Transubstantiation. What's that all about?

dvpower · 10-04-2009 01:56AM #1

So. Wikipedia says that Transubstantiation is the "change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist while all that is accessible to the senses remain as before".

I always took this to mean that the Host I got in Communion became the body of Christ as I got it. I accepted this as the truth.

When I was young, I was told that if you accidentally dropped it, all hell would break loose (not literally); thankfully I never dropped it.

My understanding is that Protestants think of it metaphorically; that it represents Christ’s body but Catholics have a literal interpretation. I was brought up with the literal interpretation.

On reflection, it does seem like a bizarre concept; that you would actually be eating the body of someone (and drinking his blood). .

So my question is - should we still take this literally?

I'd like to add a proviso to this question. I expect that there could be a whole deep theological discussion about this and I find that these generate more heat than light. I wad given the basic belief about Transubstantiation as a child, so can we keep this on a basic level and try not go off on tangents. I just want some honest interpretations and options.

artyeva · 10-04-2009 02:07AM

Protestants take bread and wine as a symbol. They don't believe that anything was actually turned into flesh or blood.

dvpower · 10-04-2009 02:14AM

artyeva wrote: »

Protestants take bread and wine as a symbol. They don't believe that anything was actually turned into flesh or blood.

That's how I understood it. I don't quite get what the symbol means but I guess that's what symbols are for.:rolleyes: I don't quite get what the literal interpretation is about. I can't get my head around that. At all.

artyeva · 10-04-2009 02:30AM

i'm misquoting here [it's been a while since my last RE class] but the verse from the bible says something like:

...and jesus took the bread and said ''take this and eat, this is my body'' likewise he took the wine and said ''take this and drink, this is my blood''...

protestants [i think] interpret this as a symbolic thing - not that jesus meant that the bit of bread WAS his flesh, but that it [the bread] symbolised his flesh.... more that the communion is a symbolic re-enactment of the last supper.

i'd be more interested in why in the catholic church only the priest gets the wine:rolleyes:

incedently in most protestant churches the bread is white sliced pan and the wine is special communion wine that tastes like harvey's bristol cream sherry.

Slav · 10-04-2009 10:21PM

dvpower wrote: »

My understanding is that Protestants think of it metaphorically; that it represents Christ’s body but Catholics have a literal interpretation. I was brought up with the literal interpretation.

Is it actually Transubstantiation that you are questioning or Real Presence? Many Protestants believe in Real Presence (that in Jesus Christ is present in Eucharis) but not in Transubstantiation (that the substance of bread and wine transforms into Body and Blood of Christ). The later issue addresses the question "what" is present in Communion and the former is trying to answer the question "how" Christ is present in Holy Eucharist.

Some Protestant denominations (like Baptists) believe that Communion is only a memorial of the Last Supper and therefore there is no real presence of Christ in consumed bread and wine. This can be seen as the pure symbolic approach to the Eucharist.

Roman Catholics and Orthodox as well as many Protestants (like Lutherans and many Anglicans and Methodists) believe that Jesus Christ is fully present in the Eucharist but there are probably as many opinions on "how" He is present there as there are denominations (or even more). Some Protestants (e.g. Presbyterians) believe it's only spiritual presence but not physical. Lutherans have the doctrine of so-called sacramental union between consecrated bread and wine and Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodox say that bread and wine don't lose the essence of bread and wine but Holy Spirit gives them the essence of Body and Blood of Christ (same as there were two natures (God and Man) in hypostasis of Jesus Christ). Roman Catholics are the probably the only denomination that advocate Transubstantiation, i.e. the transformation of one essence (bread or wine) into another (Body or Blood) though the appearance remains the one of bread or wine.

On reflection, it does seem like a bizarre concept; that you would actually be eating the body of someone (and drinking his blood). .

All Christians who believe in real physical presence don't see the Eucharist as a piece of dead corpse and mere blood but the whole Christ is present in every single bit of consecrated bread and every drop of consecrated wine.

