The Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation

[Counterpoint]

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the change whereby, according to Catholic doctrine, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality the body and blood of Christ.[1][2] The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.[7][8] (source: Wikipedia: Transubstantiation)

Just for the sake of clarity and confirmation. Do Catholics really believe they are consuming the body and blood of Christ when they partake of the consecrated bread and wine?

 

[whoisdiss]

Yes, the host and the wine are both fully 100% the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, they are just in the appearance of wine and bread. Christ said those who do not eat his flesh and blood have no life in them, for his flesh and blood is a true food and drink.

 

[Avila123]

Yes, the host and the wine are both fully 100% the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, they are just in the appearance of wine and bread. Christ said those who do not eat his flesh and blood have no life in them, for his flesh and blood is a true food and drink.

 

[po18guy]

To clear something up, what is called transubstantiation was instituted by Christ. The Church recognizes this fact and attempts to integrate it into thought and language. The truly bizarre thought is that Christ said something directly, but either did not mean it, or meant something completely different. This is an innovative idea in Christianity and did not come from God, but from man.

Think of this: Say you eat some toast for breakfast. Nothing more than mere bread. What happens to that bread? It then becomes our living flesh, right? If not, why eat it? If our human body can turn bread into living flesh naturally, who are we to assert that God cannot do the same supernaturally? Especially since He said so very clearly.

 

[Richard_White]

YES! The Holy Eucharist is truly the Body, the Blood, the Soul, and the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ alone! Amen!

May God bless you all!

 

[Patty23]

Yes.

Transubstantiation insofar as the definition can easily be understood in the Aristotelian sense of substance and accidents.

There are changes wherein both the substance and the accidents change as in the case of a wood becoming coal. Some call it proper change.

Now, there’s also improper change. It is a change when either one component of the composite is unchanged (substance, accidents)

The normal changes that occur are usually accidental changes “age, size, etc” wherein the substance “man” for example doesn’t change. This type of change can be called Transaccidents.

For Transubstatiantion, the accidents remain “bread, wine” but the substance changed.

That just a simplifcation of the terms but of course it doesn’t make it any less mysterious.

 

[anixx]

Just for the sake of clarity and confirmation. Do Catholics really believe they are consuming the body and blood of Christ when they partake of the consecrated bread and wine?

Read John chapter 6, as you would read it for the first time.

 

[po18guy]

There is only one reason why the New Testament is called the “New Testament” in those exact words. In English, those are the words that Christ used when presenting the chalice of His Blood to the Apostles as He commanded them to take and drink it. In modern bibles, the word “covenant” is used, but either “covenant” or “testament” as used by Christ, relates solely to the wine which had become His Blood.

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:24
And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22:20
In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25
In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

It is the same in the King James Version of the scriptures.

“Transubstantiation” is merely the Church’s linguistic attempt to conceptualize something which occurs in the supernatural realm, making it comprehensible to us. And, precisely because it is supernatural, we must have faith to begin to comprehend it.

 

[PNEUMA]

Just for the sake of clarity and confirmation. Do Catholics really believe they are consuming the body and blood of Christ when they partake of the consecrated bread and wine?

Yes, Jesus Christ did many wonders, turning bread and wine into body and blood was one of them.

 

[WilT]

During Transubstantiation, I believe that the simple bread and cup of wine still appears and taste as they should. As bread and wine. What changes is it’s essence. We believe that it’s very essence changes and no longer is bread and vine. It is now the body and blood of our Lord. It’s as myself for example, as I continue on my Christian journey I am no longer who I used to be but now I have become a new person. A new essence. I must decrease so that he may increase. It is no longer I that lives in me but Christ who lives in me.
We believe this as Catholics because Our Lord said so, so we must believe it is so.

 

[njlisa]

Just for the sake of clarity and confirmation. Do Catholics really believe they are consuming the body and blood of Christ when they partake of the consecrated bread and wine?

I was raised as a Baptist, where I was taught that the Lord’s Supper was purely symbolic. We had it only a few times a year.

However, throughout my life, I felt very attracted to the Catholic Church for many reasons. I went through RCIA in 1989-90 – when I was in my late 20s. There we were taught that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

It took me awhile to get used to the teaching because of my background. But I reasoned that God had led me to the Catholic Church, so I needed to accept it.

