Can someone please explain how the "bread" and "wine" become the literal body and blood of Christ and how it's not meant as a metaphor?

How far do these teachings date back?

Didn't Martin Luther of the refromation believe this as well as many Lutherens and Angelicans today believe?

-- Brian (Noemail@no.com), December 28, 2004

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment.

-- (bump@bump.bump), December 28, 2004.

ROME: He is physically present.

"The bread and wine are changed truly, really and substantially into the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, and the bones and sinews of Christ," (Catechism of Council of Trent) Peace be with you...........

-- Andrew M Tillcock (drewmeister7@earthlink.net), December 28, 2004.

These teachings date back to the moment Christ said "This IS My Body; this IS My blood", a moment He had already prepared the Apostles for through His previous teaching. He had told them, and others to whom He was preaching, "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Scripture tells us that "Many of those who heard Him began to argue among themselves, saying "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?". Obviously they took Him to be speaking literally, or there would have been no reason for their unrest. This was Jesus' chance to correct the misunderstanding, if there was one. He could have told them at this moment, "No, you misunderstand Me; I am not speaking of literally eating my flesh and drinking My blood; this is only a metaphor". Instead He told them, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true [not metaphorical] food, and My blood is true [not metaphorical] drink". At that point all who were present recognized that He was indeed speaking literally. All that remained was to accept what He was saying, or to reject it. "Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble"?" ... "As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." This is the only incident recorded in Scripture where people abandoned Him for purely doctrinal reasons, because they simply could not accept what He was saying. Surely they would not have reacted so strongly if they believed He was speaking metaphorically.

Lutherans do not believe that "the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ". Lutherans do claim to believe in "the real presence", but they understand it differently than Catholics do. Lutherans believe that at the moment of consecration Christ becomes intimately associated with the bread and wine in such a way that when you receive the bread and wine you do in fact receive Christ. However, the read remains bread and the wine remains wine. This belief is called "consubstantiation". The Catholic belief is "transubstantiation" - that the actual substance of the bread and wine literally becomes the body and blood of Christ, so that His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink, just as He said. "This IS My body". Not "This is intimately associated with My body".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2004.

In all theological discussions the first thing to put down is Jesus' words: he promised us again and again that He would "be with us" - and yet that "he was returning to the Father". He told us that the bread and wine was his body and blood - twice - and he commanded his apostles to "do this" in memory of him: do what? Bless and break and share the bread and wine that is his body and blood.

This is the data we mine for intelligibility.

How can we make sense of his words unlike those in John 6 who simply refuse to believe them?

It goes without saying that Jews and Muslims and before them the Greeks had a fairly good grasp of metaphysics and what is and is not possible within this universe.

They thought Jesus' words were simply crazy.

If you are a Christian and thus, believe his words are true, you have to provide some intelligible reasoning based on philosophy as to why these words about reality, presence, staying yet leaving, being yet being hidden, aren't simply paradoxes or maddness.

To understand the answer you need to know something about reality and define terms long unused in the West. (It may also help knowing that Luther, like most men in the 15th century had a mere 2 years of theological training and ZERO training in philosophy - yet most Protestants don't know this and don't realize how important the lack of formation is on theological thinking).

We must then deal with the classical definitions and understandings of Form and matter, accidents and substance, and Person.

Everything we see in the material world is composed of accidents with their substances. Every material thing has a form that identifies it as "this" rather than "that". Some things are living, others inorganic. Among the living, some have identities which allow for inter-relationships, hence are Persons, while others (animals) don't exibit signs of having such inter-relation-ability. A hierarchy of perfections thus exists in the created universe with the common thread of form/matter, substance/accidents, and either a "What" or a "Who" running through it all.

Now we can measure material things' accidents but a thing's substance (and form) is conceptual, not perceptual. It's the substratta of consistency within the constant flux of change that keeps a thing itself even while height, shape, color, etc change.

For example: what makes you YOU? You are SUBSTANTIALLY the same being that was conceived in the silent waters of your mother's womb but you have undergone major accidental change - organic growth to be percise.

