The Real Presence: How long?

[Archimedeez]

Thats a extended response, which I see as saying.
“as a learned person I can see nothing happens to the bread and can measure nothing happening, but it obviously does happen , because thats what the church says, we cant explain it and we don’t have to”

This is a not-so-elegant way of saying: “This comment ends the argument and I’m going to ignore it because I don’t like it.”

Vikvak01 answered you in a very logical, reasonable, and even kind fashion. The answer addressed your question. But you’re still talking because you’re trying to tie the people on the forum in knots with the idea of “excreting Jesus.” The idea is abhorrent, and you’re banking on that to stir people up.

I just wanted to let you know that some of us see what you’re doing before I show you for the forum troll that you are.

The molecules don’t change they are simply changed whilst unchanged.
If you were to chemically analyze the consecrated host, it would be identical in every way to bread…but its actually Jesus.
We know it’s Jesus not because we can see or feel or even chemically prove it is, but we know because the Apostles told us Jesus told us “this is my blood”.

Thats all fine.

If this was all fine, you’d have stopped by now. It’s been pointed out already that transubstantiation isn’t a chemical process. You’re agreeing with that here. I’m going to remind you of said agreement in a moment.

But based on the knowledge that the flesh is real and being digested, (and a lot of catholics are saying they are absorbing the host),what is the process that stops the host from exiting the body.

You’ve entirely missed the point here. The host, like any other food, may eventually exit the body. We’ve already agreed that the conversion from simple cracker to divinely infused host doesn’t confuse or baffle us. But somehow you’re getting hung up on the fact that not all of the host material remains permanently in the body.

Help me here.

Lets use tears as a example.

The receiver intakes the wine. The wine becomes blood. The wine is wine only in its chemical composition and atomic structure. The polymers are absorbed, (filling the person with the holy spirit-as it is said) and a certain proportion of the real presence will end up in the tear ducts. A catholic crying soon after communion, perhaps with joy over her love of Jesus, will be expelling the host from the body in her tears.

Any of the foods thus far discussed is chemically broken down into its constituent macromolecules prior to absorption by the body. As per CCC 1377, the species (presumably the standard composition of bread or wine) must subsist for the presence of Christ to persist. At the point of chemical breakdown, the Eucharistic presence of Christ ceases to endure. The point of chemical breakdown is no later than the small intestine for any food substance. There’s no such thing as a “bread molecule.” You don’t have wine in your tears.

To avoid this,the presence has to leave the body or avoid contact with the body.Literally vanishing completely at the picosecond of digestion.I still cant find from the church,anything at all about how this process occurs or even if it does occur. Most answers seem to be accepting absorption but shuddering even at the thought of excretion

I just gave you the answer, and a citation. Enjoy.

Speculating here, but the reason may be that to even consider this question is heresy. So it’s not considered.

It’s been considered. And answered. Read the Catechism.

Apparently someone in medieval times made a ruling on it, but what that was or what evidences they used are elusive. They’re also MEDIEVAL! Without the benefits of modern biology, people in antiquity simply put food into their mouths and didn’t know anything about how it interacts with the body. Well, OK they didn’t know.but we do know now, and there at least ought to be some theory on how it happens.

The people in the medieval times were, it would appear, significantly more clever than you give them credit for. The explanation given in the Catechism is reasonable and valid, and has little trouble holding up against onslaughts by forum trolls.

 

[tommiatkins]

This is a not-so-elegant way of saying: “This comment ends the argument and I’m going to ignore it because I don’t like it.”

Vikvak01 answered you in a very logical, reasonable, and even kind fashion. The answer addressed your question. But you’re still talking because you’re trying to tie the people on the forum in knots with the idea of “excreting Jesus.” The idea is abhorrent, and you’re banking on that to stir people up.

I just wanted to let you know that some of us see what you’re doing before I show you for the forum troll that you are.

If this was all fine, you’d have stopped by now. It’s been pointed out already that transubstantiation isn’t a chemical process. You’re agreeing with that here. I’m going to remind you of said agreement in a moment.

You’ve entirely missed the point here. The host, like any other food, may eventually exit the body. We’ve already agreed that the conversion from simple cracker to divinely infused host doesn’t confuse or baffle us. But somehow you’re getting hung up on the fact that not all of the host material remains permanently in the body.

