Transubstantiation and Real Presence

[John_Martin]

We were told by Jesus, when we walked with him, that unless we ate the flesh of the Son of Man and drank his blood, we would have no life in us.

Then we see him take bread and hold it out to us, looking us in the eye.
“This is my body, which will be given up for you; take it and eat it.” same with the cup.

He is looking you in the eye, holding it out.
So, what will you do?

Will you ask him to explain the metaphysics of how it can be his body?
Will you tell him it is just bread, but that you appreciate its symbolic meaning?

“that is not what I said: this is my body; take it and eat it.”
And he looks you in the eye: Jesus looks you in the eye with hand outstretched to you.

It is Jesus, your master, your Lord; you called him the Son of God. Of course you will say nothing, except perhaps, “Amen”, and take it from your Friend’s hand and eat his body.

Then both he and you will both know that you ate the flesh of the Son of Man. And what he knows he will not forget.
And he will raise you up on the Last Day, because he will not forget you ate what he handed to you, “You ate my Body”.

 

[susanlo]

If a person is no good, thief, murder, just plain rotten to the core, imagine that person.
Now let’s imagine that something happens and this person becomes the most wonderful person in the world charitable, kind, etc.

We could say that person has truly changed inside, but this person’s appearance wouldn’t have changed, this person’s DNA wouldn’t have changed, this person’s blood type, height, eye color, etc. all would remain the same.
Yet there would be a change.

Now this is only meant as a simple analogy (probably not the best analogy) in laymens terms.

Hope this helps.

But this person would still be a person. They may now be filled with the Holy Spirit. The analogy of becoming filled with the Holy Spirit and sanctified may explain the Calvinistic view of the Real Presence which I believe is real, but spiritual presence, but I don’t think this could represent transubstantiation. Maybe this explanation could explain how an object can be blessed or how water could be made into holy water. I don’t know if this analogy would show transubstantiation.

 

[susanlo]

I am unable to give any kind of explanation in a short post. But perhaps it would help to recognize that the opposite happens quite commonly (that is: the accidents (appearance, taste, texture, et cetera) change while the substance remains unchanged)?

You are not the same as you were when you were an infant, nor a child, nor a year ago, nor a day ago, nor a minute ago – You have ingested resources, expelled wastes, changed in appearance, experienced new thoughts, ideas, and sensations. Yet you remain identical to that infant-you, that child-you, that year-ago-you, that day-ago-you, that minute-ago-you. You have never ceased being you*. Your substance has remained unchanged even while your accidents have changed dramatically.

(* Or, if you would argue that you now are not identical to the yous of the past, I would ask: When did you stop being the you of the past and become the you of today? How did you know?)

:twocents:
tee

I agree that we do change over time. An infant and an adult appear different in many ways. However, they are still made of similar cells of identical molecules. They both consist of bone cells, muscle cells, connective tissue, skin cells, and on and on. Yet they are slowly changing in small ways over time as they metabolize chemicals and grow and develop. The changes from minute to minute are slight, but over time the changes are noticeable.

Bread and wine also change little by little over time. If you put bread on a table and left it there for a few weeks it would get moldy and start to rot. The hard wafer-bread used in communion would become stale and eventually decompose. Wine left exposed to the elements would oxidize and become vinegar. These changes are part of the natural processes that occur in our world. These slow and natural changes are not the same thing as what is believed to happen in transubstantiation where the whole substance changes in one instant.

 

[susanlo]

From Fr. John Hardon, S.J. Modern Catholic Dictionary: Here is a lengthier article regarding transubstantiation from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a link to a Called to Communion website regarding the Church fathers on the change in the bread at the Consecration.

Fr. Antoninus Wall, O.P. asks these questions of those who question, do not grasp, or who deny transubstantiation: "What did you have for breakfast this morning? Toast? What became of that toast when you ate it? Did it not become your living flesh, your body automatically converting it? If your perishable human body can convert bread into living flesh, how can you deny that God did the same, when He specifically says that He did?

