Transubstantiation

[Antonius_Lupus]

I have a question:

After the words of Consecration have been uttered and the Real Presence becomes a reality,

Does the Bread and Wine cease to exist, becoming 100% the Blood and Body of Christ?

 

[1962Missal]

Canon 2 on the Eucharist from the Council of Trent:

If anyone says that in the sacred and, holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

 

[jemfinch]

Yes.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

I was pretty sure of this, LOL, but I just wanted to be absolutely sure. Thanks

(This is what happens when you debate with Lutherans, LOL.)

 

[VociMike]

Yes, the bread and wine ceases to exist.

When you think about it, it really has to be this way. Otherwise, all the reverence, even adoration, that we direct to the Eucharistic Elements would also be directed to mere physical matter. That’s idolatry, plain and simple.

 

[chris_molter]

The substance changes, the accidents remain

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Yes, the bread and wine ceases to exist.

When you think about it, it really has to be this way. Otherwise, all the reverence, even adoration, that we direct to the Eucharistic Elements would also be directed to mere physical matter. That’s idolatry, plain and simple.

Exactly, that the point I was trying to make to the Lutheran. I post on CARM alot simply because it is smaller than these forums and the Evangelicals there need to be shown the fullness of Christian Truth.

However, sometimes I am given good arguments from the otherside and I have to come back here and be reaffirmed with the Truth. Heck, I am not even fully Catholic yet.

Thank you my bretheren!

 

[JimG]

Yes, the bread and wine cease to exist after the consecration. The substance of the bread and wine is replaced by the substance of the body and blood of Christ.

Keep in mind however, that the accidents remain. And because the accidents remain, there is no way on earth to distinguish the accidents of bread and wine from the reality of bread and wine.

The accidents–appearances–do not inhere in the body of Christ. Jesus doesn’t ‘take on’ the form of a small round wafer or a drop of wine. No, the accidents–after the consecration–do not inhere in any substance. They serve only to conceal Jesus who becomes actually present under (but not in) the appearances of bread and wine.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have a question:

After the words of Consecration have been uttered and the Real Presence becomes a reality,

Does the Bread and Wine cease to exist, becoming 100% the Blood and Body of Christ?

Yes - apart from their accidents - i.e. that which makes the bread (say) manifest as bread. The accidents manifest the “breadhood” of the bread, which like anything elsde is never experienced directly. No one has ever seen the “cathood” of a cat - it can be known only indierectly, by its accidents, like having whiskers, miaowing, drinking milk.​

The “breadhood” & “winehood” of the bread & wine are converted into the reality of the Body & Blood - the accidents of bread & wine alone remain. It is the “breadhood” & “winehood” that constitute the bread & wine as bread & wine - they cause them to be bread & wine, rather than some other thing. When they cease to exist after the consecration, those realities which they constitute also cease to exist. They exist no longer because they have been converted into different realities - the realities which are the Body & Blood.

There is no cannibalism here, nothing to offend: what one eats & drinks is a metaphysical reality,only more so - a “super-substantial” reality. It exceeds all created substances & accidents, & all bodily & intellectual reality, just as God Himself does. This is no ordinary Food or Drink. It’s a bit like eating a meaning or a value. If Jesus Christ were a mere man, & not yet glorified (rather than the Risen, Ascended, Glorified Lord Who is God & man), then there would be cannibalism, & it would be as revolting as people imagine. But in fact this Food & Drink is holy, pure, the work of the Holy Spirit, divinising, & in no way fleshly, gross, or repellent

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Thank you all my bretheren! That was very reaffirming to my faith. Pray for me as I walk my journey in RCIA.

 

[NonDenom]

Yes, the bread and wine ceases to exist.

When you think about it, it really has to be this way. Otherwise, all the reverence, even adoration, that we direct to the Eucharistic Elements would also be directed to mere physical matter. That’s idolatry, plain and simple.

So what if when the bread is made someone puts poison in the mix? After the consecration there should no longer be any poison in the flesh, right?

 

[jemfinch]

So what if when the bread is made someone puts poison in the mix? After the consecration there should no longer be any poison in the flesh, right?

And there wouldn’t be, but the accidents of the poison (e.g., the molecular properties that cause its poisonous effect) would continue to exist, just as the accidents of bread continue even after the substance has changed.

Jeremy

 

[Church_Militant]

So what if when the bread is made someone puts poison in the mix? After the consecration there should no longer be any poison in the flesh, right?

That’s about the lowest I’ve ever seen you stoop ND. Honest to God…where do you get that sort of warped thinking? What kind of Christian would even come up with that sort of comment and offer it to others?

How would you feel if I suggested that someone might poison the communion juice in your faith community?

That’s just wrong…

 

[Mannyfit75]

So what if when the bread is made someone puts poison in the mix? After the consecration there should no longer be any poison in the flesh, right?

Then the one who put poison in the wine will be guilty of two murders. The possible death of the one who consumes the Blessed Blood, and guilty of defaming the Blood of the Lord. Second, why would you even bothered to post this type of question?

We Catholics revere the Mass itself to the highest degree. I would hardly think someone would go at length unless they are mentally retarded to put it there.

Second, the one who does prepares the gifts are either Eucharistic Ministers, Deacons, or priests. Defaming the Body and Blood of the Lord is a serious SIN.

 

[NonDenom]

That’s about the lowest I’ve ever seen you stoop ND. Honest to God…where do you get that sort of warped thinking? What kind of Christian would even come up with that sort of comment and offer it to others?

How would you feel if I suggested that someone might poison the communion juice in your faith community?

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.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

The 70 Disciples left because of the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Early Christians themselves were accused by pagans to be cannibals. It was also a common belief by the Early Church that the Bread and Wine truly is the Body and Blood of the Lord. Even the Apostles themselves believe it. St. Paul wrote in his letter to the Corinthians in **1 Corth 11:27 **refer to bread and wine as “Body and Blood of the Lord.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Disciple of St. John, the Apostle, wrote in 110 AD:

“Take care, then, to partake of one Eucharist; for, one is the Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one the cup to unite us with His Blood, and one altar, just as there is one bishop assisted by the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants. Thus you will conform in all your actions to the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians, par. 4).

 

[VociMike]

And there wouldn’t be, but the accidents of the poison (e.g., the molecular properties that cause its poisonous effect) would continue to exist, just as the accidents of bread continue even after the substance has changed.

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.

 

[VociMike]

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.

Nonsense. Christ did not hold up bread-mixed-with-poison and say “This is my body.” You’re just inventing how-it-should-work.

And the bread doesn’t “physically” change. Is it possible that you still don’t even understand the Catholic teaching on this matter?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Nonsense. Christ did not hold up bread-mixed-with-poison and say “This is my body.” You’re just inventing how-it-should-work.

And the bread doesn’t “physically” change. Is it possible that you still don’t even understand the Catholic teaching on this matter?

I don’t blame Non-Dem, perhaps, he has never been to a Mass where the Body and Blood is offered at communion. I think he needs to look at both John 6:51-59, 1 Corinthians 11:27, Malachi 1:11,Psalm 109:4, Genesis 14:18, Hebrews 5:6, Hebrew 6:20. All these passage are connected to the Last Supper mention in all 3 Gospels.

 

[NonDenom]

Nonsense. Christ did not hold up bread-mixed-with-poison and say “This is my body.” You’re just inventing how-it-should-work.

And the bread doesn’t

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