Transubstantiation: What changes?

[Exalt]

Disclaimer: I’m not religious, but I find religion fascinating, and I’m curious about this.

It is the position of the Catholic Church that a communion wafer transforms from normal, every-day bread into the literal body of Christ. But if you were to take a microscope and look at the bread before and after transubstantiation, you’d see no change. Every molecule would be the same. Every atom would remain the same. Every neutron, every proton, every electron would be exactly the same.

As a secular person, I don’t understand how a Catholic could believe that something has changed, because in every way we can observe, it hasn’t.

So, in what sense does the Church believe that something has changed? What about the wafer has changed? Specificity would be appreciated.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Its substance, that is, what it is. The accidents or properties of the host, i.e. its physical appearance, taste, etc. do not change.

Let’s say I have an octagon-shaped piece of metal, a pole, and some red and white paint. If I paint my octagon red, it is a piece of metal with paint on it. If I then paint in white letters the word “STOP,” this device is still a piece of metal with red and white paint on it.

Now suppose my government then passes a law that says whenever someone sees this sign, they must demonstrate respect for the law by stopping. The passage of that law does not change the appearance my piece of metal with red and white paint on it in any way. However, that law has changed what my piece of metal with red and white paint on it IS.

It is now a stop sign.

Replace “piece of metal with red and white paint on it” with “Host,” “law” with “words of institution,” and “stop sign” with “Blessed Sacrament” and there you go.

 

[Exalt]

But nothing about that stop sign has changed. The stop sign is exactly the same. The molecules are exactly the same.

The only thing that changed is our perception of the stop sign. The only thing that’s changed is that a human being looks at that sign and interprets it as a symbol for something. The human being then behaves accordingly.

But with the communion wafer, doesn’t the church think of the communion wafer as something more than just a symbol? And they certainly don’t teach that nothing about the communion wafer has changed but our perception of it, right?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Well, that depends on whether or not the law exists.

In the stop sign example, an anarchist or reckless teenager may ignore the law, or subjectively believe that the law is not real. But the police officer who pulls him over is real, the judge is real and the jail is real.

Therefore, the law and the stop sign must also be real and not symbolic.

 

[1ke]

As a secular person, I don’t understand how a Catholic could believe that something has changed, because in every way we can observe, it hasn’t.

There is a difference between nature and super-nature. Not everything that exists is observable. Those things that pertain to the supernatural are not, they are above our nature.

So, in what sense does the Church believe that something has changed? What about the wafer has changed? Specificity would be appreciated.

The *substance *changes while the *accidents *remain.

 

[Cat_Herder]

There is a difference between nature and super-nature. Not everything that exists is observable. Those things that pertain to the supernatural are not, they are above our nature.

Case in point: dark matter. There is absolutely no proof that dark matter exists. But it does, and we know that it does by inferences made from things that we know to exist (galaxies, gravity, etc.)

 

[MtGargano]

interesting link for your topic…

ncregister.com/blog/eucharistic_miracle_2009/

Peace

 

[Roy5]

As someone from a mixed Catholic/Protestant tradition, I also have a problem with transubstantiation.

 Let me be bold, hoping not to offend but to further a duscussion. Protestants seem to be divided into three principal groups - plus other variations.

 (1) Episcopalians and Lutherans tends to have a higher view of communion. Lutherans historically have spoken of consubstantiation, that Christ exists in the sacrament but that it does not change. Don't ask me for clarification as I haven't comprehended it entirely. High church Anglicans come close to the Catholic position.

 (2) Many mainline Protestants emphasize that communon is important, that Christ is in reality present as he promised ('lo, I am with you always'), but that the sacrament is a remembrance of his death and resurrection without any change in the elements of communion. Christ would be present with or without communion.

 (3) Those who put less emphasis on the sacramental aspect of communion may see it mainly as a celebration of community, and suggest that what change may occur is not in the cup and bread but can come within the communicants themselves. Communion is seen as a symbolic and fellowship (communual) meal since we cannot all dine with with one another at our homes and such.

 Some Protestants, such as the Quakers and Salvation Army, do not have communion.
  
