Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Transubstantiation—Hard to Believe? Transubstantiation—Hard to Believe? [Open]
Catholic Exchange ^ | May 26, 2008 | Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

Posted on 05/26/2008 4:50:16 AM PDT by NYer

The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharist, the wafer and the wine really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Have you ever met anyone who finds this a bit hard to take?

If so, you shouldn’t be surprised.  When Jesus spoke about eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John 6, the response was less than enthusiastic.  “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 52).  “This is a hard saying who can listen to it?” (v.60).  In fact so many of His disciples abandoned Him that Jesus asked the twelve if they also planned to quit.  Note that Jesus did not run after the deserters saying, “Come back!  I was just speaking metaphorically!”

It’s intriguing that one charge the pagan Romans lodged against Christians was that of cannibalism.  Why?  They heard that this sect met weekly to eat flesh and drink human blood.  Did the early Christians say: “Wait a minute, it’s only a symbol!”?  Not at all.  When explaining the Eucharist to the Emperor around 155 AD, St. Justin did not mince his words: “For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Sav-ior being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him . . . is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

Not till the Middle Ages did theologians really try to explain how Christ’s body and blood became present in the Eucharist.  After a few theologians got it wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic.  In all change that we normally observe, he teaches, appearances change, but deep down, the essence of a thing stays the same.  Example: If, in a fit of mid-life crisis, I traded my mini-van for a Ferrari, abandoned my wife and kids to be a tanned beach bum, bleached and spiked my hair, buffed up at the gym, and made a trip to the plastic surgeon, I’d look a lot different.  But for all my trouble, deep down I’d still substantially be the same confused, middle-aged dude as when I started.

St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one change we encounter that is exactly the opposite.  The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence of these realities, which can’t be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed.  What starts as bread and wine becomes Christ’s body and blood.  A handy word was coined to describe this unique change.  Transformation of the “sub-stance”, what “stands-under” the surface, came to be called “transubstantiation.”

What makes this happen?  The Spirit and the Word.  After praying for the Holy Spirit to come (epiklesis), the priest, who stands in the place of Christ, repeats the words of the God-man: “This is my Body, This is my Blood.”  Sounds like Genesis 1 to me: the mighty wind (read “Spirit”) whips over the surface of the water and God’s Word resounds.  “Let there be light” and there was light.  It is no harder to believe in the Eucharist than to believe in Creation.

But why did Jesus arrange for this transformation of bread and wine?  Because He intended another kind of transformation.  The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ which are, in turn, meant to transform us.  Ever hear the phrase: “you are what you eat?”  The Lord desires us to be transformed from a motley crew of imperfect individuals into the Body of Christ, come to full stature.

Our evangelical brethren speak often of an intimate, personal relationship with Jesus.  But I ask you, how much more personal and intimate than the Eucharist can you get?  We receive the Lord’s body into our physical body that we may become Him whom we receive!

Such an awesome gift deserves its own feast.  And that’s why, back in the days of Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, the Pope decided to institute the Feast of Corpus Christi.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; eucharist; realpresence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 441-447 next last
To: Grunthor

From John chapter 6: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?”

They too had your same reaction:

“As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

Those who have a hard time with Christ’s teaching reject it, quit following Him and move on to their man-made traditions (eg. sola scriptura).


121 posted on 05/26/2008 8:23:02 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". ~ St. Francis of Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I am a Christian, and a believer, and I have no problem with the idea of the idea of the "real presence", but in the consubstantiation or "in, under and with" the presence of the bread and wine. But this "miracle" I find ridiculous.

Are we to believe that this priest in the 8th century didn't just create this himself to bring notoriety to his little parish? What real objective testing by outside scientists has been done on it except by the Church? I don't buy this, not for one minute.

122 posted on 05/26/2008 8:23:19 AM PDT by Boagenes (I'm your huckleberry, that's just my game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Didn’t Saint Mark go to Alexandria and teached the gospel? The Christians in Egypt are Coptic, and they believe the host is the real body and blood of Christ.
Paul went to Cyprus and those people believe the same. One of the apostles went to Syria and those Christians believe it too. So what’s the problem accepting the fact that this is what Christ taught?