But digested food goes through a detectable chemical change. I do think Justin Martyr and Augustine hint at this in certain writings where they note that Christians eat and digest the bread and become the body of Christ in the form of Christ’s Church. I believe Jesus CAN change one thing into something else. For example when He changed the water into wine at the wedding feast. He had water and He miraculously made it become wine. It was H2O – and then it became fermented grape juice. My understanding of the miracle wasn’t that He took water and changed the substance or essence of the water into wine while it still had all of the appearances and attributes of water. I can understand that Jesus can cause miracles where things noticeably change. I just don’t know what change I am supposed to notice, but am unable to notice, during transubstantiation.

Another way of looking at it is to consider the hypostatic union, which all Christians believe. Even though Christ’s human body remained fully human, it was alloyed/fused/united with the Divine, although not changed in appearance or function (“accidents”) in the slightest. Arius and his spiritual descendants, the Jehovah’s Witnesses denied that Christ was divine, in part because His appearance was fully and completely human. Yet, we Christians know with certainty that His 100% human Body contained the Divine nature.

This seems like this could be an explanation for consubstantiation. I don’t know if we truly understand the hypostatic union. Was Jesus human in flesh with a God spirit?

Consider also the tomb as Jesus passed through either the earthen walls or the stone: Their appearance (“accidents”) did not change even though their substance contained Christ in both His human and Divine nature as He passed through them. The same may be said for the locked doors of the upper room when our Lord appeared to the disciples: Those locked doors did not change in appearance (“accidents”), but the Lord was fully present in them as He passed through them. Jesus passed through the stone and the doors, but chose to remain in the consecrated bread - the only difference. Keep in mind that, as the Passover Lamb, He had to be eaten and so He sacramentally inhabits/possesses the bread, changing its substance so that that we might receive the Bread come down from Heaven, eat it and never die.

Was He visible to the people when He went through the locked doors?

 

[susanlo]

I’ll take a swing at trying to simplify this, but please forgive any errors and feel free to correct me.

Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: it is in essence still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.

To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection or effect to the essence or substance of the thing being described.

Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of bread and wine into body and blood.

The accidents of the appearance of bread and wine do not change, but the entire substance changes from bread and wine to the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

The term substance is challenging because today we primarily define substance as the chemical composition of something which causes the physical attributes and accidents. What we consider substance today seems closer to the definition of accidents from centuries ago. Essence may be a better term, but I don’t know if I completely understand what is truly meant by essence.

Sometimes explanations like this seem to border on symbolism to me. I think of a pile of colored cloth made of cotton fibers. It is just a pile of cloth worth the value of whatever the cloth is worth. But, if someone sews the colored cloth into a national flag, now its meaning and value has changed significantly. I have seen people go to great lengths to protect and honor a flag. It remains cotton cloth, but I feel one could say that the essence of what it is has changed. Maybe I don’t understand the term essence.

 

[CathBoy1]

I agree that we do change over time. An infant and an adult appear different in many ways. However, they are still made of similar cells of identical molecules. They both consist of bone cells, muscle cells, connective tissue, skin cells, and on and on. Yet they are slowly changing in small ways over time as they metabolize chemicals and grow and develop. The changes from minute to minute are slight, but over time the changes are noticeable.

Bread and wine also change little by little over time. If you put bread on a table and left it there for a few weeks it would get moldy and start to rot. The hard wafer-bread used in communion would become stale and eventually decompose. Wine left exposed to the elements would oxidize and become vinegar. These changes are part of the natural processes that occur in our world. These slow and natural changes are not the same thing as what is believed to happen in transubstantiation where the whole substance changes in one instant.

Take a look here:
churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/

 

[susanlo]

Christ demonstrated that he could do miraculous things with his body, and he also demonstrated miraculous multiplication (loaves and fishes). So, I then imagine what would happen if the actual particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) are particles from his body, miraculously multiplied. Since the appearances are taken from the arrangement of those particles into atoms and then molecules, then the appearances wouldn’t change.

