Transubstantiation—Hard to Believe? Transubstantiation—Hard to Believe? [Open]

Catholic Exchange ^ | May 26, 2008 | Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

[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.

[lastchance]

I have noticed that Protestants are much more likely to fall prey to heresy because they often lack the historical context to refute them.

This is a shame because a vibrant, evangelical, orthodox Protestant Christianity is essential to the survival of Western Civilization.

[NYer]

I have had a number of Fundamentalits get angry and say I was not being accurate, because I left out Islam

Lol ... now you have dates to back up the reality. Islam arrived on the scene in the 7th century.

[big'ol_freeper]

You said: Only if you believe the apostles intentional omitted things in their writings.

Of course they did. John said so. He describes a vast amount of information that was not in the Gospels. The epistles certainly do not present volumes of additional things Jesus did that are not contained in the gospels.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Wha...? Where in the Bible does it say that Christ and someone/others intercede with the Father?”

No. Christ intecedes. Others - because of Christ - share in that work with Him. Much like how Christ AND THE SAINTS will judge the earth at the end of time.

“Once again, and I’m quoting scripture — “...no one comes to the Father but by me.””

Right. Without Christ this would be impossible. With Christ, it is possible.

“Seems pretty cut and dried. Christ ONLY.”

Christ only - and those whom He allows to share in His work. Just like the idea that Christ will judge us - with the saints.

[vladimir998]

Accepted! Thanks.

[HossB86]

No matter how you stretch your claim doesn’t make it right either! :D

Looks like we’ll have to just disagree.

Hoss

[NYer]

In your mouth, or after you swallow? Do you taste it?

It happens on the altar, at the words of Institution: "This is my body. This is my blood."

No, you do not taste it.

I do have a mirror.

Then focus it on Christ and not on yourself. See my post #11.

[lastchance]

I don’t understand why it is assumed a Christian group is not legitimate unless they can prove they were a “church in exile” during the Apostolic and Ante Nicene era.

There is no shame in Baptists having a late start in Christian denominational history. I don’t agree with all of their beliefs but they are Trinitarian and call upon Jesus as Lord and Savior. That is what makes them legitimate not the age of their denomination.

If age is what legitimized a sect then Gnostics beat out Baptists. Which I will stoutly claim is a big fat lie.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I have noticed that Protestants are much more likely to fall prey to heresy because they often lack the historical context to refute them.”

True. We see it here all the time.

“This is a shame because a vibrant, evangelical, orthodox Protestant Christianity is essential to the survival of Western Civilization.”

I’m not so sure about that. I know plenty of fine Protestants who are wonderful, Christ loving people. Yet, I don’t doubt for a second that the West would have been better off united in Christ’s Church and faith rather than fragmented in 30,000 sects.

[Mad Dawg]

Only if you believe the apostles intentional omitted things in their writings. Jesus stated he already taught them all things to be taught. Did the apostle fail in their job? I think not.

Don't we all leave stuff out when we write -- and aren't others grateful? Shall I take pains in this response to include every critical nuance? Would I have time to write it or you to read it?

Then I think another aspect of your argument may be a kind of circularity. Did they KNOW that their writings were going to be put into something called the Bible? Did they each know what the other one was going to write ("Okay Matt, you, Mark and Luke do the last supper, we'll let John do the foot-washing, the farewell discourse and high priestly prayer, and the Bread of Life stuff. Okay? Anything we're leaving out?)

In other words, full blown sola scriptura would require, almost by definition, that nothing was left out. But we can't use it to prove to someone who doesn't believe in it that nothing was left out because the Apostles wouldn't do that.

Is that at all clear? Weren't we talking about the Eucharist here?

[big'ol_freeper]

You said: Looks like we’ll have to just disagree.

LOL...well I could have said that before we even started opining. But I enjoyed the discussion.

I have to run. Off to fulfill my Memorial Day obligations.

Please remember to pray for the eternal rest of those who have paid the ultimate price or have served and since passed away.

God Bless!

[Always Right]

Wrong. That is a WAG and not sound biblical scholarship.

No, it is pure common sense. You are saying that Jesus commanded the disciples to teach more information than could possibly be written down to the ends of the world. It is only feasible if the all these things Jesus instructed the apostles to teach were of small enough quantity to be passed on to other people. Otherwise the apostles would have no idea where to start or what things to mention first. Jesus would have provided a task that would have overwhelmed any human being. I think that is an utterly ridiculous position to have to take.

[HossB86]

Where does it say that Christ allows others to share in the intercession for our sins?

We will judge with Him in the Second Coming, true. But to equate this “sharing” when it’s plainly stated in the New Heavens and New Earth to Mary, et. al., “sharing” with Christ in the intercession for our sins is a non-sequitur.

I was accused of stretching, but this really is. Two separate issues. One plainly spelled out (end times judging) and intercession for sins, other prayers.

Hoss

[vladimir998]

I would much rather have Baptists around than Gnostics. But neither Baptists nor Gnostics were founded by Christ. That is no slam against Baptists. It is just a sobbering realization that neither one has any real authority on this earth, and both are simply sects. Again, however, I would much rather have Trinitarian Baptists over Gnostics any day!

[lastchance]

Yes I petition her to bring my cause before her Son our Lord, Jesus.

[Always Right]

Then I think another aspect of your argument may be a kind of circularity. Did they KNOW that their writings were going to be put into something called the Bible? Did they each know what the other one was going to write ("Okay Matt, you, Mark and Luke do the last supper, we'll let John do the foot-washing, the farewell discourse and high priestly prayer, and the Bread of Life stuff. Okay? Anything we're leaving out?)

Since their writings were divinely inspired they would not have to know.

[NYer]

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.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
  
  
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
  
  
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
  
  
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
  
  
• The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
  
  
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
  
  
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
  
  
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
  
  
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

---

 

	Fig. 1 - Eosine x 200. Overall histological aspect of a Flesh sample with fibers collected in bundles with longitudinal orientation as it occurs in the outer surface layers of the heart.
	Fig. 2 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 250. An artery and, very close, a branch of the vagal nerve.
	Fig. 3 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 400. Evidence of the "Rough" aspect of the endocardium; the syncytoid structure of the myocardial tissue
	Fig. 4 - Elution-absorption test x 80. Above: Hemagglutination test on blood sample in Lanciano: on the left, anti A serum used; on the right, anti-B serum. Below: hemoagglutination test on a Flesh sample in Lanciano: left, with anti-A serum, right,with anti-B serum. It appears thus that the Flesh and the Blood in Lanciano belong to AB blood group.
	Fig. 5 - Electro-phoretic pattern of Blood proteins (Cromoscan photometer). The profile of serum fractions is normal and superimposable to that of a fresh serum sample.

In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.


Miracle of Lanciano

[lastchance]

That was kind of a low blow. I can assure you that most Protestants who believe in the Rapture are not “signs following” sect members. They may share belief in the Rapture but you will not find a good Southern Baptist taking a Copperhead out of a box to show his faith in Jesus.

[Petronski]

That was kind of a low blow.

Low blows aplenty in the Religion Forum. Far more are aimed at Catholicism than Protestantism (Mormonism aside).

[NYer]

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.

I just posted the detailed information on one of the above comments. Here is the link.