But your identity is the same as is your name. Now, how is this enduring identity possible unless there is something sustaining the change without itself being changed? Facinatingly we now know that DNA is code, the molecules are hardware with essential software built in... how else would a formulating, sub-stare "organizing principle" like life build itself up in the material world except through information grafted onto and thus animating matter?

What link exists between spirit and matter? Not a mechanical link...but at the molecular and atomic level of being, the difference between matter and energy is less abrupt. Suppose spirit could control the chance movement of electrons - if it could, then it could effect ALL matter by controlling chance and energy which affects motion and matter.

Now the Greeks grappled with this apparent paradox of perceptual knowledge of things in constant flux and conceptual knowledge of an enduring identity in things and Aristotle posited that there had to be some "thing" that could account for the consistancy of things within their ever changing exterior. He calls this thing "substance" (sub stare, to stand under) and the things it sustains he called accidents.

Don't try imagining it. It's not a shape or measurable thing at all since it is NOT composed of parts, as accidents are. You can only conceptualize it, not perceptualize it. Imagination is for images - shapes, sizes, colors...not for ideas. Innumberable so-called philosophers (Hume anyone?) lost the forest for the trees precisely here, in their inability to distinguish between conceptual and perceptual knowledge. It's a key mistake.

The 5 senses and imagination deal with accidentals - parts. But the conceptual mind deals with meanings, in-form-ation, grasping the substance, form, "is" of things that we experience perceptually.

OK fine. Now when you, the human being reading this email post, will end your corporeal life in death: the accidents of your body continue to change - but everyone would say that YOU are no more. You are not the corpse. You have departed your body. But MATERIALLY nothing has changed in the bio-chemical make up of YOU. Yet the form, the substance, the soul which is the unifying principle of order sustaining and animating the matter is no more and hence while the matter is unchanged itself, the "thing" keeping it ordered is no more and thus all breaks down.

How is this universal human phenomena of distinguishing between a living body and a corpse possible if substance and accidents were the same thing or if there was no substance, only accidents?

This phenomena directs us to the insight (concept) that the substance of man is bound up with his life, his spiritual soul, his person, not with his weight, shape, height, color, texture, etc.

It is the presence of soul that animates matter. It is the organizing principle of order that allows the disparate parts to harmonize even while each of them are changing or moving constantly. Take away that principle and the parts immediately dis-integrate.

A creature thus can remain the same being while suffering accidental change (happens all the time) but not when suffering substantial change. Cut off my arm and I'm still a man. But the moment the life goes out of me, "Me" ceases to exist in that corporeal extension of the human body.

When talking of man above we saw substance as bound up in the personal, spiritual element of man. This is because "spirit" includes the concept of "soul" and soul includes the concept of "life". But not everything living thing has a spiritual soul...and not every thing therefore is alive. Yet all have form/matter and substance/accidents.

So there are non-spiritual substances that are immaterial nonetheless. (Is energy matter? No. ergo, energy is immaterial). Is information material? Its vehicle or medium (such as printed words) may be material but the meaning of information itself is not material. But neither is it spiritual because spirit requires personhood - inter-relation-ability.

OK ask yourself now when does wine cease being wine? If improperly stored it will become vinegar. Bread will crumble into dust, or be corrupted, consumed by mold. So again, while material things are constantly changing or exposed to flux, at least for awhile someTHING maintains, or preserves their identity.

Change enough accidents and a thing will undergo substantial change.

Burn a log, and the wood will cease to exist - It's accidents will de- compose along with heat and light and smoke until it is no longer a "burning log" and becomes "ash".

But for a good while that wood log remains a wooden log...

OK so far we've reviewed some pretty technical metaphysics in a page and a half. No doubt other philosophers could add chapters and books to this. I'm just giving you a Cliffs Notes or nutshell version.

If this doesn't make sense to you, blame me and go check out Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas for more details.

With respect to Christ...

What is he?

He's truly a man: body and soul, a mind with intellect and will. He's truly God: ipsum esse subsistens - whose essence is to exist.

How does the Incarnation work exactly? Through the Hyperstasis (spelling).It is by means of his Person, that God became man.

All other men (you, me, our parents, Mary, Joseph, Noah...Adam and Eve) could answer that their "what" was composed of body and soul. And we could answer that our "Who", our person, is "human".

