Transubstantiation

I noticed some confusion over this representation of the Christian holy sacrament recently, so I thought I'd clarify/further confuse things over the Catholic view of Transubstantiation, i.e:

In Holy Communion services, the bread and wine consumed at these rites actually becomes the physical substance of Jesus Christ. The symobilsm of the bread being the body and wine the blood of Jesus gets taken literally, so that the substances of the bread and wine changes to the substances of Christ in the mouth.

The earliest known reference to Transubstantiation occurred in 1079. The idea didn't become widespread until the 1200's. It was defined in the Fourth Council of the Lateran, but became Catholic doctrine and practice during the 13th session of the Council of Trent in 1551. The Council said that anyone who:

"denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue" and anyone who "saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema"

Substance Theory is used to justify this claim: Where the properties of an object are distinct from it's "essence". For example, a mug is of a certain material, has a shape, size, weight, colour, design, volume and various other properties. But is also separate from them and can not be entirely defined by them.

Of course this view is not really compatible with Aristotle's view of "substance", as heavily defended by St Thomas Aquinas and used as a adopted scholastic tradition of the Church since then. In fact, his Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" does seem to contradict or at least confuse the definition of "substance" in his commentary of transubstantiation.

Please don't confuse all this with Consubstantiation, or Sacramental Unions which are almost worthy of their own threads. These alternatives offer the possibilities of combined blood with wine and bread with flesh and are believed by some Lutherans and Christian sects.

Please also don't confuse the lack of wine from some transubstantiations as being odd, since the bible suggests that Paul said "bread OR wine" in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

Has anyone here taken communion? What was it like for you? I've had the chance myself, but always passed it up - I don't like the taste of blood! 

Though I reject Transubstantiation, I have not yet decided whether I hold to the Real Presence view (as John Calvin believed, a Reformed view) or that it is merely symbolic (like Huldrych Zwingli and many Baptists).  In the Real Presence view Christ makes himself known during communion but the wine and bread do not literally change into Christ's blood and body.  The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, points 6-7 puts it this way:

"That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

There are many doctrines that the Reformed tradition and the Baptist tradition vary on and this is one of them.  Being that I am a mix of both, I sometimes sway between the two on various theological details such as this.  I suppose I currentlly sway toward the Reformed tradition on this view.

Yeah this has always stuck out like a sore thumb to me. What on earth were the Catholics thinking to make such a plainly false claim. I'm just going to kind of scatter some thoughts across the rest of my post.

-Cannibalism. Now normally when an atheist accuses a Christian of cannibalism they're being a little bit unfair or exaggerating the dogma of Christianity to make it seem silly. With transubstantiation though the charge seems to be perfectly valid. If Jesus was a human and the crackers and wine are his body and blood then eating those crackers and drinking that wine inescapably equates to cannibalism. In general I find the whole human sacrifice thing to be abhorrent enough but human sacrifice followed by cannibalism is just way out there.

-Deuteronomy 8:3. This verse has that whole "man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD" bit. I dunno exactly how to articulate this but doesn't this suggest that bread has something to do with the associated concept of following God's word? It seems that bread was steeped in symbolism long before Jesus was ever walking the earth, so what's up with the literal approach.

-Literalism. The Catholics are famous for their ability to understand the Bible in terms of symbolism and non-literal meaning. What the heck happened here?

-The conservation of matter. Jesus was a dude with a body more or less like yours or mine right? I know that there's only so much you can eat of a guys flesh before it's all gone, so where is it all coming from. Does Jesus' body get recycled or is there some sort of supernatural system to replenish it.

-Faeces. How far down the digestive tract does Jesus' flesh and blood go before it's turned into urine and excrement? Does a Catholic really believe that he leaves Jesus in the toilet bowl the day following a communion service. I can't imagine it, yet it seems to be necessary if communion is really a literal process of transubstantiation.

-Logic (I've been having a hard time with Christians and this topic as of late). The law of identity stipulates that a thing is identical to another if it shares each and every property in common. Jesus and a cracker have a long list of different properties yet they are maintained to be one in the same thing. Well I suppose anything's believable if you don't hold your God or your religion as subject to logic.

I recall having a conversation about this with a catholic friend. I raised the objection that bread and wine clearly are not blood and flesh in any physical sense and he replied "Oh, well that just takes faith." I remember thinking that it certainly did not take faith and that casual observation was more than sufficient to confirm that said sacrament were indeed crackers and wine. I thought it, but I held my tongue.

I wonder if there is some sort of 'Emperor's new clothes' scenario that plays out in the minds of catholics every mass.  I wonder how seriously most catholics take communion. 

I recall having a conversation about this with a catholic friend. I raised the objection that bread and wine clearly are not blood and flesh in any physical sense and he replied "Oh, well that just takes faith." I remember thinking that it certainly did not take faith and that casual observation was more than sufficient to confirm that said sacrament were indeed crackers and wine. I thought it, but I held my tongue.

