FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

I ask because if it becomes flesh and blood, it wouldn't be alcohol and gluten anymore. I've never understood this - how alcoholics may decline the wine or celiacs decline the bread. It shouldn't hurt either individual if it's no longer alcohol and gluten.

---

I asked this on another thread months ago and it never got answered. How do you know when to read literally vs metaphorically in John's writings?

I am...the bread (eat my flesh and drink my blood)
I am...the door (is Jesus literally a door to get into heaven or something?)
I am....the light of the world
I am...the good shepherd (are we one day all going to be sheep?)
I am....the true vine (again, is Jesus going to morph into a plant?)

---

To start, it really helps to have a church with divinely instituted teaching authority, protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

I am going to try to answer the flesh and blood question and the metaphor question.

As for the flesh and blood relative to alcohol and gluten question, the question belies a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's teaching on the Real Presence. The Church teaches that the bread and wine retain the appearance (in philosophical terms, accidents) of bread and wine, but are really and truly changed in substance so that what appears to be bread and wine is substantially the body and blood of Jesus. This is commonly called Transubstantiation, which comes from Aquinas's attempt to articulate what happens at the moment of consecration by a priest. Bottom line - what appears to be bread and wine is substantially (in the philosophical sense of substance) Jesus's body, blood, soul and divinity.

Now, for the metaphor question.

At its core, the implicit objection runs like this: if Catholics interpret Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood literally in John 6, then they would have to take him literally in other passages when he says he is a door (John 10:9) and a vine (John 15:5). The argument assumes that because Jesus uses undeniable metaphors elsewhere in John's Gospel, He must be using one in John 6 as well. Does that hold up? Not surprisingly, I don't think so. Here are several reasons why this comparison breaks down.

1. The response of the disciples in John 6 is the single best example for distinguishing metaphor from literal speech. The first reason why this objection fails is that the people in the audience in the door and vine passages do not interpret Jesus literally as they do in John 6. No one listening to the door and vine teachings said, "How can this man be a door made out of wood?" or "How can this man claim to be a plant?" Jesus' audience recognized he was speaking metaphorically. Accordingly, there was no need for Jesus to address their response.

In John 6, the reaction is completely different. After hearing Jesus' teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, they say things like, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (v. 52) and "This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?" (v. 60). Both the Jews (v. 52) and Jesus' disciples (v. 60) understood Jesus to be speaking literally. It freaked them out. The crowd was "not confused" or freaked out about the door and the vine. They "were" confused and scandalized by John 6. I think this clear distinction is more than sufficient to respond to the question.

But, just to pile on a bit, when Jesus spoke in metaphor and His disciples misunderstood, He always corrected them. In John 4:32, Jesus says: "I have food to eat of which you do not know." The disciples thought Jesus was speaking about physical food. Our Lord quickly clears up the point using concise, unmistakable language in verse 34: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work." But in John 6? Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord's listeners understood him perfectly well. Having heard him speak metaphorically earlier, they no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. Jesus further affirms his disciples' literal thoughts by letting them walk away in verse 66, and then turns to the apostles and says, "Do you also wish to go away?" (v. 60). If Jesus meant his teaching to be taken metaphorically like in the door and vine passages, then he sure wasn't very good at communicating it.

Further, "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door in that we go to heaven through him, and he is also like a vine in that we get our spiritual sap through him.

But "eating flesh and drinking blood" carried a very specific meaning in the Jewish cultural and scriptural world, and it was not a positive one. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus' Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, "Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you." To do so would have been to encourage sin, which Jesus never would or could do. So if "eating flesh and drinking blood" is a metaphor, it would be a "harmful" metaphor that makes no sense in context. The only interpretation that gives the passage coherence is the literal one.

My personal favorite reason why John 6 is not metaphorical is "Trogo", which is the Greek word used for "eats" (*trogon*). This is a very blunt term that has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

What about the contrast between flesh and spirit that points to faithless life as being of no avail, and not Christ's flesh itself? I know some will argue that John 6:63 "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail" proves Jesus was speaking metaphorically. But this misreads the verse. In fact, He's contrasting a purely earthly understanding (flesh alone) with the spiritual life He offers. In other words, without the Spirit's help, they can't understand this teaching. In fact, the Greek word for "flesh" here, "sarx", often refers to our fallen, sinful nature. So Jesus isn't saying His flesh is useless but rather that our merely human efforts (without faith) are insufficient.

Finally, there's 1,500 years of practically unanimous agreement and 2,000 years of continuous treatment of John 6 as literal as evidenced by the Catholic and Orthodox churches unbroken teaching of Jesus body and blood being truly present in the Sacrament when consecrated by a duly ordained priest. If the earliest Christians, who were closest to the Apostles and knew the context better than anyone, took Jesus literally, that's strong evidence we should too. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus all wrote explicitly of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist well before any controversy on the subject arose.