Help me here.

Any of the foods thus far discussed is chemically broken down into its constituent macromolecules prior to absorption by the body. As per CCC 1377, the species (presumably the standard composition of bread or wine) must subsist for the presence of Christ to persist. At the point of chemical breakdown, the Eucharistic presence of Christ ceases to endure. The point of chemical breakdown is no later than the small intestine for any food substance. There’s no such thing as a “bread molecule.” You don’t have wine in your tears.

I just gave you the answer, and a citation. Enjoy.

It’s been considered. And answered. Read the Catechism.

The people in the medieval times were, it would appear, significantly more clever than you give them credit for. The explanation given in the Catechism is reasonable and valid, and has little trouble holding up against onslaughts by forum trolls.

Just in closing, I have never talked about absorbed food as bread molecules. The food is broken into electrolytes, amino acids etc, not bits of bread floating round the body! although in the case of wine, a proportion of the wine molecules do indeed pass straight through into the body through the stomach wall)

Lets deal with wine
The wine molecules,“the blood” is straightforward, since it is alcohol. The alcohol persists in substance…it subsists…all the way through the body, out of the body and into the drainage. CCC1337 backs that up. (although how a bunch of medieval blokes around a candle lit table, who diddnt even know atoms existed can back anything up is beyond me.
However, as the digestion system is not 100% perfect and there are some things that cant and dont digest, even with a fully healthy system,(Sweetcorn, seeds,broccili fibers…pretty much anything will not 100% digest and a certain proportion will pass through).
This is with or without CCC1377’s point that the transforming of food molecules undigested will kill the host, or as you like to say “cease to endure”, which is a much nicer way of thinking about your creator being broken from complex wheat molecules into simple monosaccherides )

The troll aspect.
Am I here to accept Jesus? Asmylordandsaviourinsureandcertainhopeoflifeeverlastingamen? Nope, of course not. I’m a Agnostic quarter- deist who is happy with monotheism as long as it relates to the creative force of the universe from a point.

Am I trying to tie people in knots? Well that is an unfortunate byproduct. The answers the members are giving are tying *themselves *up in knots, until they invoke the “its what I beleive” debate stopper. Which is always a shame.

This thread is simple.Catholics beleive the bread and wine are Jesus.The presence remains till digestion.
The bread and wine is partly digested. Some parts are not.

Some of it persists into the drains.

It is time for some more old blokes,(with mayby a woman with em this time) to go back into the room, sit round the table, and be divinely guided towards the answer. CCC1377 no longer cuts any ice in the face of modern science.

Strange…perhaps they were not quite as divinely inspired as they thought! Is it Satans work ?

 

[Archimedeez]

What I hear you saying is that you’ve given up on the bread. You can’t prove that any portion of bread makes it out of the digestive system. That’s fine, because it doesn’t. But you’re still holding onto the wine.

That’s fine by me too, because none of your assertions on wine are correct either.

Wine is an aqueous mixture of peptides, saccharides, alcohol, and other stuff. There’s no such thing as a wine molecule. If you’ve found one, by all means, show me the chemical formula for it so I can go snag a Nobel prize. Wine is not the same as alcohol. Wine has alcohol in it (about 15% of wine is alcohol by volume, if my math is correct).

Wine isn’t absorbed through the wall of the stomach. No major group of macromolecules (unless you want to call a small subset of lipid soluble molecules a “major group”) is absorbed through the wall of the stomach. However, you are serendipitously correct in your assertion that alcohol can be absorbed through the stomach. Serendipitous, that is, because it defeats the argument that the wine remains intact past the point of the stomach. Remove the alcohol content from the wine, and you no longer have the same wine you drank. The integrity of the species has been violated, and the presence of Christ departs at that point.

All parts are digested. You still don’t have wine in your tears.

So far, the “blokes sitting round the table” are cutting your ice with little difficulty. Keep it coming. I doubt they’re worried.

 

[tommiatkins]

I diddnt say there were wine molocules. There are alcohol molocules. Jesus is apparently outside these molocules now? Yes these molocules go through the stomach walls, at least some do. Yes these molocules are present in Urine.

“Giving up on bread”, you appear to have misunderstood.

I am approaching both bread and wine from the two angles.

