Transubstantiation of the Eucharist

[VociMike]

If I could answer that I guarantee you I wouldn’t be on this message board. I’d be sipping margaritas on a Mexican beach sitting next to me Nobel Prize.

Ain’t that the truth!

 

[toaslan]

The real question is, what is the fundamental substance of matter? Below molecules, below atoms, below atomic particles, below quarks. What is matter made of? That is its substance.

Aristotle called it Prime Matter, I believe–that which is purely potential to some actuality…

We cannot get to it, we can only observe how it appears. If you replace that substance with another substance which interacts with the world in exactly the same way, you have a transubstantiation. This is not (as far as I know) possible with physical matter alone, but it is certainly possible with God. Even an atheist would have to admit that an omnipotent God could replace the fundamental substance of an object with himself.

thanks, VociMike, and also jrsmith, and the rest responding on this thread–for edifying me!

 

[JimG]

Accidents, or appearances, are defined as that which is perceptible to the senses. The accidents remain the same both before and after transubstantiation. Beneath the accidents, after the consecration, is Jesus Christ whole and entire.

I compare it to a hologram, which still shows the same image in each piece when divided, as distinct from a photographic slide.

One might also compare it to a black hole or a wormhole. One cannot see what is beyond the event horizon. Could be a whole different universe.

In the transubstantiated host, we can never see beyond the event horizon of the appearances–again, that which is in any way perceptible to the senses. But beneath the appearances, unseen beyond the event horizon, is Jesus Christ whole and entire.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I’ve always liked one priests statement.

He said; “LET THERE BE LIGHT” - and, there was light.

He said; “THIS IS MY FLESH” - and, it is His flesh.

NICE!!!
And gotta love the succinct!

 

[christcnection1]

If, as Catholics contend the transubstantiation of the Eucharist is not symbolic, but rather the literal transformation of the host into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, why then can no physical difference be discerned before and after the Priest performs the necessary ritual?

If it is a physical alteration should not that physical alteration be measurable and quantifiable?

In the case of Eucharistic miracles, it is pretty obvious. However, these are extraordinary events. There are other types of Eucharistic miracles as well. I experienced one shortly before my conversion into the Catholic faith.

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/miracle2.jpg

livingmiracles.net/Eucharist.html

 

[Church_Militant]

I was going to bring up that there have indeed been Eucharistic miracles like the one at Lanciano which has actually been scientifically studied.

You, being pagan, probably have never heard of it.

 

[jpjd]

I think of it this way. Say you have an ordinary plant. Then say you have a “Chernobyl” type incident. That plant is now radioactive. It looks the same inside and out. It smells the same, tastes the same, feels the same. But something has changed in its essence…because it’s now radioactive.

It’s the same with the Eucharist. It looks, smells, tastes, feels the same inside and out. But it’s essence has changed, although, unlike the radiated plant, we can’t detect the change. We believe it on faith. Because Jesus said so. He said it is His Body and Blood.

You know, all the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere. If God can make something from nothing, from voidness, then it’s surely no problem for Him to change the essence of something without affecting the appearance of it to our 5 senses.

 

[Pax]

We have an example of change in our life experience that will help address the issue of substance and accidents. It is not the same as transubstantiation but it gives a clue to the relationship of substance and accidents.

H2O is the scientific description of water. Water can be in the form of a gas, a liquid, or a solid depending on temperature. These forms are the accidents, and each is different from the other. Nevertheless, the substance is still H2O. This example is the flip side of understanding transubstantion because there is no change in substance, but rather a change to the accidents.

We can also see a change in the substance of water but not the accidents if we add atoms. Radioactive water would be an example. Another would be Vodka. The physical appearance would be the same as water in the liquid state, but neither radioactive water or Vodka are the same as simple H2O.

While none of this explanation is perfect, it should shed light on the relationship of substance and accidents.

I hope this helps.

 

[LilyM]

Um, k.

You’ll have to help me out here.

How can the substance of any item change while any its physical state of being remains the same? Give me an example. I’m open.

Identical twins - begin as a single cell which splits into two, so they have exactly the same DNA, but that one cell becomes two different people. They share the same physical characteristics normally - hair colour, eye colour, I believe fingerprints even.