Bottom Line - the door and the vine are recognized metaphors because *no one was confused, no one walked away, and Jesus explained their meaning clearly. John 6 is the exact opposite: the crowd was scandalized, disciples abandoned Him, and Jesus "doubled down" rather than clarifying. It seems "symbolic" or "literal" sets up two false options. It's not "literal" in the sense of eating Christ's earthly flesh, nor is it "symbolic" in the sense that most people use the terms these days, where "symbolic" means merely metaphorical. This is where the term "sacramental" comes in handy this is why it's called the Real Presence and not the literal presence. Christ is really present but under the sacramental species.

This is the genius of the Eucharist: it is "truly" His Body and Blood, "truly" received but under the appearances of bread and wine, through the power of the Holy Spirit, in the unbloody manner He always intended.

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

I ask because if it becomes flesh and blood, it wouldn't be alcohol and gluten anymore. I've never understood this - how alcoholics may decline the wine or celiacs decline the bread. It shouldn't hurt either individual if it's no longer alcohol and gluten.

---

If you're willing to go through some Aristotelian metaphysical terms, it's really very simple.

In several miracles the bread and wine literally turn into muscle tissue and blood. There is a whole host of videos on youtube I would recommend. It's incredible and proves that the Eucharist really does change in what it IS ("substance"). But, as a mercy for us, Jesus leaves the appearance and taste of bread and wine (the "accidents") 99.9999999999% of the time for us to consume as a grace for us.

---

I want to make sure I'm understanding…are you saying 99.999999(however many you put)% of the time it really is still bread and wine? And only .000000(however many)1% it actually becomes real flesh and blood?

So people avoid incase it's not one of those rare instances?

Or are you saying it IS flesh and blood but just looks and tastes like bread and wine?

---

The bolded. The metaphysical term for what something looks and taste like, etc are called the "accidents". What it IS is called the "substance". The accidents stay the same, but the substance changes into Jesus. Hence, transubstantiation. Who you ARE (a unique human person named what you are) is witnessed by you and the rest of the world by your accidents (what you look like). People can change our accidents, but we can't change our substance.

We see Justin Martyr and Irenaeus defending the real presence in the bread and wine in the 2nd century. We first have the "why does it still taste like bread and wine" explained by Ambrose of Milan a little later. It goes back to the beginning of Christianity.

---

So then my original question still stands - maybe it tastes/looks like bread and wine, but if it's flesh and blood, it would not hurt an alcoholic or celiac; so I see no reason why either should be avoided.

---

I responded to this question earlier, but I will try again.

Your question still contains inaccurate assumptions about what the Church teaches.

The teaching of the Catholic Church about what happens to the bread and wine upon consecration is nuanced, but consistent. It is the Real Presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, under the signs of bread and wine.

Transubstantiation (*transubstantiatio*) means that the substance of bread and wine is entirely converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while the accidents (the sensible properties such as taste, appearance, texture, smell) remain unchanged. This is not a metaphor. It is not merely spiritual presence. Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist. The Church teaches this with absolute clarity in the Catechism and at the Council of Trent.

In the context of transubstantiation, "substance" means the inner reality or essential nature of a thing; i.e., what makes it fundamentally what it is, independent of how it appears to the senses.

Philosophically speaking, "substance" (ousia in Greek, substantia in Latin) is the underlying reality that gives a thing its identity. It is not the same as appearance, texture, taste, smell, or any other property we can perceive. Those sensible qualities are called "accidents" they can change without changing what the thing fundamentally is.

Think of it this way: a thing has substance (what it is) and accidents (how it appears). You can paint a wooden chair red, add cushions, polish it, but it remains a chair in substance. You could carve the same wood into a table instead, now the substance has changed (from chair to table), even though the wood is the same material.

It is Jesus Himself who establishes this teaching with unmistakable language:

• "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" (John 6:51)
• "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day" (John 6:54)
• "This is my body" and "This is my blood" (Matthew 26:26, 28; Mark 14:22, 24; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25)

St. Paul warns the Corinthians with grave severity: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:27). Paul would never speak of profaning bread and wine he speaks this way because Christ Himself is truly present.

It might help to think of a wedding ring. The metal is the substance; its appearance and weight are the accidents. If a jeweler melted down the ring and reforged it into a cross, the substance changed (from ring to cross), but the accidents might look similar at first glance. Now reverse it: in transubstantiation, the accidents remain exactly as they were (bread looks, tastes, and feels like bread), but the substance has changed completely from bread to Christ's Body.

This is not magic. Magic would mean the substance stays the same but the accidents change. Transubstantiation means the invisible reality has changed while the visible signs remain, which is exactly what Christ promised.