The first:The body of jesus is Digested. The molocules in the bread are simultaniously carbohydrate or glutens etc etc and Jesus.
By the process of Digestion, these molocules are transformed into the simpler elements. This destroys jesus,( or ceases him to endure , it does sound nicer dosnt it!) or jesus who was once clusters of wheat is broken into jesus who is Glucose. These in turn make their way by reabsorbion into the colon, in the form of salts and water. I am certain you have been frantically google searching to get a base understanding of it all so you dont need me to tell you this.
Likewise alcohol, remains alcohol throughought the process. Jesus is in the wine, he’s in the alcohol. What is this? He dosnt stick to the alcohol molecules!?

The Second Non starch carbohydrates as found in bread, wheat, yeasts(yeah, its unleavened…i know) may pass straight through.
Feaces contains reabsorbed nutrients,undigested fibers. Wine sugars will pass directly and also indirectly into the urine.
All this is measurable by simple dipstick tests and chemical analysis. The eucharist ends up in the poo. Sorry.

I havn’t touched Vomit yet.(well literally i have, but not figuratively!)
When someone throws up, is jesus destined to reside forever in the chunder?

I’m sure all of this is very upsetting for you., and i’m sorry for the distress. But it needs sorting out, and not by the medieval scripts you used. They dont work today as an explaination, and havn’t for decades.

In respect to your ideas and beleifs I will make this my last post on the matter, unless there is a response which needs addressing.

There are two reactions you can have.
1)Stick fingers in ears and lalallalalla , then switch off about it. That works.
2) Do your own research, find out the facts. Then come up with some other explaination yourself of why Jesus dosnt end up excreted. (it may be that he leaps out before he touches the lips , or its simply just Gods special magic trick. I like the "we are not meant to know " explaination.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just for folks following along who might be concerned:

During consecration the metaphysical substance of bread and wine are completely transformed into the metaphysical substance of Christ’s body and blood. The appearances of bread and wine, which normally inhere in the metaphysical substance of bread and wine, remain inhering in no substance whatsoever.

When the appearances of bread and wine undergo what would have been an underlying substantial change, the substance of Christ ceases to be present under the appearances. Thus any change of appearances that would have indicated a substantial change, indicates that the Real Presence is no longer under the appearances of bread and wine.

Digestion of normal bread and wine involve a substantial change, where the substance of bread and wine are changed into other substances (alcohol, gluten, your own body, etc. etc.) In Holy Communion, likewise, once the appearances of bread and wine *would have *indicated a substantial change (had there been the substance of bread or wine, which there isn’t) the Real Presence of Christ ceases to be under the appearances of the new substances.

It is relatively easy to understand that digestion of bread and wine involves a metaphysical substantial change. No one eliminates bread or wine.

VC

 

[Archimedeez]

Very good.

 

[vikvak01]

Thank you, Verbum Caro, for your intelligent and eloquent clarification. These were the points I was hoping to convey in my earlier post.

Tommi:
Although I disagree with some of the finer points of your digestive assertions, overall you’re not far off base. Having said that, you continuously fail to miss the key point within this argument. All of this modern science (which I enjoy and take part in on a daily basis) has no power to inform us about matters of faith. As Verbum points out, these are metaphysical issues. Even the medieval scholars which you like to poke fun at realized that these were issues of faith and not issues for the empirical sciences to answer.

To quote Aquinas:
“That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.” Aquinas, STh III, 75, 1.

I am assuming that you are working from an underlying philosophy of pure empiricism. I, and other Catholics who are explaining the faith, are not. None of your arguments should trouble a knowledgeable Catholic in the least. We see the empirical senses as being totally worthless to explain or comprehend the various aspects of faith. You are attempting to do just that- therefore, I believe this is where we must agree to disagree.

If you see this as 'sticking my fingers in my ears. . . ’ then I am sorry. That is not what I am attempting to convey. I accept the general basis of your science (since I use that same science in my daily career), however empirical knowledge and metaphysical knowledge are completely distinct.

The wine molecules

 

[Pro_Domina]

A good manual will tell you to do at least 10 min. of kneeled thanksgiving because that is the duration of the Real Presence in the body. If it is no longer the form of bread than it is no longer substancially the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[TDiGaetano]

There is a reason we fast before recieving communion.

