Transubstantiation: What changes?

[Cat_Herder]

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

You are saying there’s no transubstantiation because the supernatural (i.e. God) does not exist, and once I showed you were denying the correlative, you bailed out.

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 what if God gives it significance and makes certain promises about it? Is it then a symbol, or something else?

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.

The government exists. You may think it exists only because people ascribe it significance, but it has real power to pass judgment on you and so does God.

If the government says, “this is a stop sign, if you run it you will go to jail,” then how can you say the stop sign is a symbol?

If God says, “This is My Body, if you eat this bread you will live forever, the bread that I give is My Flesh for the life of the world,” how can you say the bread is a symbol or even that it is bread?

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.

No. We are not Lutherans.

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.

But until this point you haven’t accepted it because you’ve written off the existence of God. Now that you can no longer do so, it’s time to consider it.

 

[JimG]

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.

That is pretty much the Catholic position. The change can not be observed, because everything observable constitutes “appearances” or “accidents,” and in transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine remain.

When you get right down to it, we can never touch the substance of a thing through science or observation. All we perceive are what reaches our senses or our measuring instruments. Those are appearances or accidents. If we could perceive substance directly, we would have no need of sense organs.

Catholics accept that appearances are normally the only way that we can perceive reality. It is only in the case of the Eucharist that appearances do not correspond to the underlying substance. And since the substance of the bread and wine are gone, having been replaced by the body and blood of Christ, those appearances of bread and wine do not inhere in any substance–not in the bread and wine, and not in the body and blood of Christ.

But discussions like this really start in the middle of things. Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy are the starting points.

 

[lutherlic]

Ignore transubstantiation, consubstantiation, sacramental unity, dark matter, stop signs, etc. for a moment.

At the Last Supper, Jesus Himself consecrated the bread and wine. He said what it is and we believe Him (see also John 6:53-56 and 1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

He then commanded the Apostles to do this also. Under the authority of their direct successors, this is done at every Mass.

All the rest of this is simply an explanation why the appearance of bread and wine remain.

 

[1ke]

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.

I agree. These are not analogies I would use. Analogies can be instructive, but not in this case.

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.

No. It’s **not **still a piece of bread. It is only and completely the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. To the 5 senses it *appears *to be 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.

Yes.

I can totally understand the pure faith position.

Many things pertaining to the supernatural can only be known through Divine Revelation. We would not know them except that God told us. For example, we could not know that God is a trinity of persons if it had not been revealed.

 

[gcnuss]

 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.

No serious Lutheran theologian speaks of consubstantiation. We affirm that Christ’s body and blood are received in holy communion but we do not attempt to explain how that happens. It is accepted as a mystery – something that cannot be explained. We simply trust the words of our Lord, “this is my body, given for you” and “this cup is the new testament in my blood.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

Pastor Gary,

As I understand from my 2-year time as an Evangelical Lutheran, the ELCA and other Evangelical Lutheran churches hold the position you have just described (which is an emulation of the Eastern Orthodox position and is equivalent to what the United Methodist Church teaches officially, although parish practice varies), whereas the Confessional Lutherans (e.g., Missouri Synod) hold to the position that the bread and wine are “united” to the Body and Blood of Christ–not that they actually become the same.

Is that about right?

 

[clmowry]

No serious Lutheran theologian speaks of consubstantiation. We affirm that Christ’s body and blood are received in holy communion but we do not attempt to explain how that happens. It is accepted as a mystery – something that cannot be explained. We simply trust the words of our Lord, “this is my body, given for you” and “this cup is the new testament in my blood.”

Does “Transubstantiation” actually conflict with this view in any way?

Chuck

 

[gcnuss]

Does “Transubstantiation” actually conflict with this view in any way?

Only to the extent that the Catholic Church requires that it be THE explanation of the Real Presence. While transubstantiation is a way of explaining the Real Presence, to require it seems to me (and to many non-Catholics) to be a denial of the mystery or, at least, giving in to the very human desire to know things that are fully known only to God.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[gcnuss]

As I understand from my 2-year time as an Evangelical Lutheran, the ELCA and other Evangelical Lutheran churches hold the position you have just described (which is an emulation of the Eastern Orthodox position and is equivalent to what the United Methodist Church teaches officially, although parish practice varies), whereas the Confessional Lutherans (e.g., Missouri Synod) hold to the position that the bread and wine are “united” to the Body and Blood of Christ–not that they actually become the same.

Is that about right?

I can’t answer definitively about the teachings of the Missouri Synod as I have never been a part of it and haven’t studied its teachings closely. We do have a couple of Missouri Synod folks here on CAF. They may be able to answer your question.