Please understand, I’m NOT saying that’s what happens. But that’s how I can imagine the substance of a thing changing, but not its accidents. Since we’re no longer educated in philosophy these days, that analogy is easier for me to understand than things like pointing out that the “chairness” of a chair doesn’t depend on the materials it’s made of. But those examples obviously work for a lot of people!

Now, this sounds like a potential scientific explanation! Jesus takes flesh that has been multiplied. He breaks the cells into molecules – into atoms – into bare protons, neutrons and electrons and then rebuilds the protons, neutrons and electrons into the exact molecular structure of the bread that is present in the church. He does the same thing with the blood, taking the protons, neutrons and electrons of blood and turning them into wine. Do you think he converts the protons, neutrons and electrons from the original bread and wine into flesh and blood and then back into the chemical makeup for the elements? Or do the original particles cease to exist and new particles are created by Jesus? I know you couldn’t actually know, but this does sound like an explanation that could work to scientifically explain what is believed to occur.

I still don’t believe that this would be the most likely purpose of communion. I think the meaning in experiencing the symbols of Christ’s body and blood and reflecting on His sacrifice with fellow believers with a sincere and repentant heart is a significant enough purpose for communion. But now I can see a possible way to understand what people could believe to be happening in transubstantiation.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

The term substance is challenging because today we primarily define substance as the chemical composition of something which causes the physical attributes and accidents. What we consider substance today seems closer to the definition of accidents from centuries ago. Essence may be a better term, but I don’t know if I completely understand what is truly meant by essence…

To say that we primarily define substance this way is a bit of a generalization. The definition you used for substance is not the only definition we use today, but one of many. For example, when referring to chemistry, the definition you used is proper, but when referring to philosophy, substance has a different meaning:

1. something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event.
2. the essential part of a thing; essence.
3. a thing considered as a continuing whole.

The meaning of the word is dependent upon both the audience, subject, and context.

The word substance is used in this case because it is contained within and is the subject of the word transubstantiation which is the English version of the Latin word transsubstantiatio. It contains the following word elements:

** trans** - “to cross over, across, beyond, through, on the other side of, to go beyond”
substantia - translates Greek ousia meaning “that which is one’s own, one’s substance or property; the being, essence, or nature of anything.”

The Greek word for transubstantiation is metousiosis which means “a change of essence, inner reality.”

The word essence comes from the Latin word essentia, meaning “being, essence,” (to translate Greek ousia “being, essence”) from essent and esse which mean “to be.”

Because the word transubstantiation itself is based on these philosophical terms and their accompanying definitions, one must use those definitions when attempting to understand transubstantiation.

Ultimately, transubstantiation explains what has happened, but not exactly how… That is the whole “mystery” part

If truly want to understand the concept and you want more info, I suggest exploring the following:

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Transubstantiation

 

[Vico]

Now, this sounds like a potential scientific explanation! Jesus takes flesh that has been multiplied. He breaks the cells into molecules – into atoms – into bare protons, neutrons and electrons and then rebuilds the protons, neutrons and electrons into the exact molecular structure of the bread that is present in the church. He does the same thing with the blood, taking the protons, neutrons and electrons of blood and turning them into wine. Do you think he converts the protons, neutrons and electrons from the original bread and wine into flesh and blood and then back into the chemical makeup for the elements? Or do the original particles cease to exist and new particles are created by Jesus? I know you couldn’t actually know, but this does sound like an explanation that could work to scientifically explain what is believed to occur.

I still don’t believe that this would be the most likely purpose of communion. I think the meaning in experiencing the symbols of Christ’s body and blood and reflecting on His sacrifice with fellow believers with a sincere and repentant heart is a significant enough purpose for communion. But now I can see a possible way to understand what people could believe to be happening in transubstantiation.

Jesus Christ did not say: This is the symbol of my body, and the Catholic teaching is that the body of Christ is not present in the Eucharist “in the manner in which bodies are in a place”.
H.H. Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 1965 “once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.”