And sure some things pass right through the digestive system usually because people eat or drink to much.

I don’t think there has been any scientific studys done on people peeing after church to see if there is alcohol in their urine… not that it would matter if there was.

I know that as I am walking back to the pew I can feel a peace and calmness over come my body and soul… this usually lasts until I get distracted or tempted by something bad then the feeling starts to diminish, but for a period of time I experience Hevenly bliss. I can see why the church encourages attendence of daily mass.

Reminds me of the time when St. Peter walked on water then he got distracted by the storm and began to sink.

But we just got to live each day following God, and doing our best to love our neighbors, while we resist sin. At least the Church has provided us with the weapons needed for our daily battles with the devil.

 

[a_pilgrim]

…But it needs sorting out…

Why??

 

[tommiatkins]

Thank you, Verbum Caro, for your intelligent and eloquent clarification. These were the points I was hoping to convey in my earlier post.

Tommi:
Although I disagree with some of the finer points of your digestive assertions, overall you’re not far off base. Having said that, you continuously fail to miss the key point within this argument. All of this modern science (which I enjoy and take part in on a daily basis) has no power to inform us about matters of faith. As Verbum points out, these are metaphysical issues. Even the medieval scholars which you like to poke fun at realized that these were issues of faith and not issues for the empirical sciences to answer.

To quote Aquinas:
“That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.” Aquinas, STh III, 75, 1.

I am assuming that you are working from an underlying philosophy of pure empiricism. I, and other Catholics who are explaining the faith, are not. None of your arguments should trouble a knowledgeable Catholic in the least. We see the empirical senses as being totally worthless to explain or comprehend the various aspects of faith. You are attempting to do just that- therefore, I believe this is where we must agree to disagree.

If you see this as 'sticking my fingers in my ears. . . ’ then I am sorry. That is not what I am attempting to convey. I accept the general basis of your science (since I use that same science in my daily career), however empirical knowledge and metaphysical knowledge are completely distinct.

*Quote:
Originally Posted by tommiatkins
…But it needs sorting out…

Why??

Well because its laughably provably ridiculosly false and makes catholoicism look like John Frum-ism*

Thanks for the reply Vikvak. Very nicely put.

Yes, I do read it as putting fingers in ears i’m afraid. Still, i hope this discussion has encoraged some people to consider the eucharist.and beleive based upon the evidence.
Either the evidence of being told whats right, by the old guys pulling rabbits in the 14th century. Or the measurable tested , provable facts of thousands of scientists today.

If its made their faith stronger, then thats wonderful.
If its caused them to think about their faith then, the same.

May Hirohito bless you all.

 

[Pro_Domina]

The thing is that God instituted this sacrament this way.
He is there as long as the form of bread and wine are still there.
If not imagine the problems that would give. We would have to burn down the Church if a particle fell because while water deforms bread, the Host is not subject to those rules.

God could not have made it more perfect.
Simply said.

 

[tommiatkins]

Which of course is the problem. The form of bread does remain, the attributes of the wine, down to the molecular level are present in the excretions.

1700 years ago, people would readily accept a fatherless dead preacher in a spirit world jumping magicly into a cracker. (Jesus worshipped for 1,970 years)They also accepted magic hammers with lightning smashing into celestial chariot pulling goats in order to ress them from the dead,(Thor: worshipped for 1,300 years) or flying on a cloud pulled from the ear across a Gods hand to wee on its fingers (Su-Wukong worshiped for 500 years).

The problem is that Thor never had to prove the goats every week, Su-Wukong dosnt have to make they journey accross everyones hand every day.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I understand what you are trying to get at, but it seems to have a problem.
If Our body absorbs the physical presence and the electrolytes are actually the precence of Jesus, then he is by the process transfered to every part of the body. Our hearts our eyes our fingers our synapses our colons.

It would be indeed unseemly for this to occour, I understand that you are seperating the idea that Jesus can be present in excreta such as sweat or feaces, but if he is **actually the bread **and actually the wine, rather than the idea that by breaking bread we remember him and his actions,then I’m afraid that this simply is what happens.

Thank you for wanting to understand what Catholics believe.

As a monothiest and non-Catholic you might just have to take this as a matter of our faith.