The Council of Trent (1551) defined transubstantiation against the Protestant denial of the Real Presence. The Church was not inventing doctrine; it was defending what the apostles had always believed. Consider:

• The early Church Fathers spoke of the Eucharist as Christ's Body and Blood, not as a symbol pointing to it. St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) called the Eucharist "the medicine of immortality."
• St. Justin Martyr (c. 155 AD) explained that the Eucharistic bread and wine are "the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus."
• St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) wrote that our bodies are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ and become one with Him.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1376) states: "The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the 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.'"

The Catechism further teaches (1413): "It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament."

Going deeper, transubstantiation rests on a crucial metaphysical principle: a thing is what it is by its substance, not by how it appears. A king dressed as a beggar is still a king. A beggar dressed as a king is still a beggar. What matters is the substance of the thing.

When Christ says "This is my body," He is not saying "This represents my body" or "This symbolizes my body" He says "is". The verb is in Christ's mouth cannot mean anything less than absolute identity. To spiritualize it away is to make Christ a liar or a fool, and neither is permissible.

Furthermore, the doctrine of the Incarnation itself teaches us that Christ's substance can be truly present under forms that veil His divinity. At the Transfiguration, His divine glory shone through human flesh. In the Eucharist, His Body and Blood are present under the forms of bread and wine. Both testify to His power over matter and His desire to dwell with us.

The Church also teaches (CCC 1413) that transubstantiation happens through the words of consecration spoken by the priest in the person of Christ. The priest does not make the conversion happen by his own power. It happens because Christ makes it happen. The priest is an instrument. This is why the validity of the sacrament rests entirely on the form of the words, the matter (bread and wine), and the intention of the minister and the Church.

Transubstantiation is not a medieval invention or a philosophical trick. It is the only interpretation of Christ's words that takes Him at His word. When Jesus says "This is my body," He means it with absolute reality. The Church's teaching protects the Incarnational principle: Christ's body and blood can be truly present to us because Christ conquered matter itself and made it subject to His will.

Every time a Catholic receives the Eucharist, they are receiving the crucified and risen Christ in His entirety: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, whole and undivided. This is not a symbol of grace. This is grace in its most concentrated, most intimate form.

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

I ask because if it becomes flesh and blood, it wouldn't be alcohol and gluten anymore. I've never understood this - how alcoholics may decline the wine or celiacs decline the bread. It shouldn't hurt either individual if it's no longer alcohol and gluten.

---

If you're willing to go through some Aristotelian metaphysical terms, it's really very simple.

In several miracles the bread and wine literally turn into muscle tissue and blood. There is a whole host of videos on youtube I would recommend. It's incredible and proves that the Eucharist really does change in what it IS ("substance"). But, as a mercy for us, Jesus leaves the appearance and taste of bread and wine (the "accidents") 99.9999999999% of the time for us to consume as a grace for us.

---

I want to make sure I'm understanding…are you saying 99.999999(however many you put)% of the time it really is still bread and wine? And only .000000(however many)1% it actually becomes real flesh and blood?

So people avoid incase it's not one of those rare instances?

Or are you saying it IS flesh and blood but just looks and tastes like bread and wine?

---

The bolded. The metaphysical term for what something looks and taste like, etc are called the "accidents". What it IS is called the "substance". The accidents stay the same, but the substance changes into Jesus. Hence, transubstantiation. Who you ARE (a unique human person named what you are) is witnessed by you and the rest of the world by your accidents (what you look like). People can change our accidents, but we can't change our substance.

We see Justin Martyr and Irenaeus defending the real presence in the bread and wine in the 2nd century. We first have the "why does it still taste like bread and wine" explained by Ambrose of Milan a little later. It goes back to the beginning of Christianity.

---

So then my original question still stands - maybe it tastes/looks like bread and wine, but if it's flesh and blood, it would not hurt an alcoholic or celiac; so I see no reason why either should be avoided.

---

I responded to this question earlier, but I will try again.

Your question still contains inaccurate assumptions about what the Church teaches.

The teaching of the Catholic Church about what happens to the bread and wine upon consecration is nuanced, but consistent. It is the Real Presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, under the signs of bread and wine.

Transubstantiation (*transubstantiatio*) means that the substance of bread and wine is entirely converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while the accidents (the sensible properties such as taste, appearance, texture, smell) remain unchanged. This is not a metaphor. It is not merely spiritual presence. Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist. The Church teaches this with absolute clarity in the Catechism and at the Council of Trent.

In the context of transubstantiation, "substance" means the inner reality or essential nature of a thing; i.e., what makes it fundamentally what it is, independent of how it appears to the senses.

Philosophically speaking, "substance" (ousia in Greek, substantia in Latin) is the underlying reality that gives a thing its identity. It is not the same as appearance, texture, taste, smell, or any other property we can perceive. Those sensible qualities are called "accidents" they can change without changing what the thing fundamentally is.

