Transubstantiation

[Mannyfit75]

I thought you believed that the bread and wine became the actual physical body and blood of Christ, correct me if I’m wrong.

I think physically is misleading. The bread and wine doesn’t become flesh tissue or the wine becomes physically the blood. However, the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of the Lord. They are no longer the ordinary bread and wine but become Jesus Christ himself. The appearance or accident remains the same.

Hence, we Catholics affirm that Jesus Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Jimmy Akin had this question ask to him on Catholic Answers. He avoid the use physically because to say it would imply the bread becomes physically (in appearance) the flesh of the Lord, and the Wine physically (in appearance) the blood of the Lord.

 

[VociMike]

I thought you believed that the bread and wine became the actual physical body and blood of Christ, correct me if I’m wrong.

“Physical” is tied up in matter and what can be perceived by our senses. The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine become really, actually and substantially the body and blood (and soul and divinity) of Christ. The reality of the bread and wine changes to become Christ. “Physical” is tied up with the material world, but the transformation that takes place is outside of the material world.

It is not even clear what it means to talk about the “physical body” in reference to Christ’s (or any) glorified body.

 

[Mannyfit75]

“Physical” is tied up in matter and what can be perceived by our senses. The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine become really, actually and substantially the body and blood (and soul and divinity) of Christ. The reality of the bread and wine changes to become Christ. “Physical” is tied up with the material world, but the transformation that takes place is outside of the material world.

It is not even clear what it means to talk about the “physical body” in reference to Christ’s (or any) glorified body.

Proper term is substantially the Body and Blood of the Lord (soul and divinity). To describe it physically would be confusing. Every particle or molecule of the bread and wine becomes Jesus.

 

[NonDenom]

I think physically is misleading. The bread and wine doesn’t become flesh tissue

or the wine becomes physically the blood. However, the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of the Lord. They are no longer the ordinary bread and wine but become Jesus Christ himself. The appearance or accident remains the same.

Hence, we Catholics affirm that Jesus Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Jimmy Akin had this question ask to him on Catholic Answers. He avoid the use physically because to say it would imply the bread becomes physically (in appearance) the flesh of the Lord, and the Wine physically (in appearance) the blood of the Lord.

Wow, we are alot closer in our beliefs than I thought. We believe that Jesus’s body and blood are present spititually in the bread and juice but that they are not the physical flesh and blood.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Wow, we are alot closer in our beliefs than I thought. We believe that Jesus’s body and blood are present spititually in the bread and juice but that they are not the physical flesh and blood.

We Catholics don’t affirm **spiritual presence **of the Jesus in bread and wine. We believe Real Presence of Jesus Christ. The Bread is no *longer bread *and wine is no longer wine after the consecration; the bread is the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the wine is the Blood of the Lord.

In the Mass, the priest say: Behold, this is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.

The congregation replies: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world. Three times. Then we say, “Lord, I am not worthy to received you but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

 

[VociMike]

Wow, we are alot closer in our beliefs than I thought. We believe that Jesus’s body and blood are present spititually in the bread and juice but that they are not the physical flesh and blood.

You’d have to define what you mean by “spiritual presence” of something that is not spiritual (Christ’s body and blood). We believe in the actual, real, substantial presence of Christ, not in the bread and wine, but in place of the bread and wine.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You’d have to define what you mean by “spiritual presence” of something that is not spiritual (Christ’s body and blood). We believe in the actual, real, substantial presence of Christ, not in the bread and wine, but in place of the bread and wine.

That’s what I’ve been telling him.

 

[jemfinch]

No, the poison is not a part of the bread. Bread does not contain poison (though poison can be mixed in with bread). So the poison would remain. It is quite possible that the bread/poison mixture would not even be confected into the Eucharist since it is not valid matter (bread alone). But that’s for theologians to decide.

Good point. I concede

Jeremy

 

[VociMike]

Good point. I concede

Jeremy

I had this explained to me on another forum after some doofus posted a vile old poem about a young woman mixing poison in with the bread (or maybe the wine, I forget) to test the faith of a rotten old priest, assuming (wrongly) that if the Real Presence was true, the poison could not cause harm. Real heavy-handed Protesant propaganda stuff.

 

[NonDenom]

Mannyfit75;2965498]We Catholics don’t affirm **spiritual presence **of the Jesus in bread and wine. We believe Real Presence of Jesus Christ. The Bread is no *longer bread *and wine is no longer wine after the consecration; the bread is the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the wine is the Blood of the Lord.

So then you believe that there is a physical change in the bread and the wine? If the bread is no longer bread and it changes to flesh, there must be a physical change. We believe in the REAL PRESENCE SPIRITUALLY in the bread and the juice, so from what I am gathering our beliefs are alike, assuming you believe there is no physical change in the bread.

 

[clmowry]

Never mind.

Take a deep breath CM, it’s not only a logical question it was also in another post from another thread that I don’t believe anyone answered.
The reason that it’s a logical question is because if the bread physically changes then the poison should be removed, or changed. We believe that Jesus is present in the emblems in a real spiritual sense, not that the bread takes on the physical nature of flesh.There were many times when Jesus was teaching that people didn’t understand when Jesus was talking in a spiritual sense. This is why in John chapter 6 they said “This is a hard teaching”, they were thinking it couldn’t be because cannibalism was against the law as was drinking blood. It was true back then just as it is now that many don’t understand the teachings of Christ in a spititual sense.

