeding host, when a woman stole a consecrated host from a mass, she carried it home, but it was bleeding. It’s now in that village in Portugal being venerated and worshipped, as we worship every host, because we believe that it becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, which is the same substance that Jesus is in his glorified body in heaven. The church has proclaimed that the father, son, and holy spirit are all consubstantial, meaning, they all consist of the same substance. That is why it is worshiped, or really HE is worshiped. Hope that helps!