Does the cracker REALLY turn into Jesus' flesh?

arunma said:

Just a random question for everyone. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me like the doctrine of transubstantiation should be easy to prove, assuming it is true. Not to sound irreverent or blasphemous (well...I am a physics student), but couldn't one simply perform a chemical analysis on a sample of a communion wafer over which has been blessed by a priest in valid apostolic succession?

Maybe my suggestion sounds simplistic, but the Catholic Church is making quite a specific claim when they say that the communion elements physically transform into flesh and blood. In fact, the claim is so specific that unlike most spiritual doctrines, it can be tested. Science can't prove or disprove that Yahweh is a Trinity, or that the blood of Christ saves us from our sins. Nor can science tell us that Christ is sovereign over all creation, and that he subjects all things to himself. But proving that a wafer and a cup of wine turn into flesh and blood? That's a question science can answer. And while I as of yet have no evidence to substantiate any hypothesis, my guess is that the answer wouldn't favor Catholic doctrine.

Ultimately, the testability of transubstantiation is real problem with the doctrine. It's not a spiritual or religious doctrine; it's a physical doctrine. Transubstantiation makes a specific claim about the way the universe works, and that claim contradicts our observations. Had the Roman Catholic Church taken a doctrine of consubstantiation (that Christ is present under the elements), or had priests been instructed to say "let this be for you the body and blood of Christ", then the Church would be making a theological claim. But it isn't. Catholic doctrine claims that a wafer and a cup of wine truly, physically transform into the chemical compounds of flesh and blood.

But the astute Catholic might attribute transubstantiation to the mysteries of God. Yet surely the mysteries of God ought to be spiritual rather than physical. If God causes even the physical world to be shrouded in mystery, then how can we trust our eyes? If we can't trust our eyes, how can we trust our Bibles? Other mysteries, such as the Trinity, are theological positions. I don't see why the mystery of transubstantiation alone should be physical in nature.

What claim does religion have in the field of natural sciences? For that matter, why is science relevant to our salvation? It is not relevant, which is why the doctrine of transubstantiation seems so peculiar to me. What theological advantage does transubstantiation have over consubstantiation? Does it matter that the communion elements physically transform into other compounds? "This is my body" isn't sufficient evidence to prove that the bread turns into flesh. After all, Jesus himself said that he spoke in riddles. For that matter, Saint Paul also referred to the church as the body of Christ. Since we saints are the church, does that mean that true believers are physically transformed into Christ's flesh? If so, I wonder why the Catholics are selective in taking the Bible literally. I would think that of all Scripture, the epistles should be taken the most literally.

Now, it's true that Christianity does make a few physical claims, the chiefest of which are the virgin birth and the resurrection. Yet for both of these doctrines, witnesses are provided. Saints Matthew and Luke record the virgin birth based on the testimony of Mary, and the truth of the resurrection is attested to by over five hundred witnesses. We're all Christians, here, and we all affirm the truth of the Scriptures and the credibility of its authors. No credible person (whose credibility is accepted by Catholics and non-Catholics) has witnessed transubstantiation.

Having said all that, I want to mention that I mean no contempt towards Catholics. I love Catholic Christians as brothers in Christ Jesus, and I don't intend to diminish your faith. But for the reasons I've mentioned, the doctrine of transubstantiation doesn't make logical sense to me. So I would like to know how you reconcile this doctrine with Scripture and reason.

Click to expand...

Rising_Suns said:

No. As has been mentioned in this thread, the Church does not teach that the bread and wine change in any observable phsyical form or appearence. If one were to perform a chemical analysis on the bread and wine, it will still be bread and wine, since the "accidents" remain (i.e., taste, smell, appearence, and even chemical makeup). What *does* change is the substance of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ our Lord. What appears as mere bread and wine is actually the flesh and blood of Jesus, and this can only be proven through an act of God on the heart. Science cannot "test" Transubstantioation, however there have been a couple rare cases of the Host actually turning into flesh, but I have not done enough research on them to really verify how authentic these claims are.



If you only limit God to what you can emprically observe, then all you will be left with is an empty faith. God created the laws of the universe. He could, of course, bend those laws if He so chose to, just as easily as Christ raised the dead to life and performed countless other miracles.

Blessings,

-Davide

Click to expand...

mnphysicist said:

What may appear to be a duck, with all its assorted duckiness right in front of me. might indeed be one, but it may also not be one, nor it may not actually be in front of me. Certainly, everything I do to such so called duck in the macroscopic physical world, may indicate it to be one. However, if I take such so called duck, and dwelve into its minutia... all of a sudden, its characteristics can be something totally different, and it may not even be in our reference of time and space.

Click to expand...

Athanasian Creed said:

Based on a crucial interpretive mistake (literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood), the Catholic insists that the bread and wine is literally Christ. Following that to its logical conclusion, if Christ was speaking literally about His body, then He must have been speaking literally when He said, "I AM the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) Since Catholics claim to literally eat Christ's physical body, they should never physically hunger or thirst - but of course they do. Yet if "hungering and thirsting" are spiritual terms, then so must be the eating of His body. It is obvious (or should be) that Christ is saying those who believe in Him receive eternal life and don't have to keep coming back to Him for another installment.
The Bible should be taken literally wherever that is its meaning - but not when analogy or symbolism is meant and literalism would violate logid or God's laws.

"Remembering that the work of redemption IS CONTINUALLY ACCOMPLISHED in the mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice, priests are to celebrate frequently; indeed daily celebration is strongly recommended..."
- The Code of Canon Law, Canon 904
The Bible, however, assures us in numerous verses that the work of redemption was "once for all" accomplished on the Cross and that Christ's sacrifice is never to be repeated (nor need be) (Hebrews 7:16,27; 9:25-10:2; 10:12-18; Rev. 1:18)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me HATH (present possession) everlasting life. I AM that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven atha a man may eat thereof and not die. I AM the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:47-51)

Where did Christ give His flesh ? Not at the Last Supper, as Catholicism teaches, but on the Cross. That interpretive error is again a fatal one. For if when Christ said, "This is My body...this is My blood" at the Last Supper it was literally true, then He sacrified Himself BEFORE He went to the Cross !! This is, in fact, the strange teaching of Catholicism: "Our Saviour at the Last Supper on the night when He was betrayed instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood so that He might perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries till His coming."
- Austin Flannery, "Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents", Vol. 1, Pg. 102

Jesus is clearly saying that in order to receive eternal life one must BELIEVE in Him and is using the analogy of eating and drinking to illustrate that truth. Eating is a synonym for believing. Also, the body that was sacrificed and laid in the grave was resurrected and glorified. Christ's new body in which He now resides at the Father's right hand in heaven has no blood and cannot die. Paul said,"Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him (as He was before the Cross) no more." (2 Corinthians 5:16) To suggest that the precrucifixion body of Christ has been re-created on Catholic altars to be offered again for sin is a clear contradiction of both Scripture and logic.

Christ's body did not decay in the grave. The Psalmist (and Peter and Paul) quoted the prophecy regarding this, "Thou wilt not...suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Psalm 16:10; cf. Acts 2:27; 13:35) Yet the consecrated and transubstantiated host reserved for administering to the sick or displayed for adoration breeds worms and mold if it isn't disposed of soon enough. If it were truly Christ's physical body, it could not corrupt...



Ray

Click to expand...

White Horse said:

No, but THIS cracker is gonna shed the flesh and get a way cool body that defies gravity and has the ability to walk through solid objects one day.

Click to expand...