John 6:51-57
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [57 – eateth = trogon = chewing or gnawing]

 

[rcwitness]

Maybe it just changes in God’s eyes…

 

[po18guy]

But digested food goes through a detectable chemical change…just don’t know what change I am supposed to notice, but am unable to notice, during transubstantiation.

It takes the grace of faith to believe. Very few Christians today have it because they do not ask for it. Being carnal, tied to the secular world, and highly sensual, they seek proof, dismissing the spirit. Paul wrote of this.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Real presence was not a big issue for me.

Because I saw the scriptural support going back to the OT and the mountain of ECF support…

And if we can believe that God came to earth in a human body and ate and went to the bathroom, it’s not difficult to believe that when he says he will be with us always, he also means through consecrated elements at Holy Communion.

Now, transubstantiation is a six syllable word that scares people away, lol. But it’s the best that human effort could produce.

Lol, yes big words! Very confusing too. I have a great book on the Holy Sacrifice of Mass. It was free in the Cathedral entrance. I must say though, I dont remember being taught , as a kid, in the 60’s and 70’s this Truth about the Eucharist. I discovered it sometime last year when I re entered a Church again, after decades.

The book is by Cochem, written late 1800s

 

[John_Martin]

Actually, we are, like the host, instantly substantially changed into new creatures, we who are baptized; and our new creaturehood was confirmed by the Body of Christ.

You see us and think you are seeing someone you know, you call us Americans or (?) but we are aliens, foreigners literally and actually, in your midst, living among you but you do not know where we are actually from - we are in the world, in the United States, but we are actually and literally not of the world. We are actually and literally sons of God walking in the midst of you. The Kingdom established by God is near you because we are dwelling amongst you.

Just as one does not, cannot, say and know “this is the body of Christ” and “this is the blood of Christ” that I eat and drink, so he also does not know that we are not from here, we whom he sees. We are citizens of a Different City and a different People.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

John 6:51-57
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [57 – eateth = trogon = chewing or gnawing]

:yup:
If he didn’t mean it or it was misunderstood, he would have corrected the misunderstanding when they said “This is a hard saying! Who can listen to it?”

Instead, he continues to further reiterate the “hard saying”:

John 6:58-71

58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Jesus was willing to let everyone walk away over this one teaching because it is truth. Many could not accept it, but we as Christians are called to believe just as the the few who stayed with Him did, for He “has the words of eternal life.”

John 6 is crucial to our understanding and belief in the Real Presence.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

:yup:
If he didn’t mean it or it was misunderstood, he would have corrected the misunderstanding when they said “This is a hard saying! Who can listen to it?”

Instead, he continues to further reiterate the “hard saying”:

Jesus was willing to let everyone walk away over this one teaching because it is truth. Many could not accept it, but we as Christians are called to believe just as the the few who stayed with Him did, for He “has the words of eternal life.”

John 6 is crucial to our understanding and belief in the Real Presence.

Because He spoke metaphorically and in parables, people believe the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is incorrect.

But I think some fail to take into account the author and his propensity to explain things in similar situations.

John 2:19-21New Living Translation (NLT)

19 “All right,” Jesus replied. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

20 “What!” they exclaimed. “It has taken forty-six years to build this Temple, and you can rebuild it in three days?” 21 But when Jesus said “this temple,” he meant his own body.

We see a explanation by the author here, but none given just four chapters later in John 6.

 

[rcwitness]

Because He spoke metaphorically and in parables, people believe the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is incorrect.

But I think some fail to take into account the author and his propensity to explain things in similar situations.

We see a explanation by the author here, but none given just four chapters later in John 6.

I think something to understand about the “food” of God, that gives life to the world, is that it really does mean His Spirit. But how did His Spirit come to us? How did the Word become “known” to us? Was it not through Jesus actually speaking? His real body and blood was necessary for us to actually hear His message! Not only His words, but His works, which was most fully accomplished in His sacrifice at Calvary.

So all this is to say that the Spirit became flesh and blood for our salvation. Not to merely eat, but to eat with repentance thanksgiving, obedience, faith, hope, and charity. Knowing that the coming of the Son of God in the flesh was necessary for our salvation, both to hear the Truth and be justified through His death.

