Transubstantiation

[on_the_hill]

I don’t know where this post goes.

We had a “are you kidding me?!” moment at Mass not too long ago.

We were visiting my wife’s parents and attended Mass at a small church that is not their ‘home’ parish but one they often attend (small town politics).

During the homily, the (elderly) priest said that it is very hard for people to comprehend the actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To make it easier, we should simply consider that the Eucharist is a symbolic representation of Christ.

I’m not theologian (just see my other posts ) but I’m pretty sure the Transubstantiation is kind of an important doctrine. Or maybe it’s a Dogma. Idea. In Roman Catholicism. Isn’t it?

I point out that the priest is elderly because you’d think that after all those years he would have gotten that point straight.

 

[Gorgias]

Well… it is a symbol. The thing is, it isn’t only a symbol.

 

[dshix]

A consecrated Host is NOT a symbol. It is, really and truly, Jesus Christ.

This IS a dogma, and really our entire faith revolves around it.

You should go into the apologetics section of the forums (or just the homepage of catholic.com) to get some good materials to share on this topic.

 

[Rich_C]

That’s unfortunate. Let’s assume he was having a bad day and mispoke and pray for the people who may have walked away thinking the Church no longer proposes belief in the Real Presence anymore.

If you hear this in the future, you can approach father after Mass and ask him politely what he meant, perhaps tell him it sounded like he meant its not actually Our Lord. If you say it like an honest searcher and not an accuser, hopefully he will realize of his own accord that he is not coming across clearly and self-correct.

 

[billcu1]

I don’t know where this post goes.

I would say moral theology. That concerns masses and the eucharist.

 

[dshix]

That’s unfortunate. Let’s assume he was having a bad day and mispoke and pray for the people who may have walked away thinking the Church no longer proposes belief in the Real Presence anymore.

If you hear this in the future, you can approach father after Mass and ask him politely what he meant, perhaps tell him it sounded like he meant its not actually Our Lord. If you say it like an honest searcher and not an accuser, hopefully he will realize of his own accord that he is not coming across clearly and self-correct.

Yes, this is the best way to go about this situation.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A consecrated Host is NOT a symbol. It is, really and truly, Jesus Christ.

This IS a dogma, and really our entire faith revolves around it.

You should go into the apologetics section of the forums (or just the homepage of catholic.com) to get some good materials to share on this topic.

That is not technically correct. Every sacrament has a Sign for the Reality Present. In the Eucharist the accidents of wine and bread are signs of Christ’s Real Presence behind the accidents. The Substance of Christ is Present behind the Accidents which adhere in no substance. The Accidents are not Christ, He is " veiled " by the Accidents.

 

[dshix]

That is not technically correct. Every sacrament has a Sign for the Reality Present. In the Eucharist the accidents of wine and bread are signs of Christ’s Real Presence behind the accidents. The Substance of Christ is Present behind the Accidents which adhere in no substance. The Accidents are not Christ, He is " veiled " by the Accidents.

Could you clarify what you mean? There was a heresy of the Church in which they claimed that Christ was just “in” or “under” the appearances of bread or wine, and this was condemned by the Church.

Do you mean that or something else?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Could you clarify what you mean? There was a heresy of the Church in which they claimed that Christ was just “in” or “under” the appearances of bread or wine, and this was condemned by the Church.

Do you mean that or something else?

While I don’t claim to answer your question for Linus, the “accidents” and “substances” explanation means that while the bread and wine retain every appearance of being bread and wine (even under a microscope), the actual substance has changed completely into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a philosophical explanation based off of some writings of Aristotle, though of course he was not referring to any type of Judeo-Christian theology.

 

[dshix]

While I don’t claim to answer your question for Linus, the “accidents” and “substances” explanation means that while the bread and wine retain every appearance of being bread and wine (even under a microscope), the actual substance has changed completely into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a philosophical explanation based off of some writings of Aristotle, though of course he was not referring to any type of Judeo-Christian theology.

Yes, I understand and agree with that. It seemed, however, as if Linus was suggesting something else…?

