U
Upgrade25
Guest
Doesn’t God change every time the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood?
- Status
C
Confiteor_Deo
Guest
No, He doesn’t change. I don’t see how transubstantiation would be a change for God.
U
Upgrade25
Guest
Isn’t if something becomes God, God changes?
M
Micosil
Guest
The doctrine of Transubstantiation states that the accidents of the bread and the wine remain the same, but their essence changes to that of God. That is, what seem to us to be bread and wine no longer have the essence of bread and wine. It is the bread and the wine whose essence change from those of bread and wine, to God. God, Jesus Christ, doesn’t change.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Changes in what way? How could you say God has changed in his nature or his identity? The bread has changed. But I don’t see any real change in God’s nature. In fact it is his nature of love that is being expressed to change the Eucharist. God already fills all things. While he is present in the Eucharist in a special way the whole of him is not contained or confined in it.
W
Wildgraywolf
Guest
The only change is in the substance of bread and wine.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Did God change when the Son became incarnate? When the 2nd person of the Trinity took on flesh?
U
Upgrade25
Guest
By the bread and wine being turned into part of Jesus…
A
awatkins69
Guest
The doctrine of God’s immutability or changelessness does not imply God doesn’t change at all: It only implies that God does not change intrinsically or in himself. In other words, his internal attributes – his goodness, power, oneness, simplicity, knowledge, and so forth – do not ever change in any way.
God can change in his relations to creatures though. So, for instance, when God created the universe he “began” to be a creator and so he “changed” in that sense; but he did not change in his intrinsic nature.
When God took on a human body by becoming incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ this was not an intrinsic change either. (The Incarnation is complicated of course, and this requires explanation; we could get into it, but that’s another topic.)
When Jesus Christ’s body comes to be located where there was once bread and wine then this involves no intrinsic change in God’s intrinsic nature, i.e., in himself. It only involves a change in his relation to some created thing.
J
John_Martin
Guest
A substance is an actual individual (of a species and genre). Such as I, John Martin, and a substance of human animal.
When we say the substance (individual instance) of bread is now the substance of Jesus, we are saying that this particular, individual bread, on the altar, is now the particular material of the particular human animal Jesus physical presence. It is the body of the individual human animal Jesus, thus its “substance” is Jesus the individual, no matter what it “looks like”.
The bread does not become “divine”, does not become God. It is purely physical material that is now the body of Jesus (and a body is not the whole being - for humans, we are a composite of body and soul in our individuality as human animal - for Jesus, he as an individual or “substance” is a composite of body and soul and divinity [although “composite” may be the incorrect term for the divinity part] - what we see on the altar is a part of the substance of Jesus, the humanly visible part, the body of the individual we call Son of God and Son of Man. God did not change, Jesus’ soul is present where his body is; his divinity is present where his body and soul are - no change)
Jesus only knows one “last supper” where he says, “This is my body” - it is eternally in his knowing. That is why he called his disciples to “do this in Re-Membrance” of me".
Do the physical part with your words and hands to make my eternal knowing of this materially present on earth - know “with me” what I am knowing. You remember Jesus saying, “Before Abraham was, I AM” - Jesus knows all singly and eternally. We are joining that one meal of sacrifice, joining Jesus in his One Knowing, in the mass, and we are only eating once, no matter how many times our bodies are repeating the re-membering, re-manifesting in material act, the Mass.
When we say the substance (individual instance) of bread is now the substance of Jesus, we are saying that this particular, individual bread, on the altar, is now the particular material of the particular human animal Jesus physical presence. It is the body of the individual human animal Jesus, thus its “substance” is Jesus the individual, no matter what it “looks like”.
The bread does not become “divine”, does not become God. It is purely physical material that is now the body of Jesus (and a body is not the whole being - for humans, we are a composite of body and soul in our individuality as human animal - for Jesus, he as an individual or “substance” is a composite of body and soul and divinity [although “composite” may be the incorrect term for the divinity part] - what we see on the altar is a part of the substance of Jesus, the humanly visible part, the body of the individual we call Son of God and Son of Man. God did not change, Jesus’ soul is present where his body is; his divinity is present where his body and soul are - no change)
Jesus only knows one “last supper” where he says, “This is my body” - it is eternally in his knowing. That is why he called his disciples to “do this in Re-Membrance” of me".
Do the physical part with your words and hands to make my eternal knowing of this materially present on earth - know “with me” what I am knowing. You remember Jesus saying, “Before Abraham was, I AM” - Jesus knows all singly and eternally. We are joining that one meal of sacrifice, joining Jesus in his One Knowing, in the mass, and we are only eating once, no matter how many times our bodies are repeating the re-membering, re-manifesting in material act, the Mass.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
The Eucharist is defined as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It is the whole of Christ, not merely his Body. See below.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
That would kinda be like saying that, when I get dressed (going from jeans and a t-shirt into a suit and tie) that my nature has changed – that I am now not the same person. That doesn’t really make sense…
J
John_Martin
Guest
Actually, the Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus are concomitantly present with the Sacramental Body, which alone is sacramentally Christ Present. Where his Body is, there also is his blood, soul, and divinity, concomitantly, but not sacramentally.