Also, all those who receive His Word ought to be sharing in His one Body and Blood. To have separated Communion is to claim He is Teaching different doctrines. So His Eucharist meal is the sign of unity among Christians.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I think something to understand about the “food” of God, that gives life to the world, is that it really does mean His Spirit. But how did His Spirit come to us? How did the Word become “known” to us? Was it not through Jesus actually speaking? His real body and blood was necessary for us to actually hear His message! Not only His words, but His works, which was most fully accomplished in His sacrifice at Calvary.

So all this is to say that the Spirit became flesh and blood for our salvation. Not to merely eat, but to eat with repentance thanksgiving, obedience, faith, hope, and charity. Knowing that the coming of the Son of God in the flesh was necessary for our salvation, both to hear the Truth and be justified through His death.

Also, all those who receive His Word ought to be sharing in His one Body and Blood. To have separated Communion is to claim He is Teaching different doctrines. So His Eucharist meal is the sign of unity among Christians.

Yeah, thanks for the reply.

I think when you have a non Catholic background and practice SS, it is easy to totally dismiss the material. I know I certainly did for quite sometime. When you read comments from the Lord such as this:

New International Version
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you–they are full of the Spirit and life.

It’s easy to understand why folks dismiss matter all together and see things only through a spiritual prism. But important to remember we are still in these tents and that they are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19) So they must count for something.

Interesting that in our theology, sin comes into the world by way of eating, and the anti-dote, so to speak, also comes by way of eating. And even before the Eucharist, we have a prefigurement of this anti-dote in the Manna from heaven…which of course, is eaten.

Look at the situation with Peter…denies our Lord 3 times. And our Lord has a talk with him and essentially has him acknowledge, 3 times, that he actually loves him at the end of John’s gospel.

So it seems apparent to me that the Lord uses similar anti-dotes for problems that we ultimately bring into this world. He meets us where we are at.

 

[Wannano]

Yeah, thanks for the reply.

I think when you have a non Catholic background and practice SS, it is easy to totally dismiss the material. I know I certainly did for quite sometime. When you read comments from the Lord such as this:

It’s easy to understand why folks dismiss matter all together and see things only through a spiritual prism. But important to remember we are still in these tents and that they are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19) So they must count for something.

Interesting that in our theology, sin comes into the world by way of eating, and the anti-dote, so to speak, also comes by way of eating. And even before the Eucharist, we have a prefigurement of this anti-dote in the Manna from heaven…which of course, is eaten.

Look at the situation with Peter…denies our Lord 3 times. And our Lord has a talk with him and essentially has him acknowledge, 3 times, that he actually loves him at the end of John’s gospel.

So it seems apparent to me that the Lord uses similar anti-dotes for problems that we ultimately bring into this world. He meets us where we are at.

I agree with your last paragraph completely. So why do we insist that where we are at is where everybody should be? Isn’t there a special unity within the brotherhood contained in the fact that He meets each one where we are at?

 

[rcwitness]

I agree with your last paragraph completely. So why do we insist that where we are at is where everybody should be? Isn’t there a special unity within the brotherhood contained in the fact that He meets each one where we are at?

I think there is unity among the denominations, and the Catechism definitely acknowledges this. But His Eucharist table is the outward sign of full unity.

My only difficult understanding of the Catholic position, is the fact that Jesus says “…Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;*he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…”
If the literal Communion understanding is applied, how do those who reject the Catholic Communion have life in them, without contradicting what Jesus says?

Still, the symbolic only Communion interpretation lacks significant conformity to this passage and the Lord’s Supper. So I am convicted to devote to the Catholic Communion, as there is greater unity behind the Catholic Teaching.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I agree with your last paragraph completely. So why do we insist that where we are at is where everybody should be? Isn’t there a special unity within the brotherhood contained in the fact that He meets each one where we are at?

As rcwitness essentially said, as a effort to achieve even greater unity than what already exists