However, entirely different substance (essential quality of their being - one twin being a different person from the other)

Substance is what makes you the same person that you were as a baby - even though literally every cell is different, it’s been renewed dozens of times during your life.

And substance is what makes you different from a clone of yourself, from an identical twin, from an entirely lifelike android that looks and behaves exactly like you and has been implanted with your DNA.

 

[kedera]

To the original post, how about this? I may not be getting this right, but this is how I understand transubstantiation (I am new to all of this, so pardon my oversimplification). Eucharist=real presence, human+divine=Jesus, Jesus=Eucharist. That being understood…Christians know that Jesus Christ was both fully human *and *fully divine. When many people saw Jesus, they saw a human man, but his followers, knew he was more than that, they knew him to be the Son of God. In the Eucharist, your senses, and all physical “evidence” may tell you…it’s just a little waffer, but a faithful follower knows that it’s really Christ, no matter how it appears. In the same way we *accept *Jesus’ was the divine Son of God.

For those that know more about it, is my understanding close…yeah, no, maybe?..Like I said, I’m a newbie.

 

[christcnection1]

To the original post, how about this? I may not be getting this right, but this is how I understand transubstantiation (I am new to all of this, so pardon my oversimplification). Eucharist=real presence, human+divine=Jesus, Jesus=Eucharist. That being understood…Christians know that Jesus Christ was both fully human *and *fully divine. When many people saw Jesus, they saw a human man, but his followers, knew he was more than that, they knew him to be the Son of God. In the Eucharist, your senses, and all physical “evidence” may tell you…it’s just a little waffer, but a faithful follower knows that it’s really Christ, no matter how it appears. In the same way we *accept *Jesus’ was the divine Son of God.

For those that know more about it, is my understanding close…yeah, no, maybe?..Like I said, I’m a newbie.

Hey, I like that!

I’m not sure all the technicalities are perfect, but your fundamental point is very strong. If man can accept that God became human (because God is infinite in majesty), we can thus easily accept that God can humble Himself to become the Bread of Life.

Is this your point?

 

[JimG]

To the original post, how about this? I may not be getting this right, but this is how I understand transubstantiation (I am new to all of this, so pardon my oversimplification). Eucharist=real presence, human+divine=Jesus, Jesus=Eucharist. That being understood…Christians know that Jesus Christ was both fully human *and *fully divine. When many people saw Jesus, they saw a human man, but his followers, knew he was more than that, they knew him to be the Son of God. In the Eucharist, your senses, and all physical “evidence” may tell you…it’s just a little waffer, but a faithful follower knows that it’s really Christ, no matter how it appears. In the same way we *accept *Jesus’ was the divine Son of God.

For those that know more about it, is my understanding close…yeah, no, maybe?..Like I said, I’m a newbie.

That’s pretty much correct. It might help to consider what we believe about the eucharistic species itself–that is the consecrated hosts, the consecrated wine. We believe that it has become the body and blood of Jesus, but that the appearances of bread and wine remain. (Appearances are anything that is perceptible to the senses.)

Further, the appearances are divisible, but the underlying reality of Jesus is not: When you break a consecrated host into two, or four, or eight, or sixteen pieces, Jesus is not divided, nor do we chop up his body in so breaking the host. He remains whole and entire under the smallest consecrated particle of bread or wine.

There may be 2000 people in the congregation who receive him, yet he is not multiplied. We each receive the ONE Christ. Jesus has but one body, not many.

You might think of it as a hologram or space-time warp (for the SF-minded), wherein Jesus, while remaining one, and undivided, is yet made present to all who receive the Eucharist at any place or time.

 

[rwoehmke]

Um, k. You’ll have to help me out here. How can the substance of any item change while any its physical state of being remains the same? Give me an example. I’m open.

The problem arises because most of us think of substance as defined by the physical sciences. The term substance as used in meta physics of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas has a totally dufferent definition. Until there is agreement on definition we will just talk past one another.

The Church does not teach that the bread and wine become physically the body and blood of Jesus. They teach that they become substantially the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. From a scientific view point it makes no sense at all. From a metaphysical view point it is relatively easily understood.

If one insists on applying physical science to spiritual matters, they will be disappointed. It is a fools errand. In short no one here can convince you of the truth of this teaching unless and until God grants you the gift of Faith. Which I truly pray he will do before you pass on. Your problem is nothing new. Some colleagues of mine in the practice of science stumbled over the same problem. Some eventually came to belief, others have not.