And likewise with the sacramental blood, Christ’s body, soul, and divinity are concomitantly present in his sacramentally, materially, present blood - for where the blood of a living being is, there also is his body, soul, and (in this case) divinity.
G
Gorgias
Guest
:nope:
You seem to be attempting to separate the divinity of Christ from Jesus’ humanity, by saying that the Eucharist is “of the human animal Jesus.” That’s not accurate.
Sigh. :nope:
No, it is no longer ‘bread’: it is Christ, sacramentally present under the appearances of bread and wine.
Double sigh. :nope:
It’s not “part of the substance”, as if Christ’s substance is somehow divided among the many pieces of bread on altars all around the world. It is fully Christ, sacramentally present. Period.
If you’re saying that the appearance of bread is Christ’s body, then yet again… :nope:
Stick to the definition: “Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, sacramentally present under the appearances of bread and wine.”
J
John_Martin
Guest
You seem to like Thomas Aquinas: Okay::nope:
You seem to be attempting to separate the divinity of Christ from Jesus’ humanity, by saying that the Eucharist is “of the human animal Jesus.” That’s not accurate.
Sigh. :nope:
No, it is no longer ‘bread’: it is Christ, sacramentally present under the appearances of bread and wine.
Double sigh. :nope:
It’s not “part of the substance”, as if Christ’s substance is somehow divided among the many pieces of bread on altars all around the world. It is fully Christ, sacramentally present. Period.
If you’re saying that the appearance of bread is Christ’s body, then yet again… :nope:
Stick to the definition: “Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, sacramentally present under the appearances of bread and wine.”
Summa Third Part Q 76 A 1
The bread changes into his Body, not into Christ.
The whole Christ is Present with his Body, just as every soul is present with his living body, and even moreso, since with Christ is present his divinity with his body.
And from the Catechism
substance of Bread changes to substance of Body (not into substance of whole Christ)
substance of Wine changes into substance of Blood (not into whole Christ)
But, The Whole Individual Jesus is Present wherever his living body and living blood are, fully one with them.
G
Gorgias
Guest
He’s a pretty good guy to like.
I think we’re quibbling here, but you keep saying things that just ain’t so.
The substance of the bread changes into the substance of Christ. Full stop. Not ‘part of Christ’, not ‘the human Christ’, not just ‘the Body of Christ’. All of Christ. Like you quoted, “things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind” – in other words, you can think about “the body of Christ” and “the blood of Christ”, but all of the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is present in the Eucharist. It’s. Just. That. Simple.
So why are we debating? Christ is really, truly, completely present in the Eucharist.
And in the next paragraph: “Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts”
But, what you’re saying, then, is that there is a substantial difference between the host and the Precious Blood? Such that receiving one is different from receiving the other…?
J
John_Martin
Guest
In the wafer, you are chewing his real material flesh. And where there is a living body, there is also blood, soul, divinity.
In the chalice, you are drinking his real physical blood. And where there is life filled blood, there is also its body, its animating soul, its divinity.
Just as people can find you, your whole being, your whole “you”, when they are in the presence of your physical body and talk into your body’s ears, and stand in front of your body’s eyes, because it is your “living body”, where your soul dwells among us, where you dwell among us, in the same way, we know this physical material now become the body of Christ is living (because Christ lives), and it is the material place we can unite with Christ by consuming this body and blood; it is the place we can really find the full person of Christ in the world.
In the chalice, you are drinking his real physical blood. And where there is life filled blood, there is also its body, its animating soul, its divinity.
Just as people can find you, your whole being, your whole “you”, when they are in the presence of your physical body and talk into your body’s ears, and stand in front of your body’s eyes, because it is your “living body”, where your soul dwells among us, where you dwell among us, in the same way, we know this physical material now become the body of Christ is living (because Christ lives), and it is the material place we can unite with Christ by consuming this body and blood; it is the place we can really find the full person of Christ in the world.
L
laocmo
Guest
How, other than by believing the Church Fathers opinions, do we really know that Jesus didn’t mean “figuratively” when He said “you are eating my body, etc.” ?? It would make a lot more sense than the invented concept of transubstantiation which defies all logic and common sense. You believe in transubstantiation only because the nuns taught it to you as the truth. I’m sure your common sense rebels at the idea if you would admit it. Mine certainly does.
J
John_Martin
Guest
It is not the Church Father’s opinions we believe, even though they often explain very well. The one we believe is the living Jesus telling us, while holding bread in the air in front of us, “This is my body.” I am sworn in allegiance, believing my superiors in the Faith, believing the living Magisterium, not some long dead Fathers. They are, it is true, within the line of succession from the Apostles to Jesus’ eyewitnesses, but it is today’s witness to me whom I believe as if he were God in the Flesh. So, it is the real body of Christ, otherwise he would not hold it up in the air for me to see, and say, this, this that I am holding for you to see, this is my body for you to eat.
Now, as far as transubstantiation, it is not at all distasteful to common sense, if you are a student of Aristotle’s categories / and predication, which Thomas Aquinas later utilized in explaining this very well.
- Status