Animavore wrote:I guess it's similar to the way Jesus didn't come back as a man but as a god-man. He wasn't literally a dead man returned walking around. He was something new. Don't know why the empty tomb was needed, but how and ever. So the cracker literally becomes Jesus's body and blood in the same way the returned Jesus was literally the body and blood of Christ.

Makes sense when you see it that way.

talkietoaster wrote:

Animavore wrote:I guess it's similar to the way Jesus didn't come back as a man but as a god-man. He wasn't literally a dead man returned walking around. He was something new. Don't know why the empty tomb was needed, but how and ever. So the cracker literally becomes Jesus's body and blood in the same way the returned Jesus was literally the body and blood of Christ.

Makes sense when you see it that way.

How does a catholic know its blessed properly or its the body of christ? How do they know there is a change?

Does the cracker change its flavour or something? As least that would show a change without changing the substance of the cracker?

Animavore wrote:

talkietoaster wrote:

Animavore wrote:I guess it's similar to the way Jesus didn't come back as a man but as a god-man. He wasn't literally a dead man returned walking around. He was something new. Don't know why the empty tomb was needed, but how and ever. So the cracker literally becomes Jesus's body and blood in the same way the returned Jesus was literally the body and blood of Christ.

Makes sense when you see it that way.

How does a catholic know its blessed properly or its the body of christ? How do they know there is a change?

Does the cracker change its flavour or something? As least that would show a change without changing the substance of the cracker?

Because the Bible. Sheesh!

talkietoaster wrote:

Animavore wrote:

talkietoaster wrote:

Animavore wrote:I guess it's similar to the way Jesus didn't come back as a man but as a god-man. He wasn't literally a dead man returned walking around. He was something new. Don't know why the empty tomb was needed, but how and ever. So the cracker literally becomes Jesus's body and blood in the same way the returned Jesus was literally the body and blood of Christ.

Makes sense when you see it that way.

How does a catholic know its blessed properly or its the body of christ? How do they know there is a change?

Does the cracker change its flavour or something? As least that would show a change without changing the substance of the cracker?

Because the Bible. Sheesh!

I am in disbelief, I heard of transubstantiation but never really learned about its philosophy in Catholism and its just made me think you can level up in gullability in catholism. Level 1 - Just believe in god, level 2 - Believe in the Resurrection, Level 3 - Believe in Transubstantiation etc..... It's just a scary thought process for me to ever be in.

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament is literally, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but in actual reality as well,[1][2] changed into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the physical[citation needed] appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.[7][8] What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.[10]

Matt_B wrote:I guess it just goes to show that no amount of advancement in the scientific understanding of how the molecular structre of substances affect how they look, taste, smell, etc. is going to do much to overturn an argument that, if philosophically sound, was never in the least bit grounded in reality in the first place.

Animavore wrote:Because the Bible. Sheesh!

"The distinction between "substance" and "accidents" - the latter term is not used in the Catholic Church's official definition of the doctrine[10] but has been used in the writings of theologians - arose from Aristotelian philosophy, but in Roman Catholic eucharistic theology is independent of that philosophy, since the distinction is a real one, as shown by the distinction between a person and that person's accidental appearances.[42] "Substance" here means what something is in itself, its essence."

A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them.[43] While the appearances, which are also referred to, though not in the Church's official teaching, by the philosophical term 'accidents', are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.[44]

Consider the classic example[45] of the human body. All of the separate chemical compounds, minerals and water—which when piled together constitute the sum total of the actual physical matter of the human body—are not of themselves a human body, however much they may be physically compounded and mixed and rearranged in the laboratory, since they are still only a pile of organic chemicals, minerals and water in a particular complex configuration. If this has never been alive it is not a human body. If they are participant in the integral physical expression of a living human being who has absorbed and metabolized them, or if they are now the physical remains of a once-living human being, the substance of what they actually are is human, hence, a human body. The substantial reality of what is before us is human. The substance (substantial reality) of what is seen is not solely that of a complex organization of organic chemical compounds, but is (or has been) someone. The chemical elements of the food a person eats become in a few hours part of that person's human body and are no longer food but have been turned into the human flesh and blood and bone of that person, yet the physical chemical elements of what was once food remain the same (calcium, copper, salt, protein, sugars, fats, water, etc.). The substance of any matter that has become an integral part of any human being has ceased to be the substance or reality of food and has become incorporated as an integral part of the physical manifestation or expression of that human person. To touch that matter now is not to touch a batch of chemical compounds or food but to touch that person.[46]

When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body",[47] what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: the "species" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that, when Jesus made that declaration,[48] the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was changed into that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist[49] when the words are spoken in persona Christi "This is my body ... this is my blood." In Orthodox confessions, the change is said to start during the Liturgy of Preparation and be completed during the Epiklesis.

To touch the smallest particle of the host or the smallest droplet from the chalice is to touch Jesus Christ himself, as when one person touches another on the back of the hand with only a fingertip and in so doing touches not merely a few skin cells but touches the whole person:

scott1328 wrote:Wait, so jesus's resurrected body is made of wheat flour, and his blood is made of fermented grape juice?

Matt_B wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Wait, so jesus's resurrected body is made of wheat flour, and his blood is made of fermented grape juice?

You are what you eat, as the saying goes.