I didn't know what this was for a long part of my life.  So, now that I do, I once again want to ask a serious question.  It will sound funny, but it is not meant to.
Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements in Communion physically become the actual body and blood of Jesus.  Catholics and Lutherans hold this belief.  I do not.  I can't get my head around this.  Do you believe that if you took a communion wafer and instead of consuming it, took it to a lab, it would test as human ?

Again, not being crass here.  In my opinion if you say something physically becomes a person, then you do believe this.  Am I reading this wrong?

I understand it as primarily a Catholic thing.



IMO Jesus meant it symbolically, in a remembrance of Him. Not that it literally is His flesh and blood.  

My take also...but the question remains...if you believe it..do you REALLY believe it.

That's how I see it too. After all when He gave them the bread and wine, He was sitting right there, apparently unharmed.
He is the Bread Man of Life, and without this Bread we would all be nothing but walking dead.
He was born in Bethlehem. In Hebrew this is beit lechem, which literally means house of bread.

I truly believe it. God lives in multiple dimensions. Just because you don't see doesn't mean it's not there.

There have been many documented Eucharistic Miracles. Here is one, there are plenty on Google.


http://www.michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy

The Flesh of Christ and His Blood
are preserved in the monstrance

français  

We are talking here about an extraordinary miracle that has lasted for over twelve centuries now (1,200 years), and is still taking place today, before our eyes: the Flesh and Blood of Christ is still miraculously preserved today in a monstrance that all can see and venerate, at Lanciano, Italy. This is a miracle before which even today's science has to bow, after a minute investigation made by scientists in 1970-71.
The city of Lanciano, founded long before Christianity, was first called Anxanum. Its present name recalls the “Lancia” (lance in Italian) that pierced the heart of Our Lord on the Cross. According to an ancient tradition, Longinus, the Roman centurion who pierced, with a lance, the side of Christ already dead, came originally from Lanciano. He had poor vision, but regained his sight after touching his eyes with his hand dripping with the Blood of Jesus. In consequence of this, he became a convert and died a martyr.
The miracle
One day in the eighth century, in the church dedicated to Saints Legontian and Domitian in Lanciano, a Basilian monk was celebrating Holy Mass in the Latin rite, with a host of unleavened bread. The monk started doubting the real and substantial presence of the Flesh and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the consecrated Holy Species.
After having pronounced the words of Consecration (“This is My Body... This is My Blood”), as Jesus had taught it to His Apostles, the monk saw the host change into a living piece of Flesh, and the wine change into real blood, which thereupon coagulated and split into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size. We quote excerpts from a document kept at Lanciano:
“Frightened and confused by so great and so stupendous a miracle, he stood quite a while as if transported in a divine ecstasy; but finally, as fear yielded to the spiritual joy which filled his soul with a happy face, even though bathed with tears, having turned to the bystanders, he thus spoke to them: `O fortunate witnesses to whom the Blessed God, to counfound my unbelief, has wished to reveal Himself in this Most Blessed Sacrament and to render Himself visible to our eyes. Come Brethren, and marvel at our God so close to us. Behold the Flesh and the Blood of our Most Beloved Christ.'
“At these words, the eager people ran with devout haste to the altar and, completely terrified, began, not without copious tears, to cry for mercy. The report of so rare and singular a miracle, having spread through the entire city, who can count the acts of compunction which the young and old, hastily assembled, sought to make openly...”


The reliquary: the Fesh is enclosed in a round gold-plated silver lunette, between two crystals, in a monstrance of finaley sculpted silver. The Blood is preserved in a chalice of crystal, and affixed to the base of the monstrance.
The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back. The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.
Now, here is something even more amazing: the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is really and totally present in either the whole consecrated host or a fragment of it, and the same applies for the consecrated wine, which, once consecrated, has become the Blood of Christ. The five globules contained in the reliquary, when weighed either separately or together, totaled the same weight: 15.85 grammes.