And so I did – out of God-given faith and obedience. I continue to.

Here is an article that takes a broader perspective on what Catholics believe about the Holy Eucharist. uscatholic.org/blog/201305/knowing-believing-and-sometimes-not-knowing-believing-too-27323

 

[po18guy]

Although posting from the catechism is often a thread killer and conversation ender, it is good to consult the deposit of faith on such issues.

The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit

1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his Church: in his word, in his Church’s prayer, “where two or three are gathered in my name,” in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But “he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species.”

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Why the Council of Trent? Because the supernatural action which is described as transubstantiation was under attack by the regional European rebellion in the 16th century. In the eyes of the Churches, both East and West, this constituted an assault on the very nature of Christ. And, it was only a regional/political rebellion. Note: The 'reformers" did not attack the essentially parallel belief of the Eastern Orthodox. Why not?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Nothing exists by itself.
2. Persons and things didn’t create themselves.
3. Everything is created and sustained by the Creator.
4. God is always present in everything.
5. The Son of God is also present in bread and wine consecrated by a Catholic priest.
6. His presence fulfils His promises:
7. “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53
8. “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.” John 6:35
9. “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20

 

[Contarini]

Just for the sake of clarity and confirmation. Do Catholics really believe they are consuming the body and blood of Christ when they partake of the consecrated bread and wine?

The substance, not the “accidents.” Most likely you don’t believe in substances, but only in accidents. So it is misleading to say that Catholics believe that they are eating the Body and Blood of Jesus literally.

Edwin

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The substance, not the “accidents.” Most likely you don’t believe in substances, but only in accidents. So it is misleading to say that Catholics believe that they are eating the Body and Blood of Jesus literally.

Edwin

That is incorrect. Catholics believe that the Whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and Divinity are physically Present " behind " the accidents of the bread and wine. Christ is Present in his glorified body as he appeared after his Resurrection. The Catechism has an excellent section on the Real Presence. And here is an excellent article from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm Thomas Aquinas has a more detailed explanation in his Summa Theologiae, Part 3, Ques 73-83. newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

Linus2nd

 

[po18guy]

The substance, not the “accidents.” Most likely you don’t believe in substances, but only in accidents. So it is misleading to say that Catholics believe that they are eating the Body and Blood of Jesus literally.

Edwin

That is incorrect. Catholics believe that the Whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and Divinity are physically Present " behind " the accidents of the bread and wine. Christ is Present in his glorified body as he appeared after his Resurrection. The Catechism has an excellent section on the Real Presence. And here is an excellent article from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm Thomas Aquinas has a more detailed explanation in his Summa Theologiae, Part 3, Ques 73-83. newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

Linus2nd

Oh, oh. Do we have a smiley that ducks into a foxhole?

 

[Contarini]

That is incorrect. Catholics believe that the Whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and Divinity are physically Present " behind " the accidents of the bread and wine. Christ is Present in his glorified body as he appeared after his Resurrection. The Catechism has an excellent section on the Real Presence. And here is an excellent article from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm Thomas Aquinas has a more detailed explanation in his Summa Theologiae, Part 3, Ques 73-83. newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

Linus2nd

Yes. I am following Aquinas. You have not explained how I am wrong.

“Substance” is not what most modern people would think of as “physical.” I don’t think any of the sources you cited use the word “physical.” I know Aquinas doesn’t.

Note that I didn’t say it was false to say that Catholics eat the Body and Blood of Jesus literally. I said it was misleading. On another thread some months ago, I detailed what I meant by this: the word “literally” is itself hard to interpret “literally.” It can mean a lot of things. When the CE uses it, it’s using it in contrast to “figurative.” Jesus is really present and not merely figuratively so. But without serious clarification, “literally” will mislead non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians into thinking that Catholics believe in cannibalism and that the appearance of bread and wine is simply a graceful illusion to hide what is really going on. That isn’t the teaching of the Church or of the great Doctors such as Aquinas.