So my question is - should we still take this literally?

As you can see there is a broad range of opinions among Christians and this issue has been debated for many centuries already. Some denominations (like Anglicans) don't see a problem with the diversity of views among the members and dioceses while others take this issue quite seriously. If your question is specifically addressed at Roman Catholic Church then it's extremely unlikely that the doctrine of Transubstantiation will ever change.

I wad given the basic belief about Transubstantiation as a child, so can we keep this on a basic level and try not go off on tangents. I just want some honest interpretations and options.

I did my best...

postcynical · 10-04-2009 10:39PM

dvpower wrote: »

I always took this to mean that the Host I got in Communion became the body of Christ as I got it. I accepted this as the truth.

Roughly speaking, yes. In fact the wine and bread become the body and blood of Christ during the consecration (the part of the Mass after the 'Holy Holy Holy Lord...' prayer). Until then they are our offered gifts of the Earth. When you receive the Host they have been consecrated; your reception of the Host does not change its nature.

The Mass is actually a reenactment of Christ's offering. We believe that Christ is present sacramentally on the altar in the Host and that this is the only sacrifice worthy of God now that His son has been to the world. In essence, Christ is sacrificed at every Mass, for our sins.

Christ is present as God the Father everywhere in Nature. I understand the Eucharist as Christ being present in a tangible way, at the interface of the spiritual and material worlds.

When I was young, I was told that if you accidentally dropped it, all hell would break loose (not literally); thankfully I never dropped it.

I'm sure that is just to teach young people that the Host is where Christ is present and deserves special respect. This is where our attention and prayers should be focussed.

My understanding is that Protestants think of it metaphorically; that it represents Christ’s body but Catholics have a literal interpretation. I was brought up with the literal interpretation.

I'd be very interested in exploring this with sympathetic Christians, but this is a contentious issue. Firstly it's a fundamental mystery of the Catholic Church so a rational debate will hit the mysterious very quickly. Secondly, if a nonCatholic Christian considered the worship of the Host to be blasphemous then they might condemn it in strong terms. This would be the right thing to do from their perspective. However unless very sensitively done, this would probably be very offensive to a practicing Catholic.

Although I'd like to deepen my understanding of this (central) aspect of Catholic worship, I think prayer and meditation is the best approach at this stage rather than formal logic on uncertain premises.

On reflection, it does seem like a bizarre concept; that you would actually be eating the body of someone (and drinking his blood). .

A bit out of date, but not unnatural...

So my question is - should we still take this literally?

I'd like to add a proviso to this question. I expect that there could be a whole deep theological discussion about this and I find that these generate more heat than light. I wad given the basic belief about Transubstantiation as a child, so can we keep this on a basic level and try not go off on tangents. I just want some honest interpretations and options.

Sorry I probably can't be more helpful. I've tried to keep it simple but it could be a touchy subject even amongst informed Christians.

postcynical · 10-04-2009 10:49PM

artyeva wrote: »

i'd be more interested in why in the catholic church only the priest gets the wine:rolleyes:

Not true. It's frequently offered under both forms. The catechism encourages the faithful to receive under both forms for symbolic reasons, but one granule/drop of the Host in either form contains Christ in His entirety.

kelly1 · 11-04-2009 10:45PM

dvpower wrote: »

So. Wikipedia says that Transubstantiation is the "change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist while all that is accessible to the senses remain as before".

Hello DVP, the Eucharist is not just Christ's body and blood but also His (human) soul and divinity. Therefore the Eucharist is worthy of our adoration and worship.

dvpower wrote: »

I always took this to mean that the Host I got in Communion became the body of Christ as I got it. I accepted this as the truth.

The bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood as soon as they are consecrated by the priest.

dvpower wrote: »

On reflection, it does seem like a bizarre concept; that you would actually be eating the body of someone (and drinking his blood).

It might seem strange to us but not to Jesus:

John 6:47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

dvpower wrote: »

So my question is - should we still take this literally?

Yes, absolutely.

