Transubstantiation Analogy

[TSIBHOD]

One analogy that I read some time back on these boards (I think from a Catholic) was that the change that takes place in the Eucharist is analogous to the change that takes place in us when we get saved. Jesus enters in, and it is "no longer I, but Christ." In the same way, the bread and wine are "no longer bread and wine, but Christ."

That's the analogy. The question: is that analogy representative of Catholics beliefs on the Eucharist?

 

[Carrye]

One analogy that I read some time back on these boards (I think from a Catholic) was that the change that takes place in the Eucharist is analogous to the change that takes place in us when we get saved. Jesus enters in, and it is "no longer I, but Christ." In the same way, the bread and wine are "no longer bread and wine, but Christ."

That's the analogy. The question: is that analogy representative of Catholics beliefs on the Eucharist?

It's getting there, but not quite. As you said, when we get saved (Catholics might say when we're baptized), God comes to dwell in us. And while it is no longer I, but Christ, I don't actually become Christ. When I walk around, people still call me Carrie, they don't call me Christ.

And so in that way, I retain my own integrity (individuality, substance), but the Lord comes to dwell in me. Look at the use of language there. Lord comes dwell me. But I would not say "I am the Lord", for that would be blasphemous. Do you see the difference?

When the bread and wine are consecrated, they really become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord. Bread and wine no longer remain, but He is present. We don't call them bread and wine any longer either; we call it Eucharist. The difference in name is important, as names are indicative of what a thing really is.

I might call that thing 'tree'. In the spring it flowers and I say 'flowering tree'. But the substance (essence), what a thing is, has not changed. With the Eucharist, the substance changes.

 

[TSIBHOD]

The analogy may not be perfect, certainly. But I believe that when I saw the analogy, it was used to convey something along the following lines. When we are saved, baptised, and become part of the body of Christ, our bodies may not look any different. In fact, there are no bodily changes inherent with salvation (change in action of the body, yes, but that is something different). However, because we are given the Spirit, we change. We are different people. Our old selves are gone and we are able to live a new life after baptism (see Romans 6). And we have become "new creations" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

The analogy then went that the Eucharist undergoes a similar change when it becomes the Eucharist, and not just bread and wine. On the outside, it still appears the same, but it is a "new creation," so to speak. Just as we are different people after getting saved (and continuing in the process of salvation), so the bread and wine are different after the blessing. Our old nature is gone. In the same way, the old nature of the bread and wine are gone, so that they are "something different," though not changing in appearance.

I believe that was the point of the analogy. Now, with that said, are my above statements proper teaching according to the Catholic Church, or is it partly wrong?

Thanks for answering the questions I have.

 

[Carrye]

I believe that was the point of the analogy. Now, with that said, are my above statements proper teaching according to the Catholic Church, or is it partly wrong?

No, I think that's a fair representation. We would apply the philosophical terms substance (what a thing is) and accidents (what a thing looks like) to the analogy, but I think the points you're using it for hold up.

The problem I had initially was with terminology. Words like "nature" and "substance" mean somewhat different things in secular language than they do in philosophical language. For instance, I would be wary of saying our old nature is gone. But that's a point that I don't think is worth seeing through here. I think you understand what you are saying, and that you're doing so fairly.

 

[Michelina]

What Carrie (clskinner) said!

TSIBHOD, the analogy is not in conformity with Catholic Doctrine. The substance doesn't change when a person becomes a Christian. Transubstantiation changes the substances of bread and wine. So, the analogy is not apt. It would be dangerous to use it except at the beginning of a discussion as an illustration of the fact that not all realities are visible. But you would always have to add that Transubstantiation is something far more profound and essentially different. (Personally, I would never use it because it could be confusing.)

 

[Michelina]

TSIBHOD, the point is that Transubstantiation is a physical change. Invisible but real.