Since Adam, every human soul was a human person too, just as every accident existed thanks to its very own substance.

But in Christ, while he had a true human soul, his person was divine. His "what" is human, his "who" is divine.

Analogously, unlike every other material creature in the universe, the Eucharistic bread and wine are accidents without their substance. Their "what" is the "who"...yeah, I know...easy to say, but not easy to grasp. Hey had I invented it, it would have been easy to both say and understand. I'm just a reporter, not its author.

The substance of flesh and blood, soul and body, divinity of Jesus Christ...that which makes "is, is" sustains the accidental signs of bread and wine.

A miracle? absolutely. So was the Incarnation.

There is nothing in nature that can account for either Incarnation or Eurcharist.

Just as there is no natural explanation for the multiplication of the loaves and fish - (creation ex-nihilo, above all laws of conservation of matter/energy). There is no natural explanation of Jesus walking on water or instantly calming wind and wave at a word.

What natural explanation is there for instantly healing someone of a serious illness or driving out a demon? Again, all things Christians believe Jesus did - completely out of question from the strictly natural ebb and flow of things that we know of in the rest of the universe.

But it wasn't impossible for God. His "Who", the person he is, is divine. His human will, like ours, basically only rules its body and through the body could only do so much. But his Divine will, which has "access" if you will to the master control switch of all things (inasmuch as He created them) could create or annihilate things on the substantial level.

Again, you can't imagine this - it's not open to perceptual analysis. You have to understand it, conceive it.

You can't perceive the forgiveness of sin! Yet all Lutherans believe it! Conceive yes, perceive no. Luther confused his feeling of euphoria for divine inspiration.

Cut Jesus and he bleeds. God doesn't bleed. Cruxify Jesus and he dies. God per se, can't die because spirit has no parts (which is why our human spiritual souls are immortal - they aren't made of parts so can't dis-integrate like our bodies can). So much we know about men and God.

But the Person, the Who whose body was cut, and bled, and died on Calvary was Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity.

And all Christians (*Lutherans included) believe in the Incarnation of the Son of God. But this Incarnation is IMPOSSIBLE to conceive if you don't allow for the ideas of form/matter, substance/accidents, and Person (which in sentient beings is bound up substantially as the "Who" of their "What")

Without the concept of Person, you can't make sense of the Christian dogmas that Jesus was true man (body and soul) and yet true God.

Without the concepts of form/matter, substance/accidents, you can't make sense of much that we experience in life - change amid endurance, identity even though things change, age, fall apart, etc.

(Phenomenologically you can even test this: the mind grasps meanings of things. Eyes and imagination grasp just color and shape. Yet we routinely read English in various fonts (courier or Times Roman etc) without losing the meaning. Obviously the mind understands the substantial identity regardless of accidental differences of shape in the written word - just as we recognize people although they get hair- cuts, Botox, change clothes, etc. )

Since we routinely distinguish between accidental differences of font, while grasping the MEANING (substance) of these words conceptually, it only makes sense that the human mind has perceptual and conceptual powers and hence reality is composed of changing accidents with some sustaining substances keeping them together.

So to wrap this up...

The Incarnation and Eucharist are not impossible, just unique. They do have an explanation, but since they are unique and not an every day event, it shouldn't be amazing that Jews, Muslims and others don't understand them. How could they without experience?

You may as well ask a Jew to prove that Moses parted the Red Sea or that God appeared on Mt.Sinai. Both were miracles - outside the normal experience of men, yet both happened. How? Well, obviously by a temporary suspension of natural laws, that's how.

Ditto for the Incarnation and Eucharist. God can do all things - but he normally makes use of his creatures including the fabric of reality that He himself created.

One final thought on this.

What is a pun? A phrase that has more than one meaning - perceptually, the same symbols, but conceptually various payloads.

Not everyone who reads or understands a given language will grasp the pun - the second meaning. But for those who do, they are funny and surprising.

Perhaps most of humanity reads reality the same way - in only one sense, the perceptual/material one without grasping that the Divine author has filled his world with puns.

Peace to all.

Joseph

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 28, 2004.

Just wanted to add something...

