Transubstantiation

[JJ50]

The definition of transubstantiation is the miraculous change by which, according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines, the Eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine.

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can be daft enough to believe the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of the long dead Jesus. It is easy to prove beyond all doubt this is not the case. Besides which, the whole idea is revolting anyway.

[rikuoamero]

The definition of transubstantiation is the miraculous change by which, according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines, the Eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine.

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can be daft enough to believe the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of the long dead Jesus. It is easy to prove beyond all doubt this is not the case. Besides which, the whole idea is revolting anyway.

Believe it or not, people like yours truly thought it was true. I even remember as a child contemplating the issue.
The logic still holds, once one accepts the axiom that with God, all things are possible. A God who can resurrect a dead body, incarnate as a man and conjure fishes and loaves would surely be able to have a wafer be both bread & flesh, and wine be both alcoholic grape juice & blood.

[marco]

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can be daft enough to believe the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of the long dead Jesus. It is easy to prove beyond all doubt this is not the case. Besides which, the whole idea is revolting anyway.

I'm sure Aquinas wasn't daft. I've struggled with the translation of his imposing Summa Theologiae and he penned the hymn: " Adoro te devote, latens deitas " - he adores the deity hidden in the Eucharist.

I'm not defending the doctrine, which I once accepted as devoutly as Aquinas, but before we sneer we should understand. Christ advocated that we have faith that does the impossible - lets us move mountains or walk on water. To accept that the host we eat is mystically transformed, so that Christ is within us, requires a belief that conforms to the requirements of Christ. And amazingly, many millions have that faith.

The sadness is that in exchange for this massive injection of belief in the absent Christ, there is no accompanying change in the world. Monday follows Sunday and we bow our heads at funerals. That vast faith seems to change nothing. All payments are made post mortem.

Your proof that the bread and wine remain is catered for in the Catechism and by Aquinas's hymn: sight, touch and taste are each deceived. The complex issue of substance, accidents and molecules is just for the erudite, not the daft.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 1 by JJ50]


Moderator Warning


This site is for debating ideas, not for insulting people who disagree with you.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Divine Insight]

As a former Protestant I never saw this religious ritual as anything more than a symbolic metaphor. Which made sense to me, since I also viewed the concepts of Christ's "blood" and "body" as being metaphors as well.

For me "Christ's Blood" symbolized his death on the cross (supposedly to pay for our sins). And Christ's Body, symbolized his resurrection (i.e. the promise of eternal life that he offers those who accept him as their Lord and Savior).

I can't say that these metaphors and concepts were officially taught to me. All I can say is this was the impression I got, and what I believed these rituals to mean. I no doubt did have input from other family members and church members. But the whole idea was entirely symbolic and just a metaphorical ritual as far as I was aware when I was a Protestant Christian.

I did learn later that Catholics were taught to believe that they wine and wafers physically turned into the flesh and blood of Christ when they were swallowed. I have to confess that when I learned that Catholics actually believed that I too was wondering how anyone could believe such a thing.

Also what would be the point in actually devouring Christ's blood and flesh anyway? To me that wouldn't even make any sense. The symbolic metaphors made much more sense to me. It was just a religious ritual to honor these concepts. Not meant to be cannibalizing Christ's actual body and blood.

The other thing too that I must confess caused me to laugh out loud was when it came up that our protestant church didn't even use alcoholic wine. Instead they just used non-alcoholic grape juice. My Catholic friends would proclaim that this wouldn't even work and that it has to be wine in order to turn into the blood of Jesus.

It just stuck me as quite unbelievable what the Catholics are actually taught to believe.

I would think that the metamorphic symbolism would be more than sufficient. The idea that it would actually be required to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus seems bizarre to me.

Realizing what Catholics actually believe caused me to chalk Catholicism up to being extremely bizarre. That was just far beyond how I had seen the religion as a Protestant up to that point.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by JJ50]

A good OP; but shouldn't it be moved to the Theology subsection?

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 4 by bjs]

YAWN!

[historia]

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can be daft enough to believe the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of the long dead Jesus. It is easy to prove beyond all doubt this is not the case.

This comment suggests some confusion on your part about what the doctrine of transubstantiation actually states.

How can you "prove beyond all doubt" that the metaphysical substance of the bread and wine hasn't changed?

[Divine Insight]

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can be daft enough to believe the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of the long dead Jesus. It is easy to prove beyond all doubt this is not the case.

This comment suggests some confusion on your part about what the doctrine of transubstantiation actually states.

How can you "prove beyond all doubt" that the metaphysical substance of the bread and wine hasn't changed?

Doesn't it actually make more sense as a metaphor?

Also, doesn't it seem strange that Christian apologists spend 99% of their time arguing that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally and that everything should be interpreted as some sort of metaphor, but then when it comes to something like this they start demanding a quite literal meaning for it?

Why the need to suddenly become hardcore fundamentalists on this point whilst demanding that everything else should be taken as a wildly abstract metaphor that doesn't even remotely resemble what the literal text actually states?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 4 by bjs]

YAWN!

Moderator Warning


Read the rules. This post violates both rule 9 and rule 15 in a particularly rude and dismissive manner. If you have an issue with moderation, contact the moderator via PM. DO NOT COMMENT ON MODERATION ACTIONS ON THE PUBLIC FORUM.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.