This site is a good resource on the Real Presence.

God bless,
Noel.

Akrasia · 12-04-2009 10:37AM

artyeva wrote: »

Protestants take bread and wine as a symbol. They don't believe that anything was actually turned into flesh or blood.

which of course is correct because after the ceremony, the host is patently not flesh and the wine is demonstrably still wine and not blood.

I love the mental gymnastics catholics go through to justify their belief that something that clearly is not happening is actually happening, 'imperceptibly'

Akrasia · 12-04-2009 10:40AM

kelly1 wrote: »

The bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood as soon as they are consecrated by the priest.

no it doesn't. unless jesus wasn't a human and was in fact a walking sandwich with wine for blood...

rugbyman · 12-04-2009 10:52AM

Slav wrote: »

Is it actually Transubstantiation that you are questioning or Real Presence? Many Protestants believe in Real Presence (that in Jesus Christ is present in Eucharis) but not in Transubstantiation (that the substance of bread and wine transforms into Body and Blood of Christ). The later issue addresses the question "what" is present in Communion and the former is trying to answer the question "how" Christ is present in Holy Eucharist.

Some Protestant denominations (like Baptists) believe that Communion is only a memorial of the Last Supper and therefore there is no real presence of Christ in consumed bread and wine. This can be seen as the pure symbolic approach to the Eucharist.

Roman Catholics and Orthodox as well as many Protestants (like Lutherans and many Anglicans and Methodists) believe that Jesus Christ is fully present in the Eucharist but there are probably as many opinions on "how" He is present there as there are denominations (or even more). Some Protestants (e.g. Presbyterians) believe it's only spiritual presence but not physical. Lutherans have the doctrine of so-called sacramental union between consecrated bread and wine and Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodox say that bread and wine don't lose the essence of bread and wine but Holy Spirit gives them the essence of Body and Blood of Christ (same as there were two natures (God and Man) in hypostasis of Jesus Christ). Roman Catholics are the probably the only denomination that advocate Transubstantiation, i.e. the transformation of one essence (bread or wine) into another (Body or Blood) though the appearance remains the one of bread or wine.

All Christians who believe in real physical presence don't see the Eucharist as a piece of dead corpse and mere blood but the whole Christ is present in every single bit of consecrated bread and every drop of consecrated wine.

As you can see there is a broad range of opinions among Christians and this issue has been debated for many centuries already. Some denominations (like Anglicans) don't see a problem with the diversity of views among the members and dioceses while others take this issue quite seriously. If your question is specifically addressed at Roman Catholic Church then it's extremely unlikely that the doctrine of Transubstantiation will ever change.

I did my best...

I am a non believer in Religion.and even more so in transsubstantiation. most of the posts on here are well written, even from those who believe in it.

The post quoted above is very well written and factual, i.m.o.

regards rugbyman

homer911 · 12-04-2009 06:15PM

postcynical wrote: »

Christ is sacrificed at every Mass, for our sins.

This is the bit I have a problem with - along with many/most/all Protestants. The only way the sins of the world could be fogiven was through a single perfect sacrifice - from one without sin. Following your argument, the sacrifice of God on the cross was imperfect (or why repeat it?). If the sacrifice was imperfect then Jesus was not God!

Repeating the sacrifice at every Mass is like returning to Old Testament times when the Jews had to make constant sin offerings at the temple through the intermediation of the High Priest.

And seeing as its Easter Sunday - its worth remembering that the temple curtain separating the Holy of Holys was torn in two when Jesus died - opening the way for all of us to approach God directly

Happy Easter - Christ is truely risen!

dvpower · 12-04-2009 11:21PM

dvpower wrote: »

My understanding is that Protestants think of it metaphorically; that it represents Christ’s body but Catholics have a literal interpretation. I was brought up with the literal interpretation.

postcynical wrote: »

I'd be very interested in exploring this with sympathetic Christians, but this is a contentious issue. Firstly it's a fundamental mystery of the Catholic Church so a rational debate will hit the mysterious very quickly. Secondly, if a nonCatholic Christian considered the worship of the Host to be blasphemous then they might condemn it in strong terms. This would be the right thing to do from their perspective. However unless very sensitively done, this would probably be very offensive to a practicing Catholic.