With respect to the soul... when a human beings body dies, the soul isn't annihilated. It doesn't cease to exist (as I unfortunately implied above).

With plants and animals, the form or substance ceases to exist when enough of the accidents change. But humans are different because our substance or form is spiritual (as proven by the fact that our minds know conceptually - hence aren't bound by parts... a part-less thing can't fall apart, hence must be immortal).

Sorry for the oversight.

Peace.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 28, 2004.

I must disagree, Lutherans believe that the Body of Christ is "in, with and under" the bread and wine, that the Sacrament "is" the Body of Christ, given to us under bread and wine: rather like God spoke to Moses in the burning bush--and ordered Moses to remove his sandals, for it was holy ground--even though it was still a bush. Referring to 1 Corinthians 10:16, Lutherans believe it is both Body and bread, both Blood and wine. The difference between Catholics and Lutherans is that the Lutherans believe they also receive bread, Catholics deny this.

Perhaps one way to understand Transubstantiation is that the Risen Lord Jesus takes the bread and wine into His risen Body and associates Himself with them, so that they actually *are* His Body. When you eat the bread you are in fact receiving Christ into yourself. When you genuflect or kneel before the tabernacle or sacred Host, you are in fact kneeling before Christ Himself.

Consider on the Emmaus road after Easter morning: the two disciples on the road were talking with the Risen Christ, even though He *appeared* to their senses to be a stranger. He looked, sounded, perhaps smelled like a stranger--but it was *really* Christ. So by a Divine Miracle, even though the food *appears* to be mere bread and wine, now by the Power of Christ, it truly *is* the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, i.e., it *IS* Jesus.

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 28, 2004.

Personally, I always thought Martin Luther changed over from the Church's Transubstantiation to consubstantiation just to justify himself. After all, if there were no real differences between his church and the True Church, why would anyone go there?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 28, 2004.

Brian,

If you are genuinely interested in learning about this most important topic, I'd suggest the following 2 books:

Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina Swear To God: the Promise and Power of the Sacraments by Scott Hahn

These 2 books combined are an outstanding introduction to the Eucharistic beliefs of the Catholic Church and how they were from the very beginning - it includes support from early Christian writings. These books helped to really open my eyes.

Something to think about . . . when Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church and rebuked them for taking the Eucharist the way they did (with sinful corruption of the practices Paul taught them), he told them that their contempt for NOT recognizing that the host (bread) actually WAS the BODY of Jesus was the reason so many in the church were ill, weak and had already died prematurely. Only by understanding the nature of the covenant one enters when receiving the actual Body and Blood of Christ and understanding the blessings and curses involved with honoring or dishonoring a covenant can such scriptures be appreciated and the reality of the Eucharist actually turning into the Body and Blood of Christ be comprehended.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), December 28, 2004.

Sorry about that last post, I'm afraid the names and authors of the books were not clear. Here they are again in case you're interested:

Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina

Swear To God: the Promise and Power of the Sacraments by Scott Hahn

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), December 28, 2004.

I'm sorry Michael, but when you say "appears" you are talking about accidents, and when you say "really" you mean substance.

But lets not confuse apples with oranges. The risen Christ seemed to have the ability to either accidentally cloak his identity until he wanted to be recognized...or some ability to affect the interior powers of the human mind such that they didn't recognize his face.

An alternative explanation could be that they were so used to seeing him one way - or so shocked by their last view of him bloody and beaten that they just didn't "see" who this fresh, young, handsome and whole guy was.

He may have simply had a different cut of hair and beard.

But with respect to his risen body and the Eucharist we see two things: one is that his appearances defied the laws of physics and yet still allowed for them - such that he could be touched, eat, etc. so he wasn't an apparition or ghost. But neither did he seem bothered by space or walls, locked doors, etc.

So it seems that what we see - what are accidents to our senses, and in all common experience are pretty solid realities (walls, doors) are really, substantially like mist to him.

Not to get hokey, but the Matrix seemed real enough to kill a man...until Neo either discovered it wasn't real or himself became a new person after death... he rose, and as a new (neo) man, not only saw the code of creation, was MORE real than it was - so he could defeat anything.

