Transubstantiation

do you think Jesus is a good public speaker?

I do, the Gospels are amazing, how each parable of Jesus is short but holds such strong impact.

Just hearing the words of Jesus is really amazing

anyways, my point about all of this, Jesus is a good speaker, he says "I am the vine"
a simple analogy
He does not say "I am the vine" "I am the true vine" "I am the Vine come down from Heaven" "if you do not take my leaves, you will not have life within you"

He does not stretch the metaphor too far, He does not set up arbor day or something that makes the vine tangible, He keeps it a simple analogy that He uses once, a common way to use speech

but look at ALL the time Bread of Life and stuff like that is used, culminating in the Institution of the Eucharist

also, something to keep in mind, what is referred to as the "Messianic Secret" Jesus does not go right out and say He is the Son of God from the start
these Big Ideas it is almost like He tries to break us in slowly to these type things

Not anything to add to Rhamiel's explanation. Just a little thing stated by the Council of Trent (under His Holiness Pope Julius III, 1555):

But since Christ, our Redeemer, has said that that is truly His own body which He offered under the species of bread [cf. Matt. 26:26 ff.; Mark 14:22 ff.; Luke 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor. 11:23 ff.], it has always been a matter of conviction in the Church of God, and now this holy Synod declares it again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a conversion takes place of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This conversion is appropriately and properly called transubstantiation by the Catholic Church [can. 2].

Click to expand...

And the First Vatican Council:

1. Just as the formal reason for hypostasis is "to be through itself," or, "to subsist through itself," so the formal reason for substance is "to be in itself" and "actually not to be sustained in another as the first subject"; for, rightly are those two to be distinguished: "to be through itself" (which is the formal reason for hypostasis), and "to be in itself" (which is the formal reason for substance).

2. Therefore, just as human nature in Christ is not hypostasis, because it does not subsist through itself but is assumed from a superior divine hypostasis, so finite substance, for example, the substance of bread, ceases to be substance by this alone and without any change of itself, because it is sustained supernaturally in another, so that it is not already in itself, but in another as in a first subject.

3. Thus, transubstantiation, or the conversion of the entire substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, can be explained in this way, that the body of Christ, while it becomes substantially present in the Eucharist, sustains the nature of bread, which by this very fact and without any change in itself ceases to be substance, because it is not now in itself, but in another sustaining; and, indeed, the nature of bread remains, but in it the formal reason for substance ceases; and so there are not two substances, but one only, that, of course, of the body of Christ.

4. Therefore, in the Eucharist the matter and form of the elements of bread remain; but now, existing supernaturally in another, they do not have the nature of substance, but they have the nature of supernatural accident, not as if in the manner of natural accidents they affected the body of Christ, but on this account, insofar as they are sustained by the body of Christ in the manner in which it has been said."

Click to expand...

In the Last Supper, Jesus clearly said that consecrated bread and wine are His body, which was to be betrayed because of us.

FlaviusAetius said:

Hello, I am having trouble putting my faith in Transubstaniation. The main reason is well explained as a protestant criticism that I'll quote now.



I find myself agreeing with this, Jesus constantly used non-literal expressions so what makes his comments at the Last Supper deserving of being interpreted literally?

Click to expand...

Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

very interesting.
See, I come from a protestant background, but i have no trouble at all with transubstantiation--the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Our Lord.
To me it's a perfectly logical conclusion that if Jesus could change water into wine ,be present in rooms without entering through a door, multiply the bread and fish, or walk on water, or pass through a crowd untouched, it would not be a problem at all to change the bread and wine. simple.

those are all physical actions (which is the key here) and so is changing one thing into another.

if we can accept the witness of the Gospels that all these other things happened, why get stuck on transubstantiation?

saying that we are the light of the world doesn't mean that we become light bulbs, or that we are changed into salt if Jesus calls us the salt of the Earth.
Jesus saying "I am the Bread of Life" doesn't refer to Jesus as a loaf of bread. His saying "I am the door" doesn't turn Him into a door. There is a difference between the "I am" sayings of Jesus which describe His holy qualities and abilities, and changing one physical substance into another.

and one more thing....if we can believe that Jesus can change one physical substance into another (or multiply it) then it also makes believing that our earthly bodies will also be transformed into eternal ones much easier. It all ties in together.

If He can change His own body, then He can also change ours.

FlaviusAetius said:

Hello, I am having trouble putting my faith in Transubstaniation. The main reason is well explained as a protestant criticism that I'll quote now.



I find myself agreeing with this, Jesus constantly used non-literal expressions so what makes his comments at the Last Supper deserving of being interpreted literally?

Click to expand...

I think I would say, because of the meaning of Passover to the Jews. It was/is not just a memorial.

If we study what Passover means, even today, to Jewish people, and then see what parallels there are in the Last Supper, then I think it is easier to see the meaning.

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/871715/jewish/What-Is-Passover.htm

'Relive and experience'. Works for me.

FlaviusAetius said:

There was a time when I did, Adoration in front of the Eucharist would bring tears and great emotion inside me when I was a early teen from 14-16. Now I would not go as far as to tell someone that Transubstantiation is false, but I do feel great doubt about bread and wine that makes no physical change becoming real flesh and blood of God.

Click to expand...

What exactly is your reasoning for doubting it?

It seems like there are two main points. 1) Since there is no physical change, there is no reason to believe that it has changed, and 2) the passage could be interpreted figuratively. Are there other considerations as well?

I would recommend reading John 6 in its entirety. There are a few points that come readily to mind. The vine and the branches is one thing, but eating flesh and blood is another. Why are they different? Because there is nothing scandalous about the image of a vine and branches. Yet it is enormously central to the Jewish mind that blood cannot be eaten (cf. Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 3:17, Leviticus 19:26, Deuteronomy 12:16, Deuteronomy 15:23, etc.). Clearly Jesus is not using tame imagery here. The reason that blood--even of animals--cannot be eaten is because it is the seat of life and therefore belongs to God. There is something divine about the blood--even the blood of animals.

But with Christ we see a great reversal. When the Son of God touches the dead, he does not become unclean. Instead, the dead are raised to life. When the woman with a hemorrhage touches Christ, Jewish law says that he would be made unclean. Yet she is made clean, she is healed. By eating blood, we would be stealing what belongs to God against his command. But what if the God-man gives us his blood, his source of life, offering it up for us and indicating that we ought to eat of the sacrifice (as was customary)? When God himself gives us this most divine blood, we are made whole, we are made divine (2 Peter 1:4). We receive the divine life as gift, not grasping at it (Philippians 2:6).

It is also worthwhile to ask why Jesus allowed disciples to leave on the basis of a merely figurative teaching (John 6:66)? Note that this is only after they complain about his teaching multiple times, and each time Jesus only intensifies his language and causes them even more indignation. The whole episode would be incredibly strange on a figurative reading.

Other obvious considerations might include looking at the Church Fathers and the verb "trogos" used in the Greek to indicate eating. Some sources from Catholic Answers:

• The Real Presence
• Christ in the Eucharist
• The Institution of the Mass

When Protestants reject this teaching, they bypass one of the most sublime gifts that God has ever given us. It is mind-boggling to even think about what Jesus did for us and how we partake in his death and resurrection today. God is alive and well, challenging you and giving himself to you each day in the most intimate way. Yet the terms for access are the same as ever: you must have faith. The Catholic who truly understands the Eucharist must also understand God's generosity and beneficence in a way that is scandalous to other Christians and people of other religions.

God bless,
Zippy