Transubstantiation not real

[dranzal]

I know a non-Catholic that claims that sometime in the last few hundred years the Vatican made some statement that “the transubstantiation miracle” was no longer being performed. She did not know if that meant they were not successfully consecrating the host or if it meant the lack of faith among the priests meant the consecration wasn’t valid or what.

I assured her that licitly ordained priests are “performing the miracle” (to use her words) every day.

Do any of you know of any Vatican or papal statement in the 1700’s or 1800’s about transubstantiation?

 

[Genesis315]

I have never heard of such a thing in my life. Pope Leo XIII in the late 1800s or early 1900s declared Anglican orders to not be valid and therefore forAnglican priests there was no transubstantiation for them–maybe that’s what your friend meant?

 

[lizaanne]

Perhaps a Protestant document of some sort - but her understanding from a Catholic perspective is totally and utterly false.

Christ has been and always will be present, Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church. Nothing there has changed. Nothing ever will - the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

~Liza

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

The term “transubstantiation” appears in the late Middle Ages as a convenient word to describe what the Church has believed since the beginning about the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The belief that the consecrated bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus while retaining the accidents of bread and wine has been part of Christianity since Apostolic times, even if the most common word to describe it was coined later.

 

[kell0618]

Here is a listing of the dogma (put together in list form) in regard to:

Holy Eucharist

 [LIST=1]

*]The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist.
*]Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.
*]The accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance.
*]The Body and Blood of Christ together with His Soul and Divinity and therefore, the whole Christ, are truly present in the Eucharist.
*]The Whole Christ is present under each of the two Species.
*]When either consecrated Species is divided, the Whole Christ is present in each part of the Species.
*]After the Consecration has been completed the Body and Blood are permanently present in the Eucharist.
*]The Worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist.
*]The Eucharist is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
*]The matter for the consummation of the Eucharist is bread and wine.
*]For children before the age of reason, the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation.
*]Communion under two forms is not necessary for any individual members of the Faithful, either by reason of Divine precept or as a means of salvation.
*]The power of consecration resides in a validly consecrated priest only .
*]The Sacrament of the Eucharist can be validly received by every baptised person in the wayfaring state, including young children.
*]For the worthy reception of the Eucharist, the state of grace as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary.
*]The Holy Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice.
*]In the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross is made present, its memory celebrated, and its saving power applied.
*]In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical; only the nature and the mode of the offering are different.
*]The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely a sacrifice of praise and thanks-giving, but also a sacrifice of expiation and impetration.

–Source

They will never change, though I am prayerful that those you mention will have a change of heart through education and enlightenment.

 

[Orogeny]

Ask her for the source. After all, it was she that made the claim.

Peace

Tim

 

[littledogs2424]

I know a non-Catholic that claims that sometime in the last few hundred years the Vatican made some statement that “the transubstantiation miracle” was no longer being performed. She did not know if that meant they were not successfully consecrating the host or if it meant the lack of faith among the priests meant the consecration wasn’t valid or what.

Your acquaintance is dead-bang wrong!! The Miracle of the Mass is real and occurs tens of thousands of times in Catholic Churches around the world. Transubstantation is a fact. upon consecration the bread and wine becomes the actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is a real, physical presence, not a spiritual one. It is a hard reality !!

 

[PhilipCal]

Can only add to the previous posts. Transubstantiation is real. As posted, it takes place thousands of times per day. At the end of the day, our faith is a gift. Which is to say, we’d probably not be able to “prove” Transubstantiation" in a court of law. We don’t have to. All we have to do is believe it. It’s rock-solid doctrine.

 

[puzzleannie]

The standard reply to someone who claims to “have read this in a Church document” is to ask them to provide the document or a citation or link. If they can’t do that, there is simply nothing to discuss, except to explain and refer them to sources (like the CA homepage library) for what the Church actually does teach.

 

[dranzal]

Yes, I asked her for the source before I posted here. I asked my initial question hoping to do a pre-emptive strike of sorts. .

Anyway, I’ll wait to see what she comes up with and post again then.

Don’t worry, I am well aware of Catholic doctrine on the matter. I am going to assume for the moment that it was a statement that was misunderstood or misread.

If a priest is validly ordained, but has trouble with his faith (ie, doesn’t fully believe in transubstantiation) does that affect the validity of the consecration?

 

[Tomster]

Yes, I asked her for the source before I posted here. I asked my initial question hoping to do a pre-emptive strike of sorts. .

Anyway, I’ll wait to see what she comes up with and post again then.

Don’t worry, I am well aware of Catholic doctrine on the matter. I am going to assume for the moment that it was a statement that was misunderstood or misread.

If a priest is validly ordained, but has trouble with his faith (ie, doesn’t fully believe in transubstantiation) does that affect the validity of the consecration?

It does not affect the validity of the consecration. What the Church requires from this priest is to do what the Church requires of him.

 

[kleary]

I know a non-Catholic that claims that sometime in the last few hundred years the Vatican made some statement that “the transubstantiation miracle” was no longer being performed. She did not know if that meant they were not successfully consecrating the host or if it meant the lack of faith among the priests meant the consecration wasn’t valid or what.

I assured her that licitly ordained priests are “performing the miracle” (to use her words) every day.

Do any of you know of any Vatican or papal statement in the 1700’s or 1800’s about transubstantiation?

Oh YES indeed. Go and tell your non-Catholic friend that Pope Leo XIII declared that the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Church of England to be invalid. That their consecrations were also invalid, that their “Mass” was also invalid. That transubstantiation no longer takes place at an Episcopal Anglican “mass”.

The document is here
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1896leo13-apost.html

Ken

 

[pprimeau1976]

Why does modern society think that a TV show like “Quantum Leap” (where a scientist travels beyond space and time into someone’s mirror image that is not his own) is plausible, yet transubstantiation is not.

Pop Culture time and time again - be it the Matrix, or Quantum Leap - essentially demonstrates what transubstantiation is, yet they prefer Sam Beckett via his Quantum Leap and Neo via the Matrix and over Jesus via Transubstantiation.

I don’t get it.

 

[Neithan]

Technically, transubstantiation is not a miracle, it’s an ordinary supernatural occurence.
Miracles are extraordinary wonders that are sensible and given to aid faith.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Technically, transubstantiation is not a miracle, it’s an ordinary supernatural occurence.
Miracles are extraordinary wonders that are sensible and given to aid faith.

So transubstantiation would be an ordinary wonder that challenges faith. I guess, “Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believed.” applies in our scenario.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Technically, transubstantiation is not a miracle, it’s an ordinary supernatural occurence.
Miracles are extraordinary wonders that are sensible and given to aid faith.

It would help a great deal if some popular accounts of the Catholic Liturgy kept this in mind - say “transubstantiation is not a miracle”, & probably nine Catholics out of ten will understand that as “denying transubstantiation” ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So transubstantiation would be an ordinary wonder that challenges faith. I guess, “Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believed.” applies in our scenario.

It’s “ordinary” in that it is the result of something done by Someone of Whose Presence as High Priest (& therefore, Principal Offerer of the sacraments) the Church can be sure. This ability to be sure comes from faith in the word of Christ.​

It is something the Good Shepherd has ordained, ordinavit, for His Glory, & for the good of His Church; so it is* ordinata*, something ordained; & ordinaria, something ordinary. “Ordinary” is this context does not = “average, unremarkable, unimportant”.

It does challenge faith - because we believe it not by being able to demonstrate or prove it, but purely because He has affirmed it - not directly, but, by affirming other things: if & as they are true & He is True, it is true.