The trick is that while 99.9999999% of the time what we see IS what really is, substantially before us (really), there are exceptions -

Kinda reminds one of CS Lewis' Narnia book the Lion, Witch and Wardrobe in which the white witch knows of the deep magic from the beginning of the world... a traitor must die. But Aslan knows of the deeper magic from BEFORE the start of the world, in which should one take the place of a traitor, he would raise from the dead.

We (and thankfully all the angels too) are created in time. Thus we only know what is within the universe, not what is beyond it. We understand - or technically could come to understand all there is to know about this creation...but we'd never come to know the secrets of how it was made and therefore how to create.

In Greek and Roman religion the two greatest gods were Zeus - god of the heavens, and Posidon, god of the sea. This made the story of Jesus calming the wind and wave with a simple command all the more powerful to the early converts - here was obviously a man who was more than a man... a mere word "be quiet, be still" was enough to shut down the biggest, meanest pagan gods.

So obviously what people "saw" in this Jesus of Nazareth wasn't all that was there. Just so, what we see in the bread and wine isn't all that there is.

People saw a "what" in Jesus: a man. But in faith we all see the "who" the second person of the Trinity, the Word made flesh.

In the Eucharist people see a "what" in the bread and wine: apparently real food and drink, but in faith we all see the "who": Jesus Christ.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 29, 2004.

Joe, I'm nit picking, but The Greeks believed in Zeus & Posideon. The Romans believed in Jupiter & Neptune. With Zeus (Gk) & Jupiter (Rm) being the supreme heads of thier (classical age)pantheons. Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

Abundant Kwanzaa & Prosperous, Healthy & Peace Filled New Year!!!

-- Mythology Perfectionist (MythologyNitPick@yahoo.com), January 02, 2005.

Mythology Perfectionist, are you trying to say Jesus Christ is just another Mythology? If so, He's pretty convicing since millions of people still believe in Him. Are there millions of people who still believe in Zeus, Thor, etc? If so I am not aware of that.

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 08, 2005.

worse... even athrists int he field of Hisotyr beelive in Jesus, at elats,. if we define it as menaing " VBeleived he existed". I dare you to find many historians who beleive Zeus actually existed.

There is a diffeence between not beleiivng what Jesus taught, and lumpign hi in with Mythological figures.

Hekc, Im no Buddhist, but I beleive satuama Buddha lived as a man...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 08, 2005.

The Bible states that the glorified Body of Jesus Christ can not decay, so how is it that the eucharist can? Also Jesus told us not to worship idols or Him, but only to worship God the father in heaven. How can Catholics justify worshipping the eucharist like they do?

-- Matthew (mattprom1982@hotmail.com), January 12, 2005.

"The Bible states that the glorified Body of Jesus Christ can not decay, so how is it that the eucharist can?"

A: For two reasons. First, because the Eucharist retains the physical characteristics of bread, just as it did at the Last Supper. What the Apostles received from Him on that occasion looked, smelled, felt, and tasted like bread, but they knew it was not bread because He had just said so; and because they had heard His earlier teaching that His flesh was real food and His blood real drink. Those who could not accept this teaching once they realized He was speaking literally, had already "departed from Him and followed him no more". Secondly, the Sacrifice of the Mass is the perpetuation of the one Sacrifice of the Cross. The Eucharist we receive is the Body and Blood of the Savior as it was present on the Cross, and as it was given to the Apostles at the Last Supper - before the Ascension when He entered into His final glory and took on His glorified Body.

> "Also Jesus told us not to worship idols or Him, but only to worship God the father in heaven. How can Catholics justify worshipping the eucharist like they do?"

A: Jesus commanded us not to worship idols, as did the Ten Commandments, and His Church continues to preach that truth until the present day, and until the end of time. Do you deny that Jesus Christ is divine? I assumed you were a Christian of some sort. Are we not to worship God? If Jesus is God, then we are to worship Him, as well as the Holy Spirit. We worship the Eucharist because it is HIM, and therefore is God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 12, 2005.

Once I had the question of whether "substantial presence" = "physical presence." Pope Paul VI answers the question, sort of:

"For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical 'reality,' corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place."

So, kind of an important distinction.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 12, 2005.

Sorry, above quote comes from Mysterium Fidei.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 12, 2005.