 

[kedera]

Hey, I like that!

I’m not sure all the technicalities are perfect, but your fundamental point is very strong. If man can accept that God became human (because God is infinite in majesty), we can thus easily accept that God can humble Himself to become the Bread of Life.

Is this your point?

Yep, pretty much. I have some difficulty, understanding what “real presence” really is. I go back and forth, is it physical presence? Is it spiritual presence? Both? This really is kind of a foreign concept to me, and so I have to understand first in the most simple of terms, and then I build off of that to further understand.

 

[kedera]

Hey, I like that!

I’m not sure all the technicalities are perfect, but your fundamental point is very strong. If man can accept that God became human (because God is infinite in majesty), we can thus easily accept that God can humble Himself to become the Bread of Life.

Is this your point?

Yep, pretty much. I have some difficulty, understanding what “real presence” really is. I go back and forth, is it physical presence? Is it spiritual presence? Both? This really is kind of a foreign concept to me, and so I have to understand first in the most simple of terms, and then I build off of that to further understand.

 

[JimG]

Actually, I think that the substantial presence of Christ would have to include his physical presence, because it is a part of his total person. But because his presence is hidden under the appearances of bread and wine, we can not perceive him with our senses. But this does not mean that his physicality resides IN the host or the wine–those are the appearances. His total being is present UNDER the appearances. That is why the eucharistic host (the appearances) can be subdivided without dividing Christ.

As an example or metaphor, a holographic slide, unlike a photographic slide, when cut in half, still contains the full image within each half.

 

[rwoehmke]

Read something the other day, possibly in Liturgy and Sacraments or Traditionalist forum that warned to be careful with the term"real presence" Spiritual Presence as believed by some non-Catholics is a real presence.Jesus is “really present” in His Word proclaimed. It can be a rather slippery concept, whereas substantial presence is not.If Jesus were physically present, as you and I are present, than subdividing the host would subdivide his body. If it was indeed physical the host would have to weigh over 100 lbs, else it could only be apart of his body. Do I understand how it works in reality? No, but I do know that describing the presence as merely symbolic, spiritual, real or physical is not accurate.

Let us admit that there are many things that we believe in through Faith that we really do not understand. There is the trinity. We describe it as best we can. How does it really work? We don’t know. We have many learned books and philosophies that attempt to explain all, but when it comes down to what really goes on with God, we know enough, but really not much.

 

[JimG]

If it was indeed physical the host would have to weigh over 100 lbs, else it could only be apart of his body. Do I understand how it works in reality? No, but I do know that describing the presence as merely symbolic, spiritual, real or physical is not accurate.

Keep in mind, though, that size, shape, weight, even time and location, are part of the “appearances” or accidents, not the substance.

And, Jesus does not “take on” the appearances of bread and wine. He is present “beneath” the appearances. In other words, the accidents of the bread and wine do not inhere in Jesus. Neither do they inhere in the substance of the bread and wine, because that substance is gone, replaced with the substance of Jesus. The accidents of bread and wine, after the consecration, do not inhere in any substance.

We cannot view the “physical characteristics” of the bread and wine as that which “contains” Jesus. Everything that we perceive of the bread and wine is appearances only. Jesus remains whole and entire, body, blood, soul, & divinity, and indivisible, beneath those appearances.

 

[luv_pis]

I’ve posted this website on other similarly-themed threads here, but it is just SO good for me, I want to share it with you: a good exposition on the biblical and historical basis on the RCC’s belief in the Eucharist. So click on the website in my signature and take The Believer’s Test!

 

[jpjd]

A book called “Worthy is the Lamb” by Thomas Nash addresses this subject in the second to last chapter. It is an excellent, excellent book that addresses the Sacrifice of the Mass from all angles. I highly recommend this book.

Nash explains that while Christ’s physical nature is present in the Eucharist, Christ wills his physical nature to take on the attributes of his divine nature. This is how he is able to be present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in every Eucharist, and how he is able to be fully present in each piece even when the Host is divided, and it is why it is beyond our 5 senses.

My re-statement in 2 sentences of the whole chapter does not do the subject justice. I urge you to read the book!