Transubstantiation: What changes?

[Cat_Herder]

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.

The teacher is not God and the teacher doesn’t have a prophecy to fulfil, like this one:

[BIBLEDRB]Malachi 1:11[/BIBLEDRB]

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

And was there wine on Calvary?

 

[byfaithalone]

The teacher is not God and the teacher doesn’t have a prophecy to fulfil, like this one:

That is irrelevant to the fact that the language used is metaphorical.

And was there wine on Calvary?

Were they eating a meal at Calvary as they were at the Last Supper?

 

[Cat_Herder]

That is irrelevant to the fact that the language used is metaphorical.

Let me remind you again:
[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, look at this:

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 12:1-8[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 12:13-14[/BIBLEDRB]

A perpetual ordinance made by God. When was the last time you killed a passover lamb and ate it?

Were they eating a meal at Calvary as they were at the Last Supper?

They were killing the Paschal Lamb, so yes.

Do you eat the Lamb?

 

[antonabe]

From the material sense there does not appear tp be changed but the Holy Spirit is capable of changing anything.At the Eucharistic celebration we ask God to change this bread and Wine into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.There are 140 instances recorded and accepted by the Church that miraculously there had been mateirial changes at the Consecration.The most famous one is the Miracle at Lanciano,Italy where the Flesh and Blood are still preserved and certified by the Medical fraternity in that part of Italy.All these instances can be viewed on the Website www.realpresence.com In the Catholicism an element of faith is necessary as everything we believe cannot be scientifically proven.
If one believes in Jesus Christ ,in his ressurection and Ascension it will not be so difficult to believe that transubstantiation is also possible with the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TomKocherry]

Among the oldest Eucheristic Celebrations, “if not the oldest”, is the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, celebrated by the Church of the East, as well as by the Chaldean Catholic Church and by the Syro Malabar Catholic Church. There is no “Words of Institution” in this liturgy. Still, this anaphora is recognized as correct and authentic as any other in Christendom. Not only that there is no “Words of Institution” in this anaphora, also, the prayer of Epiclesis is prayed at the very end of the long anaphora prayers. What transfers the ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord, is not some “Words of Institution” prayed by the priest, but by the act of the Holy Ruha right thru in the Anaphora. The overemphasis of the “Word of Institution” is a theory somehow got into the Latin tradition, sometime in the midle ages. Too much importance should not be given to these “Words”

 

[Hislittlelady]

While everyone analyzes and this is not a bad thing, as Catholics and Christians, what we must remember is that during the Last Supper, Jesus held up the piece of bread and specifically said "Take this and eat, for this IS my BODY, do this in remembrance of Me. This about says it all. We either have faith in that statement or we don’t, and take the Protestant view where it’s only symbolic. To me, the statement speaks loud and clear. Christ did not say ‘this is a representation of my body’, or he did not say, this is an example of my body, NO, he said ‘this is my body’’. the key word is IS. Why would he have mislead us by telling us it is his body, when it’s not, but a mere example of his body. If you may not agree, that’s okay, but this is surely food for thought and it’s how I came to fully understand exactly what the Holy Eucharist is. It is HIS body because HE said so. Let us bow before the Holy Lamb of God. Blessings.

 

[una_fides]

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.

I agree that we need to ‘stop’ with the stop sign analogy (pun intended). It was well intended, but I think it’s confusing people since it is not an entirely accurate description of the Eucharist. The examples from Scripture given of the burning bush and the dove were excellent. Also as pointed out Christ did not say “This bread is my body”; he said “This (this substance which I hold in my hand that was bread) is (now, by my power through the words of priestly institution) my body.” St. Alphonsus Ligouri has an excellent explanation and defense of the Catholic teaching in his book “History of Heresies and their Refutation.”

 

[bobregan]

Also, chiming in here, there are many things in the supernatural that we accept by faith, including the Eucharist.

In John 6, and at the Last Supper, Jesus tells us to eat His Body, drink His Blood, that the bread “IS my body.” We accept certain things on faith, even though we don’t understand them, and because Jesus told us so.

Other examples are: Jesus tells us there is a heaven, we cannot “show” or describe what heaven is, but we accept it on faith, because he tells us there is.

If we accept and believe that Jesus rose from the dead, changed water into wine, waked on water, raised dead people, fed thousands with a couple of fish and loaves, etc…how do we not accept in the same way when Jesus tells us the bread becomes His body and the wine becomes His blood? Our earthly, mortal minds, intelligence cannot fully comprehend or accept things that are heavenly, immortal, and eternal…without faith.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I agree that we need to ‘stop’ with the stop sign analogy (pun intended). It was well intended, but I think it’s confusing people since it is not an entirely accurate description of the Eucharist. The examples from Scripture given of the burning bush and the dove were excellent. Also as pointed out Christ did not say “This bread is my body”; he said “This (this substance which I hold in my hand that was bread) is (now, by my power through the words of priestly institution) my body.” St. Alphonsus Ligouri has an excellent explanation and defense of the Catholic teaching in his book “History of Heresies and their Refutation.”

I’m sorry if you don’t like the stop sign metaphor. However I am quite certain that stop signs are not symbolic. “I don’t believe in the real presence of the law” is not a valid excuse for running one.

If it really is as bad a metaphor as you say it is, I am going to have to find another way to explain transubstantiation to my confirmands, and I don’t think they will be able to understand the biblical analogies as they do not readily encounter burning bushes or white doves in their daily commute.

 

[byfaithalone]

Let me remind you again:
[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Yes, wonderful verse. Doesn’t negate the fact that Jesus OFTEN used metaphorical language.

Now, look at this:

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 12:1-8[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 12:13-14[/BIBLEDRB]

A perpetual ordinance made by God. When was the last time you killed a passover lamb and ate it?