For a basic Lutheran explanation, the following is from Luther’s Large Catechism:

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.

With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.

This is broad enough that it probably covers most Lutheran explanations of the Real Presence.

 

[Windfish]

I found this to be helpful:

“Substance” here means what something is in itself. (For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory.) A hat’s shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the “substance”) has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.[12]

In my humble opinion, the truth of this teaching has been proven by the many historical examples of Eucharistic miracles. Here is one heavily studied one from 1996:

youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

Helpful, Exalt? Make sure to watch the video, too.

 

[seanflynn]

I hope Exalt is still looking at this thread.

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

Nothing physical changes during transubstantiation. That’s why it’s not called “transformation” or “transphysication” or something like that.

Catholics should be careful never to say that it changes physically. It obviously doesn’t. However, we believe that “real” and “physical” are not synomyms. The change from bread to Body of Christ is real, mystical, mysterious, substantial, and true, yet it is not physical (usually look at Lanciano). Exalt, as CatHerder was attempting to explain, the supernatural is beyond our observation, but not beyond our knowing. The easiest way I’ve found of knowing the supernatural is called Divine Revelation. God just let humanity know Him and know about Him!

We also believe that we have a real soul, but wouldn’t say we have a physical soul. This is also a matter of faith, of course.

Pastor Gary, please allow me to nitpick your statements for clarity and understanding:

We affirm that Christ’s body and blood are received in holy communion but we do not attempt to explain how that happens. It is accepted as a mystery – something that cannot be explained.

Is it only *when a person is receiving *that Christ’s Body and Blood are present? In other words, is Jesus present in the bread or wine in any particularly unusual way at any point while they are still on the altar or in the chalice?

You may be aware that the Catholic belief is that the bread miraculously becomes Body regardless of reception, hence the use of tabernacles, Eucharistic adoration, etc.

And a clarification: I don’t think transubstantiation is an attempt explain how the miracle happens, per se. I think it’s just a name given to the miracle. Or as another poster said, it explains why the accidents *don’t *change.

 

[dogknox]

Exalt It is good to meet you…
Think of this… God took the form of a burning bush… he look and smelled and felt as a burning bush… but we both know he was God Almighty! That is if you believe the scriptures!

God took the form of a Dove… He look and flew as a bird… God was not the bird but he took the form!

Jesus held up bread and said… 'This IS my body"! Do you understand the meaning of the word… “IS”?

Jesus looked, he smelled, and tasted as bread… he took the form of bread!
The God of the Catholic is almighty… Catholic’s do** NOT** put God into a box… IF…
If God says he is bread… then he is just that; Bread.

It is the unbeliever… Protestant’s put God into a box… they say…
John 6:52
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can** this man** give us his flesh to eat?”

If Jesus was just a “MAN” then the protestant would have an** EXCUSE** for rejecting him, as the Jew’s don’t believe Jesus is God… only a Man!

But the Protestant says…“Jesus is God” they have NO excuse for saying Jesus can’t do all things, NO EXCUSE for NOT trusting in him! No EXCUSE for not believing in him!!
FACT: Judas was the first Protestant…
Jesus held up bread and said… “This IS my BODY”! Then…
Then we read this…
John 13:27
As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

All who do NOT accept the words of Jesus… "CONDEMN themselves"!
All who do not accept the words of Jesus REJECT Jesus… all who reject Jesus are the Children of Satan!

Dogknox

 

[gcnuss]

Pastor Gary, please allow me to nitpick your statements for clarity and understanding:

Is it only *when a person is receiving *that Christ’s Body and Blood are present? In other words, is Jesus present in the bread or wine in any particularly unusual way at any point while they are still on the altar or in the chalice? {/quote]

I was merely speaking of what is received by the communicant, not the state of the elements after communion.

You may be aware that the Catholic belief is that the bread miraculously becomes Body regardless of reception, hence the use of tabernacles, Eucharistic adoration, etc.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Exalt It is good to meet you…
Think of this… God took the form of a burning bush… he look and smelled and felt as a burning bush… but we both know he was God Almighty! That is if you believe the scriptures!

God took the form of a Dove… He look and flew as a bird… God was not the bird but he took the form!

Jesus held up bread and said… 'This IS my body"! Do you understand the meaning of the word… “IS”?

Jesus looked, he smelled, and tasted as bread… he took the form of bread!
The God of the Catholic is almighty… Catholic’s do** NOT** put God into a box… IF…
If God says he is bread… then he is just that; Bread.

It is the unbeliever… Protestant’s put God into a box… they say…
John 6:52
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can** this man** give us his flesh to eat?”

If Jesus was just a “MAN” then the protestant would have an** EXCUSE** for rejecting him, as the Jew’s don’t believe Jesus is God… only a Man!