123 posted on 05/26/2008 8:30:19 AM PDT by Radl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
That would be the Bible.

Nothing funny about it. The Bible is the basis of most Protestant/Bible churches. The Bible is the writings of Christian not the creation of Catholics.

124 posted on 05/26/2008 8:30:25 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The most recent, an extensive scientific research done in 1970, used the most modern scientific tools available.

Specifics, please? Otherwise, you'll understand if I relegate it to the same bin as the urban legend about the folks who dug a really deep hole, sent down a microphone, and heard the agonies of souls in hell.

125 posted on 05/26/2008 8:33:39 AM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The Bible is the writings of Christian not the creation of Catholics.

The Old Testament was written by Jew, while the New Testament was written by Catholics; all being the Inspired Word of God. The Bible (all 73 books) was assembled and defined as The Bible by Catholics.

Protestants took The Bible with them when they left, and still use part of it, usually badly mistranslated or even embellished.

126 posted on 05/26/2008 8:35:51 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Grunthor
The accidents of the bread and wine remain. The transubstantiation occurs during the Eucharistic Prayer and remains so long as the accidents of bread and wine remain.

And just how do you know that???

127 posted on 05/26/2008 8:36:28 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Boagenes

Scientific proof of what?


128 posted on 05/26/2008 8:37:53 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You said: The Bible is the writings of Christian...

I bet the Jews would surprised to learn that the OT writings were penned by Christians.


129 posted on 05/26/2008 8:38:19 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". ~ St. Francis of Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Always Right

You said: usually badly mistranslated or even embellished.

Or even, in some cases, changed to suit their needs.


130 posted on 05/26/2008 8:39:45 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". ~ St. Francis of Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: sobieski

What? Puh-lease.

Hoss


131 posted on 05/26/2008 8:40:06 AM PDT by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

I suspect I “know that” in the same way I “know that” Christ rose from the dead on the third day.


132 posted on 05/26/2008 8:41:11 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The Old Testament was written by Jew, while the New Testament was written by Catholics;

Funny, I doubt Paul considered himself 'Catholic' and certainly did not sign up to all of the Catholic doctrine. But he did consider himself a believer. Calling him "Catholic" is typical of Catholic thinking.

133 posted on 05/26/2008 8:41:30 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Thanks for the info -- I'd never heard of him.

Well now you can repeat the same trash they're mouthing...After all, all non Catholic history writers are dishonest, imbeciles, crooks, murderers, red headed step children and even worse, Protestant...

134 posted on 05/26/2008 8:41:54 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Afikomen and the wine of YHvH's Passover.

Used by Yah'shua at His Last Pesach Seder.

NAsbU Luke 22:19 And when He had taken some bread
and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying,
"This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

NAsbU Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup
after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured
out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

135 posted on 05/26/2008 8:43:21 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
I bet the Jews would surprised to learn that the OT writings were penned by Christians.

Obviously I was referring to the NT. Of course you knew that.

136 posted on 05/26/2008 8:43:26 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Protestants took The Bible with them when they left, and still use part of it, usually badly mistranslated or even embellished.

That is too funny coming from a Catholic. Too funny.

137 posted on 05/26/2008 8:44:53 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Funny, I doubt Paul considered himself 'Catholic' and certainly did not sign up to all of the Catholic doctrine.

All the Catholic doctrine understood and defined at the time, he certainly did.

138 posted on 05/26/2008 8:45:00 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The accidents of the bread and wine remain. The transubstantiation occurs during the Eucharistic Prayer and remains so long as the accidents of bread and wine remain.

What if you don't eat it??? Can you carry it around like you wold a rabbit's foot??? It would then be a relic, wouldn't it??? And it would last a lot longer...

139 posted on 05/26/2008 8:45:58 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
After all, all non Catholic history writers are dishonest, imbeciles, crooks, murderers, red headed step children and even worse, Protestant...

That is a deeply bigoted collection of slurs. Just amazing.

140 posted on 05/26/2008 8:46:33 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 441-447 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson