Can a Catholic reject transubstantiation? That’s what a prominent priest did recently. He’s swimming in dangerous waters...

[Michie]

A recent article by Thomas Reese, S.J. for National Catholic Reporter has attracted attention. There’s a lot to respond to in Fr. Reese’s article, but I have a word limit, so I’ll keep it short. Under the deliberately provocative title “The Eucharist is about more than the real presence,” Reese discusses what he thinks is wrong in the contemporary Church concerning the Eucharist.

Continued below.

Can a Catholic Reject Transubstantiation?

What exactly is transubstantiation, and how important is it among the doctrines of the Catholic Church? Can we just cast it aside?

www.catholic.com

 

[NBB]

Just an observation, if transubstantiation were true, you would be able to detect its material in the stomach and with analysis etc.

 

[Michie]

Just an observation, if transubstantiation were true, you would be able to detect its material in the stomach and with analysis etc.

It’s true. Note that you are in the Catholic forum.

Transubstantiation for Beginners

What is Transubstatiation and where does this essential Catholic teaching find it's origins? Click here for a brief history.

www.catholic.com

Transubstantiation May Be a ‘Hard Teaching,’ But It’s a True Teaching

Recovering the “real” in the Eucharist is not just about the Eucharist.

www.ncregister.com

 

[chilehed]

Just an observation, if transubstantiation were true, you would be able to detect its material in the stomach and with analysis etc.

You obviously don't understand the doctrine.

 

[NBB]

You obviously don't understand the doctrine.

Probably not, i thought they said it converted itself in another substance or something like that.

 

[Bob Crowley]

The reality is that we don't understand it - we accept it by faith.

Fr. Reese was correct when he said it is a mystery, like a whole bunch of other mysteries we don't understand - the Trinity, Christ as both God and Man, how God created the universe from nothing, how God can be omnipotent and yet leave us space for free will, predestination and free will, God's purpose for suffering, etc.

 

[fide]

Just an observation, if transubstantiation were true, you would be able to detect its material in the stomach and with analysis etc.

It's material (molecules, atoms) are among the accidents of the thing, the "externals" of it; the substance of the thing - what makes the thing the thing - is different, is "interior" the thingness of the thing. Transubstantiation is a transition from what the thing was (bread, wine), to what It became (the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.)

The "external" accidents remain unchanged.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

It looks like he is taking an Eastern Orthodox approach to the Eucharist. There is a change but we don't declare how the change happens.

 

[fide]

It looks like he is taking an Eastern Orthodox approach to the Eucharist. There is a change but we don't declare how the change happens.

I think the best approach to "understanding" that it is of God, it is mystery, is to distinguish between the natural and the supernatural. Natural man, in the best of the secular Western-educated of us, thinks in terms scientific: a thing is most completely described in terms of its atomic / molecular compostion. Or even sub-atomic. Science seeks for more names of ever-more-fundamental particles or waves or fields with which to describe the fundamental "composition" or everything that exists. We think of things always being describable as composition of other, smaller things, presuming that there must be eventually a few "most fundamental" things at the foundation of everything else. Even in the presence of theories of "fields", we think more naturally of "particles" - so that a photon is a quantum particle of an EM field. But every thing is finally a thing, a material thing. Not so with the notion of a substance, a concept prior to the materialism of these times.

It is a problem for many of us, to think of religious, spiritual, mystical realities when thinking in terms formed in a materialistic culture. There is no way to "detect", or "measure" or study with lab instrumentation, the transubstantiation of Holy Eucharist. Even in the case of "Eucharistic miracles" which have been reported from time to time, the Mystery remains beyond this natural world, because it is natural, and the substance of Holy Eucharist is supernatural.

 

[Markie Boy]

I have to say I find the Orthodox description easier on the mind, and have difficulty with a hard and clear definition that one really can't prove.

I guess I still struggle with it, because if it is a miracle as stated - it's the only miracle God ever did that was not physically verifiable that I know of. The whole point of miracles is to show something. This seems to actually be supported by Pope Gelasius in the 400's. I did see a site that tried to interpolate his thoughts into transubstantiation - but I don't think it's right to do if taken as written.

Any thoughts welcome, as I can't seem to get around this, and I find myself still working on it.

 

[fide]

I have to say I find the Orthodox description easier on the mind, and have difficulty with a hard and clear definition that one really can't prove.

I guess I still struggle with it, because if it is a miracle as stated - it's the only miracle God ever did that was not physically verifiable that I know of. The whole point of miracles is to show something. This seems to actually be supported by Pope Gelasius in the 400's. I did see a site that tried to interpolate his thoughts into transubstantiation - but I don't think it's right to do if taken as written.

Any thoughts welcome, as I can't seem to get around this, and I find myself still working on it.

