Transubstantiation

[Eucharisted]

In the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest, acting in the person of Christ, asks the Father to send the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine holy. The Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier, the Divine Person who makes things holy. So He sanctifies the bread and the wine. And when the Holy Spirit comes, He makes the bread and wine Thrice-Holy, transforming them into the God-Man, Jesus Christ. The accidents of the bread and wine are the same, but their substances change into the Divine Substance, that is, they become the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Is this correct?

 

[bpbasilphx]

That is correct.

Keep in mind that “substance” has a special philosophical and theological meaning in this context.

 

[Allen537]

All is good in this post. It seems you have a good understanding of what Transubstantion is.

One small point, though. The the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during the words of consecration (this is my body, this is my blood) which comes after the Epiclesis (descent of the Holy Spirit).

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

 

[Eucharisted]

All is good in this post. It seems you have a good understanding of what Transubstantion is.

One small point, though. The the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during the words of consecration (this is my body, this is my blood) which comes after the Epiclesis (descent of the Holy Spirit).

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Eucharisted]

That is correct.

Keep in mind that “substance” has a special philosophical and theological meaning in this context.

I will, thank you

 

[Brian_Keith]

In the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest, acting in the person of Christ, asks the Father to send the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine holy. The Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier, the Divine Person who makes things holy. So He sanctifies the bread and the wine. And when the Holy Spirit comes, He makes the bread and wine Thrice-Holy, transforming them into the God-Man, Jesus Christ. The accidents of the bread and wine are the same, but their substances change into the Divine Substance, that is, they become the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Is this correct?

I haven’t quite understood Transubstantiation until I read your post, Eucharisted.

Thanks!

 

[melinda_s]

yes that’s correct

i found a website that might help therealpresence.org/eucharist/realpres/transubstation.htm

sorry i don’t know how to put a link up yet

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Eucharisted,

If you are interested, I’ll share some points that might benefit from clarification.

The accidents of the bread and wine are the same, but their substances change . . .

There could be a some confusion as to what the word “their” refers to in the above sentence. If “their” refers to the bread and wine, it is correct to say that their substances change. But if “their” refers to the accidents of the bread and wine, then it is incorrect to say that their substances change. Why? Because the accidents of bread and wine don’t have any substances in which they inhere after transubstantiation.

substances change into the Divine Substance, that is, they become the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I’m not sure you would want to say that the substances of bread and wine change into the “Divine Substance”. The phrase “Divine Substance” has a technical meaning.

The Divine Substance, so called, does not include the idea of Christ’s human nature, per se, so it seems strange to say “Divine Substance, that is. . .the body and blood. . .”

Secondly, the Divine Substance doesn’t have proper accidents. But Christ, in the Eucharist, does have his own accidents.

You may be trying to convey the idea that the sacrament contains Christ’s divine nature. But Christ’s divine nature is not present by virtue of the sacrament or by transubstantiation. Rather, Christ’s divinity is present by virtue of the hypostatic union, whereby the divine nature is united to Christ’s human nature.

transforming them into the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

Which brings me to the above. It would be more accurate to avoid the word “transform” because that says the opposite of “transubstantiation”, as “transform” literally means “change forms”. But The sacrament arises not from a change of form, but rather a change of substance. I would use the word “changing” in place of “transforming”.

Finally, that phrase above implies, again, that the change is from bread and wine into Christ. But that doesn’t seem precise enough, really. The Church teaches that the substance of bread* changes*, by virtue of the sacrament, into the substance of Christ’s body only. Similarly, the wine changes, by virtue of the sacrament, into the blood of Christ.

Christ’s soul is present, not by virtue of the change, but by virtue of concomitance, the natural connection between his body, blood, and soul (this is same reason his blood is present with his body). Christ’s divinity is present by virtue of the hypostatic union.

Well, what do you think? I’m sorry if I mangled your paragraph, or got too deep into it. I just thought you might like to take another look at it.

VC

 

[Eucharisted]

Hi Eucharisted,

If you are interested, I’ll share some points that might benefit from clarification.

There could be a some confusion as to what the word “their” refers to in the above sentence. If “their” refers to the bread and wine, it is correct to say that their substances change. But if “their” refers to the accidents of the bread and wine, then it is incorrect to say that their substances change. Why? Because the accidents of bread and wine don’t have any substances in which they inhere after transubstantiation.

I’m not sure you would want to say that the substances of bread and wine change into the “Divine Substance”. The phrase “Divine Substance” has a technical meaning.

The Divine Substance, so called, does not include the idea of Christ’s human nature, per se, so it seems strange to say “Divine Substance, that is. . .the body and blood. . .”

Secondly, the Divine Substance doesn’t have proper accidents. But Christ, in the Eucharist, does have his own accidents.

You may be trying to convey the idea that the sacrament contains Christ’s divine nature. But Christ’s divine nature is not present by virtue of the sacrament or by transubstantiation. Rather, Christ’s divinity is present by virtue of the hypostatic union, whereby the divine nature is united to Christ’s human nature.

Which brings me to the above. It would be more accurate to avoid the word “transform” because that says the opposite of “transubstantiation”, as “transform” literally means “change forms”. But The sacrament arises not from a change of form, but rather a change of substance. I would use the word “changing” in place of “transforming”.

Finally, that phrase above implies, again, that the change is from bread and wine into Christ. But that doesn’t seem precise enough, really. The Church teaches that the substance of bread* changes*, by virtue of the sacrament, into the substance of Christ’s body only. Similarly, the wine changes, by virtue of the sacrament, into the blood of Christ.

Christ’s soul is present, not by virtue of the change, but by virtue of concomitance, the natural connection between his body, blood, and soul (this is same reason his blood is present with his body). Christ’s divinity is present by virtue of the hypostatic union.