Are you living under the law or under grace? Do you keep all 613 laws?

They were killing the Paschal Lamb, so yes.

Really? They were EATING A MEAL at Calvary? This is what you think? Wow.

And guess what? Jesus laid down His own life, no one took it from Him.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yes, wonderful verse. Doesn’t negate the fact that Jesus OFTEN used metaphorical language. Are you living under the law or under grace? Do you keep all 613 laws?

Under grace, but…

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 3:31[/BIBLEDRB]

I sure hope you keep the Ten Commandments. Now, why would you do that if all 613 mitzvot are gone? How do you know which still apply and which dont’t?

Really? They were EATING A MEAL at Calvary? This is what you think? Wow.

John did, too. Is Jesus symbolically the Worthy Lamb, or was He really sacrificed?

And guess what? Jesus laid down His own life, no one took it from Him.

Amen brother/sister.

 

[byfaithalone]

Under grace, but…

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 3:31[/BIBLEDRB]

And by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight,for by the law is knowledge of sin

I sure hope you keep the Ten Commandments.

No one can.

John did, too. Is Jesus symbolically the Worthy Lamb, or was He really sacrificed?

No, John did not. No one was EATING A MEAL at Calvary. That you even suggest this is absurd.

 

[Nettie]

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.

The answer to your question would have to come from the realm of philosophy. I’m not sure that discussions of stop signs and dark matter are particularly helpful in understanding this most difficult concept, which is really beyond the understanding of most of us, myself included, unless schooled in philosophy.

Keep in mind that the Presence in the Eucharist is not a physical presence; it is a sacramental presence of Christ. It is the same body Jesus had after the Resurrection: the body that could appear and disappear at will, come through locked doors, etc. A different presence, to be sure.

As mentioned, the accidents of a thing (taste, appearance, weight, proton and neutron arrangement) remain the same. Nothing observable changes.

However, the substance of a thing - that which makes it what it is does change. And you’re right about the difficulty of belief in this, but this occurrence certainly isn’t unprecedented: It first happened 2000 years ago. At the Last Supper Jesus broke bread, and said to His disciples, “Take and eat. This is my body.” So here they were, eating something which appeared to be bread, but was actually His body and blood.

Since we Christians know Jesus not to be a liar or a crazy person, we accept on faith what the Lord says. He told the followers in John 6 “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life in you. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink,” etc.

So, in the final analysis, we believe it because Jesus told us that it was so, and He commanded us to do it. There’s practically no way to logically debate you into this belief without your first believing Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity. Everything falls into place after that.

Nettie

 

[Cat_Herder]

No one can…

Then why does Jesus want us to keep them?

No, John did not. No one was EATING A MEAL at Calvary. That you even suggest this is absurd.

It’s called a Passover seder.

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:38-39[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:19-20[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:39-46[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 19:28-30[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Nettie]

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.

You’re absolutely right. The Eucharist is not a symbol. Which is why the stop sign argument is weak. It’s only a stop sign if we perceive it, or make a law which makes it a stop sign. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord whether we believe it or not!

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.

Actually, it’s not still a piece of bread at all.

The first miracle that occurs is that bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord.

The second, equally stunning, miracle is that, despite having been changed, the appearance of bread and wine still remains! The bread and wine are gone - they are no longer there!

 

[byfaithalone]

Then why does Jesus want us to keep them?

Jesus gave us two commandments. And we can barely keep those.

The 10 are part of the Law. The law was never meant to be a means of salvation. By the law comes the knowledge of sin.
Can you keep the whole law? 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

It’s called a Passover seder.

Which did not take place at Calvary.

 

[Tomster]

Jesus gave us two commandments. And we can barely keep those.

The 10 are part of the Law. The law was never meant to be a means of salvation. By the law comes the knowledge of sin.
Can you keep the whole law? 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

Which did not take place at Calvary.

Speak for yourself. If you can barely keep the two commandments Jesus gave us how can you consider yourself to be eternally secure of your salvation, you know, OSAS. Or, are you without personal sin? Or were you immaculately conceived?

 

[Cat_Herder]

You’re absolutely right. The Eucharist is not a symbol. Which is why the stop sign argument is weak. It’s only a stop sign if we perceive it, or make a law which makes it a stop sign.

No, it is a stop sign if the ruling authority says it is… not the driver. The Eucharist is that because the ruling authority, God, says that it is. The recipient’s subjective understanding has nothing to do with it.

 

[Usagi]

No, John did not. No one was EATING A MEAL at Calvary. That you even suggest this is absurd.

Though I’m coming from the Catholic side on this, I’m actually going to agree with you that the spectators at Calvary were not, either literally or symbolically, eating a meal at that time.

Per Scott Hahn’s “fourth cup” theory, it’s possible that Jesus Himself completed His Passover seder on the Cross, but even if that is the case, the eating part was long over and all Jesus did was to drink of the final cup.

However, even though the “eating a meal at Calvary” thing fails, what the other poster was trying to get across remains true. Calvary was the sacrifice of the true Lamb of God, the completion and fulfillment to which all the sacrifices of Passover lambs had been pointing. However, the Passover is not complete with the death of the lamb. To complete the Passover, the family must eat the lamb that has been sacrificed on their behalf.

That is what Catholics believe we are doing (among other things) when we receive the Eucharist. We believe that Jesus gave us Holy Communion not merely as a memorial of His death, but as a very real way for us to partake of the benefits of His sacrifice by eating the Lamb that was slain.

Usagi

 

[Cat_Herder]

Jesus gave us two commandments. And we can barely keep those.

Which is why Christ died that our sins could be forgiven. But He wasted no breath in telling us to repent AND SIN NO MORE, which is the part that faith-aloners always leave out.