 I find that many Catholics revere the Eucharist as though it is an abode of Christ, deserving, for example, of perpetual adoration On the other hand, I saw a poll in the *US Catholic*magazine that 43% of American Catholics reject transubstantiation. Are these excommunicating themselves because of their refusal to accept official doctine?

 

[Exalt]

Case in point: dark matter. There is absolutely no proof that dark matter exists. But it does, and we know that it does by inferences made from things that we know to exist (galaxies, gravity, etc.)

“Dark matter” isn’t supernatural, though. The concept of dark matter is just a placeholder for “we don’t know why there’s more stuff in the universe than we can account for with normal matter.” Nothing supernatural about it.

 

[Exalt]

Well, that depends on whether or not the law exists.

In the stop sign example, an anarchist or reckless teenager may ignore the law, or subjectively believe that the law is not real. But the police officer who pulls him over is real, the judge is real and the jail is real.

Therefore, the law and the stop sign must also be real and not symbolic.

Okay, let’s look at the actual physical world and what’s really changing, objectively speaking.

When the significance of a stop sign is understood by a person, the only thing that’s physically changing are the neurons in his brain. Nothing about the sign has changed at all. Nothing magical happened to the sign. The stuff that makes up the sign hasn’t changed – it’s still the same bit of painted aluminum that it was before. The only thing that changed was the brain of the person who interpreted it in a different way.

Similarly, with a Catholic person who observes a communion during the transubstantiation, the only thing that’s physically changing are the neurons in the Catholic person’s brain. The stuff that makes up the communion wafer hasn’t changed – it’s still the bit of proteins and carbohydrates (bread) that it was before.

 

[1ke]

Case in point: dark matter. There is absolutely no proof that dark matter exists. But it does, and we know that it does by inferences made from things that we know to exist (galaxies, gravity, etc.)

I would not say dark matter is an example of my statement regarding those things which are not observable. Anything material is observable, although perhaps we do not yet possess technology that allows us to observe it directly.

I was refering to those things that are of the supernatural order, in the Catholic sense of the term (not in the SyFy channel sense of the word).

 

[1ke]

Similarly, with a Catholic person who observes a communion during the transubstantiation, the only thing that’s physically changing are the neurons in the Catholic person’s brain. The stuff that makes up the communion wafer hasn’t changed – it’s still the bit of proteins and carbohydrates (bread) that it was before.

No, not at all.

The substance has **truly **changed.

It is no longer bread or wine. It is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Only the accidents remain giving the appearance of bread and wine.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Just as we can infer the existence of dark matter, we can also infer the existence of the Big Bang (which no one has ever seen, either) from the cosmic microwave background radiation. We also know that the universe is constantly expanding and will do so eternally (based on probability models, the open universe theory is correct). But the principle of conservation of energy says that the energy of the Big Bang should be decreasing; as the Big Bang creates mass, the energy of the Bang should be decreasing. But it isn’t, because the expansion of the universe is eternal–therefore there is infinite energy in the Big Bang.

The Cause of the Big Bang must then have

1. Infinite energy, because of conservation of energy.
2. Exemption from the rules of time. The edges of the Big Bang explosion are billions, or more, light-years apart. If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but the Cause of the Big Bang must be able to pour energy into the Bang at an infinitely high speed so as to sustain the expansion of the universe, the only explanation is that the Cause is outside of time.
3. Possibly exemption from many other, or all, rules of physics.

The Cause is Almighty, Omnipresent, and Sovereign.

POOF! You are now a Deist.

“Dark matter” isn’t supernatural, though. The concept of dark matter is just a placeholder for “we don’t know why there’s more stuff in the universe than we can account for with normal matter.” Nothing supernatural about it.

All we need to demonstrate that something that is supernatural is real is a point of inference from something else that is known to be real, that something being God. If we can infer the existence of God in this way–as we just have–then we know that the supernatural is real.

POOF! You are now a Theist.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I would not say dark matter is an example of my statement regarding those things which are not observable. Anything material is observable, although perhaps we do not yet possess technology that allows us to observe it directly

Now you see why I brought up dark matter I had to show we can infer the existence of unobservable things from observable things before I could demonstrate that this principle applies to God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Substance is the essence of something, what it is.