Jesus did not intend the miracle of the Eucharist to be "easy on the mind." Note this:

Joh 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
Joh 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
Joh 6:59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.
Joh 6:60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
Joh 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Joh 6:67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"
Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
Joh 6:69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

The Eucharist is for those who believe, who realize that Jesus "has the words of eternal life." He is, in other words, eternal Truth. It takes belief in Him to accept what the human natural mind cannot understand. For many, this means, "I believe, Lord, help my unbelief!" Christian Faith has many difficulties, but as St. John Henry Newman said, "A thousand difficulties do not make one single doubt."

When you know by faith that the Catholic Faith is the one given us by God, then it all becomes believable.

 

[Erose]

It looks like he is taking an Eastern Orthodox approach to the Eucharist. There is a change but we don't declare how the change happens.

Neither do we. Transubstantiation is not a "how it happens" definition but a "what happens" definition. In laymen terms, transubstantiation means the bread and wine becomes the Boby and Blood of Jesus; but what we taste, touch, smell is bread and wine.

 

[Erose]

I have to say I find the Orthodox description easier on the mind, and have difficulty with a hard and clear definition that one really can't prove.

I guess I still struggle with it, because if it is a miracle as stated - it's the only miracle God ever did that was not physically verifiable that I know of. The whole point of miracles is to show something. This seems to actually be supported by Pope Gelasius in the 400's. I did see a site that tried to interpolate his thoughts into transubstantiation - but I don't think it's right to do if taken as written.

Any thoughts welcome, as I can't seem to get around this, and I find myself still working on it.

In all reality, Orthodox and Catholics have the exact same belief and understanding of the Eucharist. When the simple bread and wine is consecrated it BECOMES the Body and Blood of Christ (substance), and yet we still only see, smell, taste and touch the properties of bread and wine (accidents), they don't change. It really is that simple.

Orthodox for whatever reason, not fully taking time to understand what we mean by transubstantiation seem to want to think we are talking about how this miracle happens. How this miracle happens, is outlined in the Mass, which is by the power of the Holy Spirit. That is the how, and I would imagine Orthodox would agree with this. The term transubstantiation only refers to what happens: After consecration the Host is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus, although we still see just bread and wine.

Now the council of Trent did define what happens and what does not happen session 13. The first three canons read:

CANON I.-If any one 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; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one 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.
CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

This is the full teaching of the Church on the matter.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Neither do we. Transubstantiation is not a "how it happens" definition but a "what happens" definition. In laymen terms, transubstantiation means the bread and wine becomes the Boby and Blood of Jesus; but what we taste, touch, smell is bread and wine.

Our main objection is the use of Aristotilian philosophy to describe a Christian mystery, otherwise we're in close agreement. There are some other minor differences but IMHO not deal breakers.

 

[Erose]

I guess I still struggle with it, because if it is a miracle as stated - it's the only miracle God ever did that was not physically verifiable that I know of. The whole point of miracles is to show something. This seems to actually be supported by Pope Gelasius in the 400's. I did see a site that tried to interpolate his thoughts into transubstantiation - but I don't think it's right to do if taken as written.

Concerning this point, not all miracles have a (what we come to expect physical manifestation) because the world is not just the physical.

Every time you witness or experience one of the Seven Sacraments, you are experiencing or witnessing a miracle.

At baptism: we are becoming truly and substantially the child of God. There is a change that is occurring within us, a miracle. At every baptism, the Father in heaven, just like He did when Jesus was baptized, is saying: "This is my beloved son (daughter) in whom I'm well pleased." Miracle.
At confirmation: we are being anointed with and filled with the Holy Spirit, to become prophets and warriors for Christ! We truly become God's prophets at confirmation, and just at Christ's transfiguration (which coincides with confirmation); the Father in heaven proclaims: "This is my beloved son (daughter) in whom I'm well pleased. Listen to him (her)." Miracle.
At the Mass: we have discussed, but but Jesus becomes not just spiritually present, but also physically present to us. Miracle.
In Confession: When in the state of mortal sin, we are dead spiritually, DEAD! But when that priest says the words of absolution over us, we are resurrected and brought back to life! Miracle.
In the Holy Unction: We are receiving the healing primarily on the spiritual level, but sometimes physically. Primarily God is giving us the grace to endure our physical suffering, and prepares us for death, if that is what God is calling us to. Miracle.
In Marriage: God is making a man and women into one flesh to create an environment to bring forth life in love and charity. Miracle.
In Holy Orders: God is giving men, the distinctive power to make present to His sheep, all of these miracles that we take for granted in our lives. Miracle.

Perhaps this is why we use signs and symbols in our Sacraments, so that we can at least witness something of the miracles that are occurring, but they are miracles nevertheless.