Well, what do you think? I’m sorry if I mangled your paragraph, or got too deep into it. I just thought you might like to take another look at it.

VC

Thank you for deepening my understanding of the Eucharist Happy Advent!

 

[Brian_Keith]

Could someone please put Verbum Caro’s post into layman’s terms?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Brian,

But I am a layman!

Maybe you and I can discuss it?

VC

 

[Brian_Keith]

Ah… Sorry Mr. Layman.

We can discuss it… I understood nothing.

 

[LilyM]

All is good in this post. It seems you have a good understanding of what Transubstantion is.

One small point, though. The the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during the words of consecration (this is my body, this is my blood) which comes after the Epiclesis (descent of the Holy Spirit).

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

Hold on - the Vatican has recognised as valid, in 2001, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which doesn’t contain the words of institution that you have mentioned above.

So it would seem that it’s not those actual words of consecration that effect the change. Although there IS a more general Eucharistic narrative, so maybe that is sufficient?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_Addai_and_Mari

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Brian,

How about I excerpt the important bits, and try to restate them in a clearer way?

the accidents of bread and wine don’t have any substances in which they inhere after transubstantiation.

I’m not sure how familiar you are with the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, but here is the basic idea: the bread and wine change into the true body and true blood of Christ. This is fittingly called transubstantiation because it describes the reality that the substance (what the thing really is) changes, although the appearances of the thing stay the same.

So, when theologians (or philosophers) talk about substance and accidents, they are speaking of the thing itself in its deepest reality, and the thing’s appearance or qualities.

Normally you don’t perceive substances directly, they are always “accessed” through the appearances or accidents of a thing. Have you seen “table” lately? Nope. But you have seen “this” “little” “brown” table.

In a similarly way, accidents which stand on substances (sub = under stance=stand; substances “stand under” accidents), are usually never seen without their corresponding substance. Have you seen “little” or “brown” lately without the thing that is little or brown?

Anyway, in the Eucharist, the substance of bread and wine change into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. But the accidents of bread and wine remain as they were *except they aren’t “attached” to anything. *It is an important point, because those bread and wine accidents (round, white, liquid, red, etc.) are not Christ’s accidents, and they aren’t the bread and wine’s accidents either because there is no bread and wine anymore.

With me so far? Should I continue to the other points?

VC

 

[Brian_Keith]

I understand Transubstantiation. However, the “accidents” and “substances” is a bit over my head… Still don’t quite get the difference between the two.

All I know is when the bread and wine are blessed, they are no longer bread and wine… Because then the presence of Christ emanates and radiates so strongly within and throughout them, they are changed, thus becoming the actual body and blood of Christ.

 

[LilyM]

I understand Transubstantiation. However, the “accidents” and “substances” is a bit over my head… Still don’t quite get the difference between the two.

All I know is when the bread and wine are blessed, they are no longer bread and wine… Because then the presence of Christ emanates and radiates so strongly within and throughout them, they are changed, thus becoming the actual body and blood of Christ.

Very good indeed, I can’t find fault with your attitude.

Let’s see if I can drag out an earlier example I’ve used to explain the concept though -

Imagine that you could be cloned, and compare yourself to your clone. Your physical characteristics may be identical to those of your clone (and even your DNA would be the same as your clone’s). So your ‘accidents’ would be the same as those of your clone. Nonetheless, there is still SOMETHING ineffable, not perceptible to the senses, that makes you a unique individual and NOT exactly the same being as your clone. The ‘substance’ within one of the identical-seeming bodies is YOUR ‘substance’ , the ‘substance’ within the other is the ‘substance’ of your clone.

So the ‘accidents’ of the Eucharist are those things perceptible to the senses - shape, colour, texture, whatever. Exactly the same ‘accidents’ as those of bread, like you and your clone.

That imperceptible part of the Eucharist, the ‘substance’, is what changes during the Mass. Before the consecration that imperceptible identifying ‘substance’ is the substance of bread, afterwards it is the imperceptible ‘substance’ of Christ.

 

[Brian_Keith]

Very good indeed, I can’t find fault with your attitude.

So the ‘accidents’ of the Eucharist are those things perceptible to the senses - shape, colour, texture, whatever. Exactly the same ‘accidents’ as those of bread, like you and your clone.

That imperceptible part of the Eucharist, the ‘substance’, is what changes during the Mass. Before the consecration that imperceptible identifying ‘substance’ is the substance of bread, afterwards it is the imperceptible ‘substance’ of Christ.

Thanks.

Okay, now I understand the relationship with “accidents” and “substances”. The “accidents”, wafer and wine, is the visual appearances that do not change and cannot change, of the Body and Blood of Christ which are the “substances” not perceptible to human eyes but is felt with knowledge that though it looks like wafer and wine, it is the Real Presence.

It is changed inwardly and outwardly yet remains visible in the same form as it was before the Transubstantiation. Yet now the wafer and wine ARE the Body and Blood of Christ and not just wafer and wine, although the appearance still remains of wafer and wine.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yet now the wafer and wine ARE the Body and Blood of Christ and not just wafer and wine, although the appearance still remains of wafer and wine.

I think you’ve got it Brian. Thanks to LilyM for giving a helpful analogy.

Any other questions that are bugging you? This might be a good thread to talk them over.

VC

 

[Brian_Keith]

I don’t quite understand the purpose of the priest’s prayers when the Transubstantiation begins… Does the priest begin acting in persona Christi or something else?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Can you be more specific? What prayers are you thinking of? Do you mean when he starts off saying something like “On the night he was betrayed. . .” etc?

VC