Although I'd like to deepen my understanding of this (central) aspect of Catholic worship, I think prayer and meditation is the best approach at this stage rather than formal logic on uncertain premises.

Ever think of joining the Diplomatic Corps?

Fanny Cradock · 12-04-2009 11:36PM

While each of us probably recognises the clear symbolism of the Eucharist - breaking of Christ's body and shedding his blood on the cross - I would certainly believe that there is a fundamental spiritual aspect that underpins the Eucharist beyond metaphor. Though I am firmly of the opinion that the bread remains bread and the wine is the same before, during and after the sacrament, I have certainly felt a quite unexplainable and deeply profound weight of the Holy Spirit pressing down upon me after partaking in the Eucharist. (like I said, I really can't explain it). I would think that most Christians - no matter the denomination or their stance on transubstantiation - can recognise this deep and fundamental spirituality that can come though the Eucharist. This commonality is the most important thing to remember, I feel.

dvpower · 12-04-2009 11:44PM

dvpower wrote: »

I always took this to mean that the Host I got in Communion became the body of Christ as I got it. I accepted this as the truth.

kelly1 wrote: »

The bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood as soon as they are consecrated by the priest.

That's where the whole confusion happens for me. If it was a metaphorical thing, I could understand it, but the literal understanding opens up a whole pile of questions for me;

If there is an actual (measurable) change to the host, then can this actually be measured?;
It would confirm that God has a physical presence and could be used to further our understanding of God;
It just seems a bit creepy; for many people, the fact of eating an animal is something they just don't like to focus on when they do it; eating a fellow human would be abhorrent; eating a deity should be just out of the ballpark.

I have to wonder, do common or garden Catholics consider this question at all; it does seem that you have to have a theological bent to accept or understand it.

Splendour · 12-04-2009 11:46PM

homer911 wrote: »

This is the bit I have a problem with - along with many/most/all Protestants. The only way the sins of the world could be fogiven was through a single perfect sacrifice - from one without sin. Following your argument, the sacrifice of God on the cross was imperfect (or why repeat it?). If the sacrifice was imperfect then Jesus was not God!

Repeating the sacrifice at every Mass is like returning to Old Testament times when the Jews had to make constant sin offerings at the temple through the intermediation of the High Priest.

And seeing as its Easter Sunday - its worth remembering that the temple curtain separating the Holy of Holys was torn in two when Jesus died - opening the way for all of us to approach God directly

Happy Easter - Christ is truely risen!

He is risen indeed!!

Great post homer911.

Fanny Cradock · 12-04-2009 11:52PM

If there is an actual (measurable) change to the host, then can this actually be measured?;
It would confirm that God has a physical presence and could be used to further our understanding of God;.

Well, there probably would be a change to the brain of the participant. But whether that is simply due to an emotional response that lights up areas of the brain, or if it's the Holy Spirit working through the person, which results in certain brain activity, would be impossible to say.

Akrasia · 13-04-2009 12:32PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, there probably would be a change to the brain of the participant. But whether that is simply due to an emotional response that lights up areas of the brain, or if it's the Holy Spirit working through the person, which results in certain brain activity, would be impossible to say.

Why would the holy spirit effect physical changes to the brain of the participant but leave the actual host totally unchanged.

Brain activity changes all the time depending on what we are thinking about and feeling, it's quite simply how the brain works.

It makes no sense that god would expect us all to believe in these events but put so many obstacles in the way (telling us to believe there was a physical transformation but no actual change to the physical make up of the entity)

MatthewVII · 13-04-2009 01:10PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I have certainly felt a quite unexplainable and deeply profound weight of the Holy Spirit pressing down upon me after partaking in the Eucharist. (like I said, I really can't explain it). I would think that most Christians - no matter the denomination or their stance on transubstantiation - can recognise this deep and fundamental spirituality that can come though the Eucharist. This commonality is the most important thing to remember, I feel.

