A theological understanding of transubstantiation is required to answer this question. I’ll make it simple, because I don’t really like or understand much philosophy, and I think, neither do you.
Everything has a substance and a form. A human person has a substance and a form as well. For a normal living person, his substance is that of a human, and his form is that of a human body. For a dead body, the form is that of a human body, but the substance is no longer than of a human, because a human is both body and soul, not body alone or soul alone.
In bread and wine offered up during Mass, the bread and wine initially have both the substance and form of bread and wine. When transubstantiation takes place, the substance of the bread and wine are changed to that of the body and blood of Christ. The form, however, remains that of bread and wine.
Cannibals are people who eat human meat which come from dead bodies. As such, they eat the form, but not the substance. Cannibals do not eat humans (both substance and form). They only eat the meat, which is the form. As such, they are not really eating the person, just human meat.
Catholics who eat the body and blood of Christ are eating the substance of Christ, but in the form of bread and wine. As Catholics do not eat human meat, they therefore are not cannibals. But they can, however eat the substance of Christ. So they do, in fact, eat Christ. They eat the substance of Christ, but in the form of bread and wine.
When we consume meat, we make the meat part of ourselves. The meat is changed inside our bodies where it is digested and absorbed into the human body as nutrients, and this keeps us alive.
When we consume the body of Christ, we make Christ part of ourselves. Christ too is absorbed into our soul as nutrients, and this keeps us alive.
For Jesus said, “If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.” (John 6:53) and again: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I in him” (John 6:56).
It is tradition and nothing more.
The bread is just symbolic so is the wine. Do you actually think the mass produced waffers are anything else?
No middle man is needed to reach christ.
Hi Catholic Writer,
Here’s my 2 cents worth which I’m sure you already know. But just to comment on what Bobj321 said, I guess different views are adopted when it comes to the Last Supper.
The “Breaking of Bread” which some of our Christian brethen practice today is a re-enactment of the Last Supper in memory of what Christ did. Partaking in a meal in memory. The bread and wine used are symbolic in that re-enactment.
In the light of the teachings of the Catholic Church, the celebration of the Eucharist (Mass) is more than just a re-enactment of the meal. The Institution Narrative of the Last Supper was a call to the Apostles on a mission. Not just a mission to re-enact a meal. It was a mission to the Apostles to institute the Eucharist, and with it was also the institution of Priesthood.
I’m sure Jesus was not made of dough when he said “I am the bread of life”. Hopefully, believers will discover more about transubstantiation and the meaning of the Eucharist.
God bless.
Hi Bobj321,
I think I would start with the word ‘Tradition’, with a capital ‘T’, not a small ‘t’.
The word ‘Tradition’ refers to the handing down of the complete Christian faith from Jesus’ apostles to the current Catholic Church leaders, which includes the Roman Catholic Church, as well as all the other churches in communion with it. These are the only churches in the whole of Christendom that have faithfully transmitted the complete faith that the first apostles believed in.
One of the elements of that complete faith is that Jesus is literally and wholly present – body and blood, soul and divinity – under the appearances of bread and wine. Modern-day Christians like to attack this doctrine as unbiblical and “just a tradition” (with a small ‘t’), but the Bible declares it firmly in 1 Cor 10:16-17, 11:23-29, and most forcefully in John 6:32-71.
The passage from the gospel according to John made it clear that some people do not accept this teaching, and turned away from the Lord because of it, but the apostles chose to remain with Jesus. It is from these apostles that the Catholic Church receives its complete faith.
Those interested in what the early Church Fathers said about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist can read about it here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
Along the history of the Church, some Christians broke away from the Catholic Church to form their own churches, because they didn’t agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church. In so doing, they also disagreed with the faith of the apostles, and in other words, with what Jesus taught the apostles. These Christians continued to hand down the Christian faith to their followers, but unfortunately, it is no longer the complete faith. Decades or centuries later, these followers come to Catholics and tell them that they are believing the wrong things.
There are three important questions that Catholics must remember to ask non-Catholic Christians before engaging in debate with them. (Actually, I sometimes forget too!
)
1. Where does the Bible come from?
Those interested in finding out who has the authority to interpret the Bible can read about how to respond to scripture-only Christians here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp
(By the way, the Bible comes from the Catholic Church.)
2. How old is your Church?
Those interested in knowing how old the mainstream churches are can find out here:
http://www.catholicacma.org.sg/NET/catholicism/howold.html
If we cannot agree on these historical facts, then it is unlikely that we can come to an agreement about theology which is even harder to prove. We will probably end up quarrelling which is such a bad example of the Christian faith, isn’t it?
God bless,
Catholic Writer
——
Hi OG,
Thanks for responding to Bobj321’s comment. Much appreciated.
God bless,
Catholic Writer