 

[VociMike]

So then you believe that there is a physical change in the bread and the wine? If the bread is no longer bread and it changes to flesh, there must be a physical change. We believe in the REAL PRESENCE SPIRITUALLY in the bread and the juice, so from what I am gathering our beliefs are alike, assuming you believe there is no physical change in the bread.

Again, what do you mean by a “physical change”? We don’t use such terminology, because it implies that the change can be detected by some physical means, and it cannot. The change is a change of substance, not a physical change. The substance ceases to be bread and wine and becomes Jesus Christ. But no physical means can detect this change.

And again, what does it mean for a non-spiritual entity (Jesus’ body and blood) to be present “spiritually”? I would say that is a contradiction in terms.

 

[clmowry]

How about this way?

A chemical decomposition of the Bread and Wine after consecration would reveal the same molecular structure as it had before the consecration.

But…

Before the consecration it was “just” bread and wine, but after the consecration it IS the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Chuck

PS

There are of course a few cases in history where doubt in the real presence resulted in the miraculous transformation of the bread into actual human heart tissue.

Isn’t there also a story of some saint surviving an attack by poison that involved the Eucharist. Does this ring a bell with anyone else?

So then you believe that there is a physical change in the bread and the wine? If the bread is no longer bread and it changes to flesh, there must be a physical change. We believe in the REAL PRESENCE SPIRITUALLY in the bread and the juice, so from what I am gathering our beliefs are alike, assuming you believe there is no physical change in the bread.

 

[NonDenom]

Again, what do you mean by a “physical change”? We don’t use such terminology, because it implies that the change can be detected by some physical means, and it cannot. The change is a change of substance, not a physical change. The substance ceases to be bread and wine and becomes Jesus Christ. But no physical means can detect this change.

 

[clmowry]

I think you will find that formal theological definitions can differ substantially from the popular current defiinitions of the same word.

Chuck

Substance means 1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter

 

[JimG]

So then you believe that there is a physical change in the bread and the wine? If the bread is no longer bread and it changes to flesh, there must be a physical change. We believe in the REAL PRESENCE SPIRITUALLY in the bread and the juice, so from what I am gathering our beliefs are alike, assuming you believe there is no physical change in the bread.

Catholics believe that after the consecration the substance of the bread is gone, but the appearances remain. You cannot detect this change, because “appearances” means “everything that is perceptible to the senses.” The bread is gone but the appearances of bread remain. There is no test which could distinguish this change, because by definition, any test we do is based on the appearances of a thing.

The appearances of bread remain, but they do not inhere in the substance of Jesus Christ, who becomes present whole and entire. Jesus does not “take on” the appearances of bread and wine. Rather, those appearances do not inhere in any substance, the only instance anywhere in which appearances are not associated with a substance.

Beneath (but not in) the appearances of bread, Jesus is present in his entirety, bodily present, including his divinity, his humanity, his entire person.

 

[VociMike]

Substance means 1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: form and substance.
2. a species of matter of definite chemical composition: a chalky substance.

These definitions are useless when talking about God and the Eucharist. Try e.g. newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

God is not a non-spiritual being,
Joh 4:24 God is a spirit, and the ones worshiping Him must worship in spirit and truth.

Forgetting about the Incarnation? God now, in the Person of Jesus Christ, has a body. newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

So then you believe that there is a physical change in the bread and the wine? If the bread is no longer bread and it changes to flesh, there must be a physical change. We believe in the REAL PRESENCE SPIRITUALLY in the bread and the juice, so from what I am gathering our beliefs are alike, assuming you believe there is no physical change in the bread.

Physical change involve change in the matter or appearance. Physical change would imply the bread turn to flesh tissue, and the wine as blood as in red blood cell.

This is not what is happening here. The appearance of un-leaven bread (Western) or leaven bread in the East, and the wine remains the same, or their accident remains the same. However the bread and wine can no longer be called as such since the consecration of the sacred species is now substantially Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

This is not a symbolic presence. The Magisterium of the Church has never proclaim it as such. I have not ran into any Church document saying anything about Spiritual Presence. However, I do like to note that in our Eucharistic Liturgy, it states, “May your spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy. So that they become the Body and Blood of Our Savior, Our Lord, Jesus Christ.” The priest recites these words.

I do appreciate your charity for showing some common ground Catholics and Non-Denominational Protestants have. However, the lack of the Real Presence in these Non-Denominational Churches is what sets the two apart. We believe the Eucharist to be Jesus. That is why we Catholics, kneel when the priest present the Host up and declare. “This is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the World. Happy are we who are called to this Supper.” (I don’t remember the exact word).

 

[JimG]

In the modern world the term “substance” is seldom understood in the same sense as the Church means it in this doctrine. We now think of substance as the materiality of a thing. In traditional philosophy, however, substance is that which makes a thing what it is, and cannot be perceived directly with the senses. With our senses, we only apprehend the appearances. We simply have no way to get at the substance.

Now, in everyday life, the appearances always match the underlying substance in some way–for that is how we perceive reality–through our senses. It is only in the case of transubstantiation that the appearances remain while the substance changes, and that requires the power of Christ.

 

[VociMike]

Now, in everyday life, the appearances always match the underlying substance in some way–for that is how we perceive reality–through our senses. It is only in the case of transubstantiation that the appearances remain while the substance changes, and that requires the power of Christ.

I would propose that there is at least one other case, which is Jesus Christ c. 0-33AD. Every possible analysis would have indicated that the substance of the man Jesus was that of a human person, but in actuality the substance of the man Jesus was that of God.