 

[rwoehmke]

Which of course is the problem. The form of bread does remain, the attributes of the wine, down to the molecular level are present in the excretions.

So are you saying that the smell, taste, texture, crunch or slosh of the bread and wine are found in the excreta? I doubt very much that all those molecules in the excreta are the totally unmodified molecules found in the bread and wine, nor would you be able to taste bread and wine if you ingested a bit of the excreta.

Like most folks of the current times, I think some of you are using the term “substance” as defined in science and not the term “substance” as it is used in metaphysics. Ya’ll prat about that of which you have little understanding.

Hirohito was hung from the neck until dead. The Crown prince lives on.

 

[vikvak01]

Science knows molecules.

Faith knows God.

In the pre-scientific era people had to understand scientific phenomenons via faith. Now we have science to address these issues. Faith and God are metaphysical issues- science cannot address matters of metaphysics.

Science does not study metaphysics. Science cannot study metaphysics because they are totally distinct. Science studies the empirical world around us. Metaphysics studies and attempts to understand the transcendental world.

Continually missing this glaring point only demonstrates that one lacks depth of intellect and any true desire to conduct an academic conversation. This is a mistake most first year undergraduate philosophy students would not make more than once.

IF you do not believe in a metaphysical world- then what are we discussing??

 

[tommiatkins]

So are you saying that the smell, taste, texture, crunch or slosh of the bread and wine are found in the excreta? I doubt very much that all those molecules in the excreta are the totally unmodified molecules found in the bread and wine, nor would you be able to taste bread and wine if you ingested a bit of the excreta.

Like most folks of the current times, I think some of you are using the term “substance” as defined in science and not the term “substance” as it is used in metaphysics. Ya’ll prat about that of which you have little understanding.

Hirohito was hung from the neck until dead. The Crown prince lives on.

Yes. Parts are still present in excreta. Would it taste the same. Depends if you had enough of it and seperated it from the other stuff stuck next to it. Personally I wouldnt reccomend it.

Meta physics is preferable to the actual physical existance of Jesus as the bread.
If he is metaphysically there, then hes there symbolically, metaphorically. But thats not the teaching. The teaching is that he becomes the wine. Well the wine is still there in the urea.

Hirohito died of cancer in 1989 actually.
Does hanging only allow ascension if its from the neck and not the hands and feet on a cross?

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I understand what you are trying to get at, but it seems to have a problem.
If Our body absorbs the physical presence and the electrolytes are actually the precence of Jesus, then he is by the process transfered to every part of the body. Our hearts our eyes our fingers our synapses our colons.

It would be indeed unseemly for this to occour, I understand that you are seperating the idea that Jesus can be present in excreta such as sweat or feaces, but if he is **actually the bread **and actually the wine, rather than the idea that by breaking bread we remember him and his actions,then I’m afraid that this simply is what happens.

Honestly, I think you’re worrying too much. I used to have issues with scrupulosity, and this sounds like something I would have obsessed about endlessly. But eventually I discovered that the only way to deal with this kind of worry is to look at it from a purely logical standpoint: Christ commanded us to physically eat His Body and Blood, so there is no way that He could be dishonored by our doing so. Receive Him into yourself and rejoice in His presence, and let Him worry about the details

 

[tommiatkins]

Honestly, I think you’re worrying too much. I used to have issues with scrupulosity, and this sounds like something I would have obsessed about endlessly. But eventually I discovered that the only way to deal with this kind of worry is to look at it from a purely logical standpoint: Christ commanded us to physically eat His Body and Blood, so there is no way that He could be dishonored by our doing so. Receive Him into yourself and rejoice in His presence, and let Him worry about the details

Cheers for the advice, I’ll pass i think. It dosnt worry me, it just facinates me. I’m not the sort of person who can beleive in something unless i can check it out.
Also Im Vegan and against cannabilism.

 

[Archimedeez]

Yes. Parts are still present in excreta. Would it taste the same. Depends if you had enough of it and seperated it from the other stuff stuck next to it.

This is flatly incorrect. Quit saying it. Read something, ANYTHING on digestion. Food undergoes a chemical change during digestion. By the time it hits the end of the colon, it is not the same.

It. Is. Not. The. Same.

For a guy espousing science, you know pitiful little of it. You don’t know much about Catholicism either, from the looks of it.

Why are you here?