But the Protestant says…“Jesus is God” they have NO excuse for saying Jesus can’t do all things, NO EXCUSE for NOT trusting in him! No EXCUSE for not believing in him!!
FACT: Judas was the first Protestant…
Jesus held up bread and said… “This IS my BODY”! Then…
Then we read this…
John 13:27
As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

All who do NOT accept the words of Jesus… "CONDEMN themselves"!
All who do not accept the words of Jesus REJECT Jesus… all who reject Jesus are the Children of Satan!

Dogknox

Dognox, I had thought of the burning bush but not the Holy Spirit! Wow!

 

[clmowry]

Only to the extent that the Catholic Church requires that it be THE explanation of the Real Presence. While transubstantiation is a way of explaining the Real Presence, to require it seems to me (and to many non-Catholics) to be a denial of the mystery or, at least, giving in to the very human desire to know things that are fully known only to God.

I hope this makes sense.

I guess I don’t see where “transubstantiation” actually gets into unveiling of the mystery.

It seems to me that “all” transubstantiation teaches is that “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” are statements of literal fact.

Other statements like: “This bread contains my Body” or “This bread is my Body” would not be literally true.

The metaphysics around these statements are beyond me.

Is there really more to transubstantiation than this?

Chuck

 

[Wowbagger]

I think Exalt is my new favorite non-religious person on this board. What courtesy! What patience! And he’s pretty smart, too! Amid all the CAF atheist trolls, sometimes it’s hard to remember that some non-Christians are completely sincere explorers in search of only truth.

Anyhow, I think it very difficult to have this conversation in such an abbreviated form, as it gets right to the heart of the distinction between the Aristotelean/Thomistic theory of matter and the corpuscular theory held by such thinkers as Democritus, Gassendi, and Newton. (Spoilers: the distinction has little to do with atoms and everything to do with nominalism vs. realism.) Essentially, the thing-in-itself, the substance, exists completely independently of its physical characteristics – its accidents. Typically, a change in the substance does change the accidents. For instance, if you burned my leg to ashes, my leg would no longer be my leg, and it would not resemble my leg anymore, either.

The miracle of the Eucharist changes the underlying substance without changing the accidents. (For the record, I don’t think the stop sign analogy is accurate. That analogy describes the attachment of symbolic value to a consistent substance with consistent accidents. It is a good description of naming, a powerful metaphysical action, but does not have much to do with transubstantiation.)

This is believed on purely revelatory grounds. We accept the words of Christ and the teaching of His Church guided by the Holy Spirit to lead us true in this regard. It would be impossible to prove it on the basis of natural reason alone, or even to provide evidence in favor of it. All the millions of words Catholics and Protestants have spilled on the topic have served mainly to resolve fundamental logical contradictions in the very concept of transubstantiation (because the Church cannot accept doctrines that are contrary to reason), and to explain the ontological transformations involved, rather than to demonstrate to a non-believer that this is happening up on the altar.

Many parts of the Catholic faith are reasonable for both Catholics and heathens to believe. Transubstantiation is not among them. It is a reasonable doctrine, because no logical contradictions arise from it, but it relies on premises that require the prior acceptance of the Christian faith, and therefore is not a doctrine derived from reason.

 

[JimG]

I guess I don’t see where “transubstantiation” actually gets into unveiling of the mystery.

It seems to me that “all” transubstantiation teaches is that “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” are statements of literal fact.

Other statements like: “This bread contains my Body” or “This bread is my Body” would not be literally true.

The metaphysics around these statements are beyond me.

Is there really more to transubstantiation than this?

Chuck

Yes. Transubstantiation is not really an explanation of how the real presence occurs. It is simply a description of what happens. “This is my body.” is what happens. Obviously, what we perceive (bread) is not what is present (Jesus).

 

[byfaithalone]

Yes. Transubstantiation is not really an explanation of how the real presence occurs. It is simply a description of what happens. “This is my body.” is what happens. Obviously, what we perceive (bread) is not what is present (Jesus).

Jesus does not say the bread becomes His body. Ever.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Jesus does not say the bread becomes His body. Ever.

Well, that depends on what the meaning of the word “is”… is.


[BIBLEDRB]Mt 26:26[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mk 14:22[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Lk 22:17-18[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[byfaithalone]

Well, that depends on what the meaning of the word “is”… is.

If a teacher in class holds up an orange and says “this is the sun”, does that mean that the orange BECOME the sun? No, it does not. Same language used by Jesus, metaphorical.

[BIBLEDRB]Lk 22:17-18[/BIBLEDRB]

He will not drink what? Fruit of the vine. That is wine, not blood.