Accidents is the appearance of something, what it looks like.

The substance changes but the accidents remain.

A crazy example would be zombies (okay, laugh, then stop, hear me out now). They are still human from appearance (save rotting flesh) but inside they’re not humans anymore.

Basically, it looks like something that it is not. That is transubstantiation.

An opposite example would be water. Water changes appearance, its accidents change into water vapor, liquid water, and ice. But its substance remains H2O.

 

[Exalt]

Huh? I thought we were talking about transubstantiation here. Enough with the cosmology stuff, that can be put in a different thread.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

From what I’ve gathered so far, to some Catholics, transubstantiation is like the creation of a stop sign. Whatever the creation of a stop sign is, transubstantiation is very similar. To me, a stop sign is very clearly a symbol – a piece of language that only means something if a human being gives it significance. But I felt like transubstantiation was supposed to be different; I thought Catholics thought of it as not-a-symbol. I still don’t really understand the whole stop-sign explanation, really.

And some of you have also talked about “accidents” and “substance,” and said that the accidents have not changed, but the substance has. But that makes no sense to me. Actually… it does. You’re trying to say that it’s not a piece of bread and is now the flesh of a God – but that it’s also still a piece of bread. You just accept it on faith that even though it looks like bread, tastes like bread, and through every observable method is pretty much bread – it’s actually not bread, it’s instead really Jesus Christ.

I can totally understand the pure faith position.

 

[Snerticus]

Some statements about it from the CCC:

St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

• Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’"

 

[Mamanurse]

Isn’t it true, that in the end, all of the topics which are debated and discussed on these forums always come down to the fact that you must have Faith to even consider these to be true? No amount of comparisons, logical suppositions or examples are going to help someone understand what a practicing Catholic knows to be true. It always boils down to the faith of that person. IMO

 

[Snerticus]

Huh? I thought we were talking about transubstantiation here. Enough with the cosmology stuff, that can be put in a different thread.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

From what I’ve gathered so far, to some Catholics, transubstantiation is like the creation of a stop sign. Whatever the creation of a stop sign is, transubstantiation is very similar. To me, a stop sign is very clearly a symbol – a piece of language that only means something if a human being gives it significance. But I felt like transubstantiation was supposed to be different; I thought Catholics thought of it as not-a-symbol. I still don’t really understand the whole stop-sign explanation, really.

And some of you have also talked about “accidents” and “substance,” and said that the accidents have not changed, but the substance has. But that makes no sense to me. Actually… it does. You’re trying to say that it’s not a piece of bread and is now the flesh of a God – but that it’s also still a piece of bread. You just accept it on faith that even though it looks like bread, tastes like bread, and through every observable method is pretty much bread – it’s actually not bread, it’s instead really Jesus Christ.

I can totally understand the pure faith position.

It is a pure faith position. If you believe in Jesus and that He is God, the fact that God can do something like this is not up for debate. The only thing that was up for debate among other Eucharist-believing Christians was “does He do it ‘your’ way or ‘our’ way?”.

So as much as the stop sign example is true, the bread turning into the Body of Christ is so much more, because it is also supernatural. The stop sign is purely physical, but the Eucharist is divine. A person who has a purely material frame of mind cannot accept it, simply because it requires faith.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

And some of you have also talked about “accidents” and “substance,” and said that the accidents have not changed, but the substance has. But that makes no sense to me. Actually… it does. You’re trying to say that it’s not a piece of bread and is now the flesh of a God – but that it’s also still a piece of bread. You just accept it on faith that even though it looks like bread, tastes like bread, and through every observable method is pretty much bread – it’s actually not bread, it’s instead really Jesus Christ.

I can totally understand the pure faith position.

It’s not unlike the belief in the Divinity of Christ; by appearance He looked to many as just another man - to their mind He could be nothing BUT an ordinary man, not God Incarnate; but those with Faith were and are able to see beyond appearances.

Consider reading Faith and Reason by Thomas Dubay.