Authentification of the Relics
Over the last twelve centuries, different Bishops of the diocese of Lanciano made authentifications of the holy relics. All testified that these facts were miraculous and true.
In 1970-71, and taken up again partly in 1981, there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena. The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision, and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs. These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
The Flesh is real flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (The blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
It is a miracle similar to that of Lanciano, the one of Bolsena, Italy, that led the Church to institute, in 1264, the great Feast of Corpus Christi, with its beautful processions, where the Living God of the Holy Eucharist is triumphally carried on the streets. Long live Jesus in His Sacrament of Love!
Thérèse Tardif              
This article is also available in the form of an 8-page leaflet (with the articles “Encyclical letter of Pope John Paul II on the Eucharist” and “Vatican instruction on the Eucharist to avoid abuses”.

back to what's new

back to the list of articles

back to the “Michael” homepage

Thank you for answering.  When you take communion does it actually taste like blood? Salty etc? Does it taste like flesh? Tough? When I do it taste like wine and paper...or bread, depending on whether it is bread or wafer.

Skid4021 nailed it and yes I believe it also.

It tastes like bread and wine. But that is because I am still of this world. But it is there I know it. Just like Jesus is there in the confessional, but I have a priest as a physical representation. God gives us physical representations of our Sacramental Grace because, as humans,  we require that.

If I miss mass, I feel starved. I need the Eucharistic.


ETA : I just wanted to say that The Eucharist is very special to me. One of the most moving parts of the mass for me, is just prior to walking up. It is when we say, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you under my roof. But, only say the word & I shall be healed." this short prayer gives me so much hope. It is hard to describe the feeling I get at mass. To say this prayer while kneeling before my God.... It is wonderful.

I get the same feeling.  I do understand where you are coming from.  I'm just new to the whole thought of actual blood and flesh.

To understand it you have to understand what the Aristotelian concept of 'accidents' and 'substance' mean. They are not merely "appearances vs. what's deep inside". It's more like the difference between a medium and a meaning. They often coincide but are not identical. A human person exists in a body constantly in flux, constantly changing while they are substantially "the same person" at 1 year, 13 years, 24 years, etc. Or the medium of words. Call a Rose any other name and it's substantially the same thing.

So Jesus picked up unleavened bread and said a blessing and held it up and said "this is my body". Not "this symbolizes my body". How could a man who rose the dead, multiplied loaves and fish, walked on water, etc. convert what looks and tastes like bread into his body? it's a mystery that only Aristotelian metaphysics comes close to teasing the beginning of an answer as to "it's possible" but not "can we do it?" (no, we can't but that doesn't mean it's impossible).

I know that it was surely possible for Yeshua to have done this, but I don't think that was the point.
He would never go against the Father, and advocate the eating of blood.
Breaking bread is an idiom for eating a meal.
If we don't accept food, we don't have life. If we don't accept the Bread Man of Life, we don't have life.

He is our bread and our water, or Life.

It looks, feels, and tastes just like bread and wine, but it isn't. It is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

How? Got us! Just because we have a name for the process doesn't mean we can explain it.

However, it IS the real Jesus, and it is all based on Scripture and the beliefs of the earliest members of the Church.

I am blessed that I am able to receive my Lord in such a fashion.

It's al most funny when you think about it.
We have been so blessed by our Father in Heaven, that loved us so much, that He provided us with the perfect, unblemished Lamb, worthy to open the Scroll, and here we are, arguing about crackers.


Everyone have a blessed Week of Unleavened Bread (Hag HaMitzah)!

What I am told by Roman Catholics is that the official position says that it does actually change BUT remains the taste and appearance as if it did not.  What really gets them if you then refer to it as cannibalism.

The history of God's relationship with mankind is largely about faith, and testing our faith in Him.  The Jews at the time said the same things many here are saying, expressing strong skepticism.   If we love Him, we will believe in Him and what He tells us.  The bread of life discourse in the Gospel is critical.  Jesus gives us a test of faith, just as God did to Abraham and Moses.  When He started to lose many disciples He could have clarified the statement - hey I was just talking symbolically, not literally.  But He never walked it back, never "clarified" it.  How can it be?  It's the "m" word, it's called a miracle.  I believe in miracles, and nothing is impossible with God.  Have faith in the Eucharist, it WILL bring you eternal life.

John 6: 51 - 55
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

John 6: 60-67
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 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.
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.  And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"

In addition to what was said above in John, Paul doesn't seem to be talking about mere "symbols" in 1 Corinthians.

The idea is also found all over in writings of early church fathers in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries.

Well, duh...

OP, I understand your confusion.  When I first heard what Catholics believed about the Eucharist, I thought it was totally bizarre.  Years later, I can't imagine living without Jesus in the Eucharist!  This is a very mystical reality.  Yes, Jesus is truly present.  When we receive him, He truly dwells in us and we dwell in Him.  It's so cool!    

I truly believe in the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist as well.

I am a cradle Catholic. I can't say I understood this until I was much older.

BTW the whole last supper events were very symbolic, during a symbolic event.





This guy explains the bread and wine part the whole thing is very good):






 

That's what the Romans and Jews said.



I believe what Jesus said in John 6. If its not true then Jesus, the apostles, Paul, etc. are liars and fools.
 

It was a 'all of Christendom thing' for about 1500 years. Then the Reformation happened and because Luther et al were so much more connected to Jesus than the apostles or any of the pre-Nicen fathers.....



 

I see this as non-essential doctrine, but I don't believe that the communion bread and wine become any essence of Christ himself but I get the idea. I think the belief is of a spiritual significance to the bread and wine themselves that they somehow take on the spiritual essence of Christ when taken, which is not dissimilar to what I believe as a "protestant." I believe that the materials themselves are symbolic, but I won't deny the spiritual significance of the act and that something spiritual obviously takes place. It is a recognition of his atonement on the cross and spiritually a reminder of his sacrifice.

John 6:60-65 Jesus rebukes the disciples and specifically states "63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life." They were upset over the very idea that we are discussing and were a little nervous about his discussion of the need to consume his flesh and blood specifically for atonement. He made it pretty obvious that they had missed the point.

Jesus spoke in parables continuously in fulfillment of prophecy, and I don't see any indication that the metaphorical intent is any different. We see this in Matthew 13 and Mark 4.

That doesn't make sense because Lutherans DO believe it.

No, they do not. They believe in consubstantiation.
 

I think it is you that missed the point. They knew full well the controversy of Jesus statement. When you couple this John 53:59 with narrative from the last supper, there just isn't any 'figurative' language in his words and it would make no sense that John 6:63 was some sort of reversal.
 

You are correct.  Now I have learned a new term
What I tried to use a word to describe is that Lutherans believe that the bread and wine are physically the blood and flesh of Christ.  Not that it is symbolic.

Astounding especially for those to subscribe to sola scriptura. It clearly says... "THIS IS MY BODY"..." THIS IS MY BLOOD"...



The passover was symbolic. And it clearly states this will be 3MBOLIC in Exodus 14 in every interpretation. 14Now
this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a
feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it
as a permanent ordinance. 15'Seven
days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall
remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from
the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from
Israel.…

That is not what the new testament says at all.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





²⁴ "This is my blood of the[a][/sup] covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. [sup]25 [/sup]"Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”



No where in any of the text of any of the gospel accounts of the last supper does it say This is my SYMBOLIC Body or this is my SYMBOLIC blood.
 

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." "

From linguistic studies of John and other Gospel passages regarding the Eucharist, and from the tradition of the early Church, it is evident that it was not symbolic.  And we know that Martin Luther never denied the real presence.

How preposterous is it to believe that God would lower Himself to become a man, and allow Himself to be crucified by the likes of the Romans?  Again, the history of God's relationship with man is in large part about testing of our faith in Him, about proving our love in return for His.  Jesus was brutally crucified and stowed away in a tomb.  He then asks us to believe He rose from the dead, and is the Son of God.  That can be really hard to believe.  

St. Augustine:  "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction"

"Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed."

I think Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. (Blood and body is present as is wine and bread).
Not a Lutheran or catholic, so I can't help you there. It makes as much sense to me as assuming when Jesus said I am the vine and you are the branches that he was talking literally.

How can the bread and wine be the blood and flesh of Jesus at the last supper? He had not yet been crucified and glorified. So did the disciples actually eat Jesus at the last supper?  And he ate his own flesh?

Because the last supper was the beginning of the New covenant liturgy which ended on the cross after Jesus drank the prescribed 4th cup.

Note the clue in the gospel "after they sang the hymns they went out". The meal liturgy calls for the hymns to be sung just prior to the 4th cup...but they concluded the meal before drinking that cup....and what does Jesus mention in the garden when praying to the Father? That the "cup" may be passed somehow, but not his will but God's be done".... and when did Jesus finally die? After tasting some wine lifted up to him by a spear while on the cross. "it is finished" concluded the liturgy.... thus you have to read the Passion as a single act, not a series.

We still say "Mass" which technically is the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the eucharist but is all one prayer.

Or what, you think we never thought of these questions in the past 2000 years?

Take and eat...this is my body....this is my blood.... is, if we are talking 'transubstantiation', do-able within that context. The medium (accidents) normally are co-terminous or co-existent with the meaning (substance). But when the Word was 'made flesh' what are we talking about? How is the Hypostatic union "possible" but transubstantiation isn't? If God is truly 'made man', having a human body, mind, and soul but not a human spirit.... how is the link a true one if not by substance? None of his accidents were divine. He hungered, he grew, he wept, he thirsted....he died. "He" wasn't a ghost in a machine, He and the body are one as we are one with our bodies....medium and meaning, accidents and substances....

If you accept the Incarnation of the Word of God, you must accept this distinction to make sense of it all.... and once you have this, you have the basic conceptual Legos needed to accept that it's possible (and is, like the Incarnation, a miracle seen nowhere else in the created universe). Only a literal "substantial" meaning makes sense.

A symbol is Jesus calling himself the gate or the 'good shepherd' or the lamb of God. Saying the blessing, breaking the bread and handing it to the disciples with the words "this is my body" is literal. The Jews where right to be 'scandalized'. Symbols don't scandalize.

If we take that literally, and I find that harder to take literally than most verses, but don't have a problem with people taking it literally....
We must take other easier verses literally.  Because if Jesus is to be taken literally here, he should also be taken literally when he says God created Adam And Eve...." Just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights"....  now I do think those are literal.  And you may too.  But to be consistent you must.  He didn't say the story of Jonah...

I'm not trying to get Off topic here, it relates to Jesus saying what he means.

And let's not forget 1st Corinthians...


23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


Paul is pretty serious about this. It's no mere symbol...

Yes, it is a serious time and symbolic. Paul repeatedly says it is just bread. Bread that is a symbol.

Calling it bread does not prove your point at all. You are appealing to a false inference; if you would like to show us your proof text or present a solid argument then do it, but highlighting the places where Paul or Jesus presents the bread isnt enough to say, "See! He said bread so there is no way that he meant anything more by it!".

If it is enough to eat and drink damnation how in the world is it just symbolic?

Not to mention that Paul had just finished Jesus saying, "This is My Body"...


Since Paul states that receiving the bread and wine unworthily results in damnation, only one of two options exist:

1) Paul is an idolator, in that he is ascribing divine characteristics and importance to this mere symbol.

2) It really is what Jesus said it was: His actual Body and Blood.

If you pick option 1), you have just anhialated half of the New Testament, since its author is not a Christian after all...

So....catholic members... Do you believe that if a Protestant congregation takes communion it is not The real body and blood of Christ? Or does it have to be a priest to make it convert?

In a Protestant service of the Last Supper, the bread and wine would not change in to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.  This is because the authority to call down the Holy Spirit to effect this change was given by Jesus to the Apostles, who then bestowed this on their successors through ordination.  

However, as any Protestant who has converted to Catholicism or Orthodoxy will likely tell you, that doesn't mean that God doesn't give His grace to Protestants taking communion at their churches.  God is so generous with His grace!

Correct on both.

I go with Luther on this.  Is means is.  Jesus didn't say "this is symbolic of my body and blood.". How does it work?  Beats me, only God knows the answer.

It's definitely one of those great mysteries, but He Himself put it in place, so I roll with it...

So I am correct....since I am Protestant, when I say it is merely symbolic of Jesus's  body and blood.

How does a symbol bring divine punishment, in light of Paul's warning?

Then I am wrong and even as a Protestant, it is the literal blood and flesh of Jesus?

I was just told a priest had to change it.....

When you have your mass/gathering (not sure what Protestant call it, I apologize) & you have your communion. It is not consecrated. So it is symbolic.

If,  as a Protestant, you go to a Catholic mass & take communion (though you should not) then it Truly is The Body & Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is what I was taught, so if I have missed something, please correct. (to the other Catholic apologists)

ETA : & I do truly believe in Transubstantiation

We call it church.

But what do you do at church? A service? A celebration?

I personally have a very high view of services.. I attend services at church.  I do not call it a celebration.  I attend services where we follow a strict liturgy. It is not just a gathering.