Does the Eucharist stop remaining bread?


#1

During transubstantiation. Same for the blood- does it stop remaining wine?


#2

Yes. We believe that the substance of the materials are truly the body and blood of Christ. While they still have the “accidents” of bread and wine (taste, texture, etc) the substance has been truly changed.

There are accounts of Eucharistic miracles that bear this out where the host has even had all or part of its accidents changed to flesh and blood in ways that cannot be rationally explained (such as a host in Poland which partially changed to the heart muscle tissue of a man who had undergone great physical suffering, but melded with the host in a manner that science cannot explain)


#3

They no longer are bread and wine, but are only under the appearance of bread and wine.
They become the Body & Blood of Christ, as He said they would.
It’s a mystery.


#4

It’s all been changed! Now its disguised as what it once was. When you think about it we merely perceive light and everything is composed of particles. So it wouldn’t be hard for God to change something yet deceive all testing.


#5

With Transubstantiation, the bread & wine become the Body, Blood Soul & Divinity of Our Lord. However, the accidents remain the appearance of bread & wine.


#6

Does it still look, taste, store the same as bread and wine?

For a modern englishman that is the very Oxford definition of what it means to exist as such.

Not so for the Church dictionary which was written in an older age before the rise of science.

Yes, we live in a schizophrenic philosophic world that much older generations of Catholic never faced.

Historically it was only relatively recently the people started saying that transubstantiation also means there is no bread. Usually it simply affirmed that Jesus was truly present and admitted ignorance of the status of the bread (or it didnt matter to anybody).


#7

Hence the term “under the appearance of bread of wine”.


#8

Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: it is in essence still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.

To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection or effect to the essence or substance of the thing being described.

Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of bread and wine into body and blood.

Through Transubstantiation, the accidents of the appearance of bread and wine do not change, but the entire substance changes from bread and wine to the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

Transubstantiation is the English version of the Latin word transsubstantiatio. It contains the following word elements:

** trans** - "to cross over, across, beyond, through, on the other side of, to go beyond"
substantia - translates Greek ousia meaning “that which is one’s own, one’s substance or property; the being, essence, or nature of anything.”

The Greek word for transubstantiation is metousiosis which means “a change of essence, inner reality.”

The word essence comes from the Latin word essentia, meaning “being, essence,” (to translate Greek ousia “being, essence”) from essent and esse which mean “to be.”


#9

I think not. In modern english a thing is now considered defined by its propreties not by some hidden substance as in pre scientific thought systems.

That philosophy may be suspect, but that is the philosophy behind the english language. Latin and possibly contemporary Contintental European languages is different.


#10

The ordinary bread (or wafer) and wine after consecration (blessing) truly become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Given the choice, would you rather the taste remain that of bread and wine or what they truly become, flesh and blood? Many would be put off if they went up to receive and instead of the expected familiar tastes, received the latter. So Jesus allows us to have the tastes we are familiar with which also remind us that He, Jesus, is our Daily Bread of life.


#11

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm


#12

The question is answered specifically in question number 4 on the link that @pianistclare posted:

Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?

Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, " This bread is my body," but " This is my body" ( Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).


#14

Indeed.
The issue is not over theology but over correct use of language and the definitions.of words used in different languages.

In 21st century English the bread is still present.
In Latin it is not.

Take your choice, but whatever choice you make lets respect the actual meaning of the language used to express the same reality that does not change though language may.


#15

And then we have to go back to philosophy!

In the original Greek it is much more Aristotelian and Platonic than it is in English, just as much.
St Thomas Aquinas reveals more truth in the Latin than in the English translations.

But tis accident and substance. That’s the best way we can describe it. The substance is no longer bread at all, but purely the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Yet, the accidents under which He appears are bread.


#16

Agreed, but English word definitions are not based on this philosophy.

In English, to say something “is present” or “real” means its accidents are present.
That is the problem.


#17

Exactly.

We’d have to borrow words for more accuracy but how can be communicate more accurately the original languages to our vernacular tongue. I can do it for Russian, Gaelic, but not for French nor English.


#18

That’s simply not true, historically.

It wasn’t “relatively recently” but more like the past 1,000 years that we’ve been saying that the bread is no longer there. Indeed, we’ve actually been saying it since the first or second century AD (read St Justin the Martyr, for a very early example).

Christians have never claimed to be ignorant of the status of the Body of Christ–on the contrary, we’ve always maintained that the bread is not there, but only the Body of Christ is present.

Unfortunately, you have your history backwards. Belief that the bread becomes the Body of Christ (with no doubt that the bread is no longer there) came much earlier than the use of the word transubstantiation.


#19

Does it matter? Why ask such a question?


#20

No.

Since we do not use the word “bread” after the consecration, your entire argument here falls flat on its face.

We very specifically avoid using the word bread because we know that the bread has ceased to exist.

We very specifically avoid using the word wine because we know that the wine has ceased to exist.


#21

Unfortunately, theology got linked to Aristotelean philosophy. Thus we talk about ‘accidents’ and ‘substance’ just like Aristotle. But it doesn’t make much sense in 2017.

Yes, at the moment of consecration the bread and wine is transformed into the real, actual body and blood of Jesus. It’s not just a symbol. However (despite the pious wishes of some Catholics) if you took a consecrated host and analyzed it, the molecular structure would still be bread. Is it bread? Catholic doctrine is that it is not. Can we explain it? In the Middle Ages they thought they could: the accident of the bread was still bread, but the substance had changed. Thus transubstantiation. I’m not sure how many Catholic scholars buy that Medieval explanation today. Nevertheless it’s changed. How? It’s a mystery, just like a lot of beliefs. You either believe or you don’t. If you are looking for some sort of scientific explanation, you’re out of luck. There isn’t one, nor should there be–religion is not science. If you look at recent Pew polls, you’ll find a large number (over 50% I think) of Catholics don’t believe the bread and wine is actually transformed. Many of these don’t even know what the Church teaching is. Those that do and don’t believe seem to be confusing science and religion. Sad, as someone once said.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.