And yet Eucharist has no effect on atheists (apart from distaste at how bland and horribly textured it is. Why couldn't they make it tastier or chocolatey?). Which suggests there has to be an existing belief in god for it to give you any sort of buzz. Which makes it indistinguishable from self-convinced euphoria.

the central nervous system is truly amazing.

Fanny Cradock · 13-04-2009 01:56PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Why would the holy spirit effect physical changes to the brain of the participant but leave the actual host totally unchanged.

If a physical effect is noted upon any part of the body it doesn't leave the participant unchanged. Am I missing something here?

Akrasia wrote: »

Brain activity changes all the time depending on what we are thinking about and feeling, it's quite simply how the brain works.

Yeah, neuroscience 101. Thanks for that!

Fanny Cradock · 13-04-2009 01:57PM

MatthewVII wrote: »

And yet Eucharist has no effect on atheists (apart from distaste at how bland and horribly textured it is. Why couldn't they make it tastier or chocolatey?). Which suggests there has to be an existing belief in god for it to give you any sort of buzz. Which makes it indistinguishable from self-convinced euphoria.

the central nervous system is truly amazing.

And why would you expect it to have any effect if you don't believe?

MatthewVII · 13-04-2009 02:04PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And why would you expect it to have any effect if you don't believe?

wouldn't you expect it to have an effect, since Christians think God is a fact whether you believe in him or not?

Fanny Cradock · 13-04-2009 02:29PM

I wouldn't expect or demand anything of God, tbh. This is especially the case when it comes to matters of spirituality.

MatthewVII · 13-04-2009 06:05PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wouldn't expect......anything of God

at least we agree on something

Húrin · 13-04-2009 06:11PM

MatthewVII wrote: »

wouldn't you expect it to have an effect, since Christians think God is a fact whether you believe in him or not?

Christians believe that God has a mind with free will.

MatthewVII · 13-04-2009 06:35PM

Húrin wrote: »

Christians believe that God has a mind with free will.

Indeed. But does this mean that

1) He chooses not to have his spirit descend on the bread that I eat

or

2) When I eat the bread, he quickly takes his spirit away before I can taste it

Either way, he is deliberately stopping me from experiencing what Fanny Craddock feels. Is this not a bit counterintuitive, since he wants all of us to go be with him, and he knows that the effect of eating the bread would help me believe and convert, so why does he not give me a taste of the good stuff?

Again, I'm probably asking too much of God. Just a thought though.

O'Coonassa · 13-04-2009 06:40PM

A Jew drinking 'blood' at Passover and urging others to do the same? Even to those with only the barest notion of Jewish dietary requirements and the Jewish blood taboo it must seem unlikely.

Loisy and other scholars are convinced that the entire blood and body thing is a redaction and when you examine the evidence it's easy to see why they think this.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/index.html

Speaking of the first synoptic Gospel of Mark...

"Two different conceptions of the Supper are present in the story, one superimposed on the other. According to the earlier conception it was imagined that Jesus, in the course of this his last meal, which was not the paschal meal, after pronouncing the customary benediction on the bread and the cup, announced to the disciples that their next meal together would be in the Kingdom of God (xiv, 25). In this type the Supper was understood as anticipating the fellowship of the elect with the Christ in his Kingdom, an anticipation in which memory of Jesus' death and resurrection is implied only. Upon this primitive and eschatological meaning of the Supper, already figured in the miracle of the multiplied loaves, the editing hand has grafted (xiv, 22-24) the conception of the mystic Supper, according to which the bread becomes symbolically the body of the Christ, and the wine his blood, the Supper being now understood as a rite of holy communion with Jesus, redeemer of mankind by his death, as announced in i Corinthians xi, 23-25. Note that, in this conception, the Christ is the paschal lamb of the Christians, and that this was not the precise point of departure for fixing Easter on Sunday. This in passing; what we have here to point out is the editorial artifice of the superposition. The artifice is clearly perceptible in Mark (xiv, 23-25): And taking the cup, after giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them: "This is my blood of the covenant, shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the product of the vine until that day when I shall drink it new in the Kingdom of God."
When the disciples had drunk the wine, the time was past for saying "this is my blood," which is here made to follow the drinking. The natural sequence after "they all drank of it" is "I will drink of it no more," etc. This was the order in the basis-story: it spoke only of the bread that he would eat no more and of the wine that he would drink no more till they ate and drank together in the Kingdom of God. The institution of the mystic Supper ("this is my blood," etc.) is a highly distinct afterthought in the development of the Gospel catechesis"