 

[Erose]

Our main objection is the use of Aristotilian philosophy to describe a Christian mystery, otherwise we're in close agreement. There are some other minor differences but IMHO not deal breakers.

How do you describe what happens?

Words are used to convey a thought, just like when discussing the Trinity or the Incarnation, we use words that are from Greek Philosophy to convey a point or make it clearer, such as hypostasis or hypostatic union, so what is the difference?

 

[Wolseley]

I saw the initials "S.J." after his name, and thought to myself, "That's pretty much all I need to know, right there."

It's a shame how over the last 60 years the Jesuits went from being staunch defenders of the Deposit of the Faith to being the left-wing dissident oddballs that they are now.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

How do you describe what happens?

Words are used to convey a thought, just like when discussing the Trinity or the Incarnation, we use words that are from Greek Philosophy to convey a point or make it clearer, such as hypostasis or hypostatic union, so what is the difference?

6. The use of the term μετουσίωση or Transubstantiation (Transsubstantiatio)

This term is used principally by the Roman Catholic Church. It is not wrong. Its meaning corresponds to the Greek terms used by the Orthodox Church: μεταβολή (trans-formation or simply change), μεταποίηση (trans-making) and μεταστοιχείωση (trans-mutation). When Orthodox theologians use the term transubstantiation they ascribe to it the meaning of change. Usually, however, the use of the term is avoided in the Orthodox Church, since it brings to mind scholastic cavilling about the distinction between essence and accidents, based on Aristotelian philosophy. The terms ‘trans-making’ and ‘change’ are preferable. Orthodox believers do not dwell overly on how precisely the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is enough for them to believe in the omnipotence of God and in this dread and incomprehensible divine mystery. - Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia

Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia delivered a speech on the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at the second ecumenical seminar which was held on Sunday, June 26, 2016, in Hong Kong.

orthochristian.com

 

[Erose]

6. The use of the term μετουσίωση or Transubstantiation (Transsubstantiatio)

This term is used principally by the Roman Catholic Church. It is not wrong. Its meaning corresponds to the Greek terms used by the Orthodox Church: μεταβολή (trans-formation or simply change), μεταποίηση (trans-making) and μεταστοιχείωση (trans-mutation). When Orthodox theologians use the term transubstantiation they ascribe to it the meaning of change. Usually, however, the use of the term is avoided in the Orthodox Church, since it brings to mind scholastic cavilling about the distinction between essence and accidents, based on Aristotelian philosophy. The terms ‘trans-making’ and ‘change’ are preferable. Orthodox believers do not dwell overly on how precisely the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is enough for them to believe in the omnipotence of God and in this dread and incomprehensible divine mystery. - Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia

Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia delivered a speech on the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at the second ecumenical seminar which was held on Sunday, June 26, 2016, in Hong Kong.

orthochristian.com

Yeah, this is the impression I get. We don't like the term transubstantiation because the Latins use it. Not trying to be argumentive on the matter, as this is not the place to do it. And for the life of me the accusation that us Latins are trying to explain the how of it in this definition, just boggles my mind, since us Latins have not done so, except to say as the above says by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is what Trent says on the matter:

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

What part of that statement does the East disagree with?

Anyway there have been scholastic theologians that have used aristotelian language (that isn't wrong by the way) but the Church at Trent didn't use that language. They kept it simple.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Yeah, this is the impression I get. We don't like the term transubstantiation because the Latins use it. Not trying to be argumentive on the matter, as this is not the place to do it. And for the life of me the accusation that us Latins are trying to explain the how of it in this definition, just boggles my mind, since us Latins have not done so, except to say as the above says by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is what Trent says on the matter:

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

What part of that statement does the East disagree with?

Anyway there have been scholastic theologians that have used aristotelian language (that isn't wrong by the way) but the Church at Trent didn't use that language. They kept it simple.

Agreed, some of the issues like transubstantiation and the nature of purgatory were more medieval developments that have since kind of been discarded or at least not pushed in the last century. Pope-Emeritus Ratzinger wrote:

In the Western tradition, this intermediate state is called “Purgatory.” The Eastern church has not followed the path of Western theology with its clarification of the final destiny of man. The East clung to that form of the idea of the intermediate state reached by the lifetime of John Chrysostom (who died in 407). For this reason, the doctrine of Purgatory functioned as an article dividing the churches at the attempted ecumenical reunions of Lyons in 1274 and Ferrara-Florence in 1439. Naturally enough, the point around which disagreement centered was not the same as a century later with the Reformers. The Greeks rejected the idea of punishment and atonement taking place in the afterlife, yet they shared with the church of the West the practice of interceding for the dead by prayer, alms, good works, and, most notably, the offering of the Eucharist for their repose.​

Eschatology: Hell, Purgatory, Heaven

Joseph Ratzinger on the last things.

churchlifejournal.nd.edu