 

I wonder if there is some sort of 'Emperor's new clothes' scenario that plays out in the minds of catholics every mass.  I wonder how seriously most catholics take communion. 

Frattracide

If I were playing "devil's advocate", I'd say that that "Substance theory" deals with that because the "essence" or "substance" of their Lord is the bread, rather than the properties of the Lord. The properties of the bread remain, while the substance of it changes to Jesus. But I can't see how Aquinas squares this off without introducing new terms and bending those used in earlier catholic writings, i.e.;  "substance", "accident", "essence", "species", etc.

This law became popular before the pseudo-logic as popularised by Aquinas - even his principle comment on Transubstantiation was about needing "faith". I think the reason this ritual is held in high regard in the Catholic church is because of its benefit of creating a separation of spiritual capability between clergy and religious folk. It also creates a requirement for the religious to be "administered to" regularly (regardless of their spiritual "needs") by their spiritually elevated priests.

@Dom:

I'd never considered the cannibal angle myself, or the faeces - but I like it! But I did come across someone who has a web page working out how much Jesus would have to weigh (substance theory aside) to supply all this essence to the world's Catholics.

I wonder how seriously most catholics take communion. 

Frattracide

According to a recent survey, almost half of Catholics weren't even aware that the Church holds that the bread and wine literally become Jesus' flesh and blood, so... 

If I were playing "devil's advocate", I'd say that that "Substance theory" deals with that because the "essence" or "substance" of their Lord is the bread, rather than the properties of the Lord. The properties of the bread remain, while the substance of it changes to Jesus. But I can't see how Aquinas squares this off without introducing new terms and bending those used in earlier catholic writings, i.e.;  "substance", "accident", "essence", "species", etc.

RationalAtheist

The problem I have with "substance theory" is that, as I said, it literally sounds like something someone just pulled out of thin air solely to make bread and wine be able to be Jesus' flesh and blood while still being physically bread and wine.  Does it have any other applications other than that?

The problem I have with "substance theory" is that, as I said, it literally sounds like something someone just pulled out of thin air solely to make bread and wine be able to be Jesus' flesh and blood while still being physically bread and wine.  Does it have any other applications other than that?

GabuEx

I have that issue with it too. I think the origins of the theory are in Aristotle's response to Plato's earlier theory of Ideas (or FORMS). Plato had suggested that ideas are more important than the material world that we can perceive. I think Aristotle countered this with his links between the material and ideas with the notion that substances have properties and modes.

My pet theory is that Aquinas came along at a transition point - when Aristolean, writings and commentaries were coming into Europe from abroad. His strange attempt at rationalising his faith to an errant view of the world seems to have become the Catholic justification for continuing this ritual. Of course, it also helped with Catholic ideas of soteriology and enabled their priests to offer salvation more directly than their flock could get it for themselves.

I think the only sense in Substance theory is in its opposition to "Bundle Theory" - the arch-enemy of Substance theory, where  substances are a sum of their properties and no substance exists that has no properties. But bundle theory has to be further qualified to counter substance theory so that the properties of an object are only really "instances" of that property. I read that Bundle theory is used in some Buddhist teachings.

 Of course, it also helped with Catholic ideas of soteriology and enabled their priests to offer salvation more directly than their flock could get it for themselves.RationalAtheist

I would be tempted to say that control is the primary motivator for the continuation of this tradition, but the idea of transubstantiation has its roots in the early church, long before catholicism ever became the juggernaut that it is today I.E. long before the church would have a need to control anybody.

I think it is just a kooky tradition of christianity.

Literal transubstanciation doesnt make sense to me at all. In fact to me its like cannibalism if some Christians actually profess that they are eating the literal and actual blood and flesh of Jesus.

It would make much more sense if it was seen as some magical trasfer of holy qualities of jesus into the bread the wine.

But most definitely not literally.

I have tried it many times (after fasting periods usually) and it tastes good, because they use sweet or semi-sweet red wine.

I would be tempted to say that control is the primary motivator for the continuation of this tradition, but the idea of transubstantiation has its roots in the early church, long before catholicism ever became the juggernaut that it is today I.E. long before the church would have a need to control anybody.

I think it is just a kooky tradition of christianity.

Frattracide

Maybe so, but I thought the glory-days of European Catholicism (leaving aside South American  and Philippine Catholicism) were between pre 1000 to 1600; up to the reformation, Dait of Worms, Henry VIII, etc. I think it still is the juggernaut that it is today because of the spiritually "elevated" position of the clergy and their own fit into a clerical heirarchy that have consistently answered to and funded Rome. 

Perhaps it is a weekly 'emperor's new clothes' test for the faithful - for them to demonstrate the extent of their suspension of faculties to their spiritual superiors. I wonder does being told something every week make it easier to go along with it?