 

[Theophorus]

While I don’t claim to answer your question for Linus, the “accidents” and “substances” explanation means that while the bread and wine retain every appearance of being bread and wine (even under a microscope), the actual substance has changed completely into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a philosophical explanation based off of some writings of Aristotle, though of course he was not referring to any type of Judeo-Christian theology.

Exactly so. The substance of the Bread, the “Breadness” as it were, that which really makes bread bread, is replaced by the very Substance of Christ(Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity), while the accidents(the weight, colour, texture spatial dimensions etc.) of the bread remain.

As St. Thomas the perfecter of Aristotle said: Adoro te devote, latens Deitas

 

[NovusAugustus]

I doubt that the priest is unaware of the Real Presence and/or Transubstantiation. More likely, he mispoke (or you misheard) in a way that contradicted Church teaching.

 

[Innocent_III]

The main problem with transubstantiation is the fact that it is unbiblical.
I Cor. 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
His death is past tense, not present. Apethanen (died) is aorist (one-time event) in the greek.

 

[on_the_hill]

Yep, I thought of that, and I asked the people I was with as soon as Mass was over, “Did the priest say… or did I misunderstand him?”

It was just kind of weird. They didn’t have an organist, but they had an automated keyboard. For the Communion song it played “Unchained Melody.” No, I’m not making this up.

It’s otherwise a standard, regulation small town Catholic parish.

 

[Vico]

I don’t know where this post goes.

We had a “are you kidding me?!” moment at Mass not too long ago.

We were visiting my wife’s parents and attended Mass at a small church that is not their ‘home’ parish but one they often attend (small town politics).

During the homily, the (elderly) priest said that it is very hard for people to comprehend the actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To make it easier, we should simply consider that the Eucharist is a symbolic representation of Christ.

I’m not theologian (just see my other posts ) but I’m pretty sure the Transubstantiation is kind of an important doctrine. Or maybe it’s a Dogma. Idea. In Roman Catholicism. Isn’t it?

I point out that the priest is elderly because you’d think that after all those years he would have gotten that point straight.

It is important. The Body and Blood of Christ look like bread and wine, but are not. It is called meta-ousiosis “change of being”. The appearance of bread and wine is not make-believe but sustained in existence by divine power.

 

[Louie1983]

The main problem with transubstantiation is the fact that it is unbiblical.
I Cor. 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
His death is past tense, not present. Apethanen (died) is aorist (one-time event) in the greek.

Neither is sola scriptura.

 

[Gorgias]

The main problem with transubstantiation is the fact that it is unbiblical.
I Cor. 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
His death is past tense, not present. Apethanen (died) is aorist (one-time event) in the greek.

Umm… leaving aside from the appeal to sola scriptura for the moment, I’m nonetheless not sure what you’re getting at, here. Why is the notion of Christ’s death in play? The Eucharist is a memorial of his sacrifice; it is not a re-enactment of his death…

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

The main problem with transubstantiation is the fact that it is unbiblical.
I Cor. 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
His death is past tense, not present. Apethanen (died) is aorist (one-time event) in the greek.

Christ did die once for all, and no Catholic would claim that he dies again. If you’re going to argue against the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, please make sure you understand what it is. The exact same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is made present again at the Mass; he is not sacrificed again. Obviously as a Baptist, you would disagree with that, and that’s fine, but please make sure you’re arguing against a belief that Catholics actually hold.

 

[poche]

That priest was either misquoted or wrong. It is true that we cannot completely understand the mystery of transbustantiation, but understading is different than saying that the presence of Christ is a symbol.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Could you clarify what you mean? There was a heresy of the Church in which they claimed that Christ was just “in” or “under” the appearances of bread or wine, and this was condemned by the Church.

Do you mean that or something else?

If you would quote a source for what you say I would be obliged. Because both the Thomists and the Scotusts describe the Presence of Christ as being " under " the Appearances. The Appearances are real but they clearly are not bread and wine because the substances of wine and bread have been replaced by the substance of Christ. And real wine and real bread cannot exist without their substances.So the Appearances adhere in no subject. So I don’t see how you can describe Christ’s Presence except as being " under " the Appearances or as I said " the Real Presence " is " veiled " by the Appearances. Of course I this is my view only and I always bow to the clear teaching of the Church.