Question about transubstantiation?

Question

Ok, according to some christian churches(including the catholic church) the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of christ. Cannibalism is illegal. Should those who believe this be arrested after accepting communion? Or do we need to pump someone's stomach afterwards and test the contents to see if transubstantiation actually occurs first?

Answer 1

Does this sort of think keep you up at night?

It's bullshot, pure and simple.

Answer 2

Ok, let me do my best to try and explain this.

First of all, its a mystery, so don't go looking for a 100% explanation.

Second, the bread and the wine DO change into Christ. Lets look at that word "transubstantiation". You can see the root 'transform' and 'substance' in it, so it means that the substance/essence of the bread and the wine are transformed into Christ. The newly consecrated Host/Blood will still taste, feel, smell, look, and weigh the same as they did before, but it is no longer bread because its substance has changed. Confusing, I know but like I said, its a mystery.

Also the English language is kinda crappy, I'm sorry, but it just is. It doesn't have as many words, or levels of words, as other languages do. For instance, at the last supper Jesus used the word "anamnesis" which translated into "memory/remembrance" when it actually means something along the lines of "doing my making present". So you could say that Jesus might have said "This is my body. Do this by making it present" And remember when he was talking to the Jews and they were leaving? He was using a word that meant to devour, or to chew. It was very literal.

The link below is to a sort of 'Bible Cheat Sheet' that gives some biblical links to Catholic beliefs. Its not one of my favorites, but its pretty good. Then there are three links for further reading.

God bless.

Answer 3

Jesus took the bread and said, “This is my body”(Matthew 26:26). So, what is the proper understanding of this phrase?

As I see it, there are 4 possibilities. These are:

1. He was speaking literally – saying the bread was His literal body. The problem with this is that His literal body was still there with the apostles. If Jesus was saying this is my literal body, he was either mistaken or lying. The apostles could see his literal body, and it was not the bread.
2. He had more than one body. The problem is this “body” and “blood” is described as the one that was offered for the sins of the lost (Matthew 26:26-28). If this other body was offered, then what happened to the body he was born with? Ephesians 4:4 says, “There is one body”. No one has ever had two literal bodies.
3. We cannot understand what Christ was saying. If this is the case, then why did he say it, and why was it recorded for us? I believe we can understand this, and understand it alike!
4. He was speaking figuratively. The bread represented his body. The juice represented his blood. This is the only option that makes sense.

One other observation, Matthew and Mark record that after Jesus said of the cup, “This is my blood”, He again called it “fruit of the vine”. (Matthew 26:28-29, Mark 14:25-26) This shows that it was still juice. It had not literally become his body, but it was figuratively a symbol of his body. (Paul also calls it “bread” and “the cup” both before and after the verse where Christ said it was his body and blood – 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.)

A little common sense will tell you that this is figurative speach. The bread is no more the literal, fleshly body of Christ, than Christ was a literal door to a sheepfold when he said, “I am the door to the sheepfold”! (John 10:7) (There is no need to pump anyone’s stomach.)

Answer 4

This is a topic I really need to delve deeper into, and learn more about. As a scientist, when I hear that transubstantiation means that the bread and wine ACTUALLY BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, I, like you and others, want to somehow test post-blessed gifts to determine the physical change. I mean, if it TRULY changes, then we should be able to PROVE that, right??

Or maybe not...this is one of those things I just have to accept by Faith alone, as a Mystery which I may never understand. And yes, especially as a scientist (and a literalist at times), I could easily let this bother me into disbelief. So I don't dwell on it, and try to just let it be in God's hands.

I take Holy Communion at least twice a week. And the Host always tastes like a wafer; and the Blood of Christ always tastes like wine. So just knowing this tells me that the matter is not simply a literal meaning of words, but something Deeper...not "symbolic" in the way the Protestants view communion, but yet not literal in the sense of being detectable by scientific determinations.

But really, at the Last Supper as quoted in the Bible, Jesus blessed the bread, broke it and said "Take this all of you and eat it: This IS My Body which will be given up for you..."

Again, he said "This IS My Body" (and also "This IS the Cup of My Blood"), not "This represents My Body". And yet, we know that he didn't chop off a finger and distribute it with the bread; nor did he put even a drop of blood into that cup. So I think the key is that scriptural passage: Jesus spoke the words, and it meant "Something", as Mysterious as that may be, and when the Priest consecrates the bread and wine, that same "Something" holds true.

So, I guess transubstantiation is more Mystical than literal, more Spiritual than scientific...but very Real, nonetheless.

But I still want to learn more about it; this needs addition to my "To Do" list!! Thanks :)

Peace.

Answer 5

I always thought this a bit weird when I was an altarboy.

The priest would grab a plastic bag of wafers out of the cupboard before the mass, rip it open and pour it into the chalice ready for mass. He always stank of scotch and puffed away like a chimney before the mass.

The wafer tasted like cardboard and no matter how much he waved his hand over it, it still remained the same.

I remember having the job of ringing the bell as a sign that god had changed the bread.

It was one of the first things that made me think there was something wrong.

Answer 6

Regarding the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” the following is noteworthy: Mo reads, “it means my body,” “this means my blood.” (Italics added.) NW reads similarly. LEF renders the expressions, “this represents my body,” “this represents my blood.” (Italics added.) These renderings agree with what is stated in the context, in verse 29, in various Catholic editions. Kx reads: “I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine again, until I drink it with you, new wine, in the kingdom of my Father.” (Italics added.) CC, NAB, Dy also show Jesus referring to what was in the cup as being “this fruit of the vine,” and that was after Jesus had said, “This is my blood.”

Consider the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the light of other vivid language used in the Scriptures. Jesus also said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate of the sheepfold,” “I am the true vine.” (John 8:12; 10:7; 15:1, JB) None of these expressions implied a miraculous transformation, did they?

Answer 7

The Catholic church teaches that. Evangelical churches do not. Jesus said it clearly in Luke 22:19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." To REMEMBER Him.

Also in Hebrews 9:24-26 "24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Key point verse 25 "Nor yet that He should offer Himself often". Verse 26 explains why.

Answer 8

I have read that the primary difference between Catholics and Fundies is that Fundies believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, except the transubstantiation part, and Catholics believe that the transubstantiation part is the only part of the bible that actually IS to be taken literally.

It's all rather silly, really.

Answer 9

The Bread & the wine is not Jesus literal body, It is a type & shadow, Jesus is the bread of life, & the wine is that of the Holy Ghost.

Answer 10

Pumping their stomach might bring revelations.
The whole idea is ridiculous!
In John 6, Jesus purposefully says something shocking.
He says his followers must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
The reaction?
"Therefore many of his disciples said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?”
Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him.
Apparently the Catholic church does not find it shocking.

Answer 11

The Bood and Body are spiritual so it isn't cannibalism and pumping someone's stomach would be pointless.