The Eucharist, as I understand it, surpasses our normal categories. We need to be careful not to reduce it by the way we talk about it. “Literal” implies to most people “what we would normally mean by the term in question.” In other words, that there’s no serious difference between eating Jesus and eating a steak. Obviously there is, and the language Catholics use needs to reflect this. Hence the wisdom (in the absence of a better terminology) of sticking to the antiquated terminology of Aristotelian philosophy, particularly the term "substance. As I said before, substances are not things in which modern people typically believe in the first place. Their loss.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[njlisa]

That is incorrect. Catholics believe that the Whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and Divinity are physically Present " behind " the accidents of the bread and wine. Christ is Present in his glorified body as he appeared after his Resurrection. The Catechism has an excellent section on the Real Presence. And here is an excellent article from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm Thomas Aquinas has a more detailed explanation in his Summa Theologiae, Part 3, Ques 73-83. newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

Linus2nd

Thank you so much! I never new that.

 

[belorg]

Yes. I am following Aquinas. You have not explained how I am wrong.

“Substance” is not what most modern people would think of as “physical.” I don’t think any of the sources you cited use the word “physical.” I know Aquinas doesn’t.

Note that I didn’t say it was false to say that Catholics eat the Body and Blood of Jesus literally. I said it was misleading. On another thread some months ago, I detailed what I meant by this: the word “literally” is itself hard to interpret “literally.” It can mean a lot of things. When the CE uses it, it’s using it in contrast to “figurative.” Jesus is really present and not merely figuratively so. But without serious clarification, “literally” will mislead non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians into thinking that Catholics believe in cannibalism and that the appearance of bread and wine is simply a graceful illusion to hide what is really going on. That isn’t the teaching of the Church or of the great Doctors such as Aquinas.

The Eucharist, as I understand it, surpasses our normal categories. We need to be careful not to reduce it by the way we talk about it. “Literal” implies to most people “what we would normally mean by the term in question.” In other words, that there’s no serious difference between eating Jesus and eating a steak. Obviously there is, and the language Catholics use needs to reflect this. Hence the wisdom (in the absence of a better terminology) of sticking to the antiquated terminology of Aristotelian philosophy, particularly the term "substance. As I said before, substances are not things in which modern people typically believe in the first place. Their loss.

Edwin

Edwin

A very interesting post, Edwin.
What I would like to know is what, according to Aristotle and Aquinas, the substance of my blood is.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes. I am following Aquinas. You have not explained how I am wrong.

“Substance” is not what most modern people would think of as “physical.” I don’t think any of the sources you cited use the word “physical.” I know Aquinas doesn’t.

Note that I didn’t say it was false to say that Catholics eat the Body and Blood of Jesus literally. I said it was misleading. On another thread some months ago, I detailed what I meant by this: the word “literally” is itself hard to interpret “literally.” It can mean a lot of things. When the CE uses it, it’s using it in contrast to “figurative.” Jesus is really present and not merely figuratively so. But without serious clarification, “literally” will mislead non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians into thinking that Catholics believe in cannibalism and that the appearance of bread and wine is simply a graceful illusion to hide what is really going on. That isn’t the teaching of the Church or of the great Doctors such as Aquinas.

The Eucharist, as I understand it, surpasses our normal categories. We need to be careful not to reduce it by the way we talk about it. “Literal” implies to most people “what we would normally mean by the term in question.” In other words, that there’s no serious difference between eating Jesus and eating a steak. Obviously there is, and the language Catholics use needs to reflect this. Hence the wisdom (in the absence of a better terminology) of sticking to the antiquated terminology of Aristotelian philosophy, particularly the term "substance. As I said before, substances are not things in which modern people typically believe in the first place. Their loss.

Edwin

Edwin

Your objection to the use of " literally " is a valid one. The Church always or nearly always uses the qualifier " glorified " to describe what is meant by Christ’s physical Presence. I would have thought that people would understand what is meant by the world substance. I guess I have given them too much credit. Also, the Church often uses the word " veil " to describe the function of the species because it is not the species which is Christ’s body and blood. Rather the species is a sign of Christ’s Presence by means of the species. The species " carries " Christ, so to speak. They are a sign of Christs glorified Presence.

Linus2nd