Phototoxin · 13-04-2009 07:26PM

Protestants take bread and wine as a symbol. They don't believe that anything was actually turned into flesh or blood.

some have consubstantiation. That is if your faith is such that you belive it is actual blood and skin then it changers after you eat it.

The sheer balls-ology of it is a contributing reason to my leaving the church. I'd rather not risk hyper glycemia from eating bread (carbs = +++blood sugar) which is supposed to be flesh (protein = +0 blood sugar!)

This commonality is the most important thing to remember, I feel.

no no !!

the finicky details about which bible verse to use, weather latin is superior to the vernacular and how much we should demonstrate our faith and ultimately seek to emulate the lovely pharasees mentioned in the gospels is what its REALLY all about

(sarcasm for the uninitiated!)

postcynical · 13-04-2009 08:59PM

dvpower wrote: »

Ever think of joining the Diplomatic Corps?

I hope that's a friendly comment:) I'm not being evasive but I'll try and explain more as best I can in a moment in response to Homer.

postcynical · 13-04-2009 09:17PM

homer911 wrote: »

This is the bit I have a problem with - along with many/most/all Protestants. The only way the sins of the world could be fogiven was through a single perfect sacrifice - from one without sin. Following your argument, the sacrifice of God on the cross was imperfect (or why repeat it?). If the sacrifice was imperfect then Jesus was not God!

Hello Homer. I'm afraid your questions go deeper than my knowledge of my faith. However I've been pawing through my catechism to try and answer you (and to help develop my own understanding). The following might be a bit incoherent.

My original argument was probably wrong, because the deduction that the sacrifice was imperfect or repeatable is false. I know this is not an argument to convince you, since it is grounded in tradition rather than scripture but here is the RCC position:

RCC Catechism wrote:

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."

Other passages also address the fault(s) in my original wording and reasoning which you identified. I'm afraid the area is mysterious to me and I won't speculate further now but if I can understand these teachings in new light I will present them here for you to debate if you are interested.

Repeating the sacrifice at every Mass is like returning to Old Testament times when the Jews had to make constant sin offerings at the temple through the intermediation of the High Priest.

And seeing as its Easter Sunday - its worth remembering that the temple curtain separating the Holy of Holys was torn in two when Jesus died - opening the way for all of us to approach God directly

Much of the Catholic Mass preserves the symbolism of the Old Testament. This Easter was the first time I really thought about the significance of the temple curtain being torn. During the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday, attention was also drawn to the ripping of Christ's clothing. Not just a fulfillment of scripture but also perhaps a symbol of God being humbled and made accessible before all of us.

Happy Easter - Christ is truely risen!

Thank you. Alleluia.

postcynical · 13-04-2009 09:23PM

Akrasia wrote: »

no it doesn't. unless jesus wasn't a human and was in fact a walking sandwich with wine for blood...

To the OP - this is one of the reasons why I was tiptoeing in my first post. A nonCatholic perhaps has no idea how offensive and hurtful this kind of statement is to any Catholic. It doesn't matter if it's funny or imaginative:(

Here, for the record is the RCC position which is a little bit more subtle than the above "logic" might allow:

RCC Catechism wrote:

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

Transubstantiation. What's that all about?

Comments