Think of it this way: a thing has substance (what it is) and accidents (how it appears). You can paint a wooden chair red, add cushions, polish it, but it remains a chair in substance. You could carve the same wood into a table instead, now the substance has changed (from chair to table), even though the wood is the same material.

It is Jesus Himself who establishes this teaching with unmistakable language:

• "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" (John 6:51)
• "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day" (John 6:54)
• "This is my body" and "This is my blood" (Matthew 26:26, 28; Mark 14:22, 24; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25)

St. Paul warns the Corinthians with grave severity: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:27). Paul would never speak of profaning bread and wine he speaks this way because Christ Himself is truly present.

It might help to think of a wedding ring. The metal is the substance; its appearance and weight are the accidents. If a jeweler melted down the ring and reforged it into a cross, the substance changed (from ring to cross), but the accidents might look similar at first glance. Now reverse it: in transubstantiation, the accidents remain exactly as they were (bread looks, tastes, and feels like bread), but the substance has changed completely from bread to Christ's Body.

This is not magic. Magic would mean the substance stays the same but the accidents change. Transubstantiation means the invisible reality has changed while the visible signs remain, which is exactly what Christ promised.

The Council of Trent (1551) defined transubstantiation against the Protestant denial of the Real Presence. The Church was not inventing doctrine; it was defending what the apostles had always believed. Consider:

• The early Church Fathers spoke of the Eucharist as Christ's Body and Blood, not as a symbol pointing to it. St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) called the Eucharist "the medicine of immortality."
• St. Justin Martyr (c. 155 AD) explained that the Eucharistic bread and wine are "the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus."
• St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) wrote that our bodies are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ and become one with Him.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1376) states: "The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the 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.'"

The Catechism further teaches (1413): "It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament."

Going deeper, transubstantiation rests on a crucial metaphysical principle: a thing is what it is by its substance, not by how it appears. A king dressed as a beggar is still a king. A beggar dressed as a king is still a beggar. What matters is the substance of the thing.

When Christ says "This is my body," He is not saying "This represents my body" or "This symbolizes my body" He says "is". The verb is in Christ's mouth cannot mean anything less than absolute identity. To spiritualize it away is to make Christ a liar or a fool, and neither is permissible.

Furthermore, the doctrine of the Incarnation itself teaches us that Christ's substance can be truly present under forms that veil His divinity. At the Transfiguration, His divine glory shone through human flesh. In the Eucharist, His Body and Blood are present under the forms of bread and wine. Both testify to His power over matter and His desire to dwell with us.

The Church also teaches (CCC 1413) that transubstantiation happens through the words of consecration spoken by the priest in the person of Christ. The priest does not make the conversion happen by his own power. It happens because Christ makes it happen. The priest is an instrument. This is why the validity of the sacrament rests entirely on the form of the words, the matter (bread and wine), and the intention of the minister and the Church.

Transubstantiation is not a medieval invention or a philosophical trick. It is the only interpretation of Christ's words that takes Him at His word. When Jesus says "This is my body," He means it with absolute reality. The Church's teaching protects the Incarnational principle: Christ's body and blood can be truly present to us because Christ conquered matter itself and made it subject to His will.

Every time a Catholic receives the Eucharist, they are receiving the crucified and risen Christ in His entirety: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, whole and undivided. This is not a symbol of grace. This is grace in its most concentrated, most intimate form.

---

So is it kind of like Jesus Himself - truly man and truly God…truly bread and truly flesh & blood? I get the characteristics of taste, smell, etc. stay the same; so you're saying gluten and alcohol characteristics do as well?

I'm also still wondering why the same effect couldn't happen to Protestant bread and wine. Why couldn't God transform our elements in the same way? We take our communion reverently with pray and proper heart as well. Why couldn't the Lord change and bless the elements for His children in the Protestant church?

---

I am going to take a shot here that might not succeed, but here goes.

Because Jesus clearly tells us in John 6 that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have His life in us, he also had to provide a means for us to do that. Remember, the discourse of John 6 takes place about one year before the Last Supper, during the second year of Jesus's ministry, around the time of Passover. The Last Supper takes place about a year after John 6 during the Passover at which Christ was crucified.

This means Jesus taught about eating his flesh and drinking his blood a full year before he instituted the Eucharist. So it wasn't a last minute thing or an afterthought. It was a deliberate, sustained teaching that prepared the disciples for what was to come. They had a year to come to grips with the shocking nature of the teaching that at first glance might seem to be cannibalistic. Jesus gave them a year to change their minds. The same 12 that were there for the shocking teaching moment were also there when he revealed to them what he actually meant and HOW he would make it possible through them, the firsts priests. Just as Jesus taught about baptism and repentance before instituting baptism in Matthew 3, and forgiveness before delegating the divine authority to forgive sins in John 20, Jesus taught about the Eucharist in John 6 before instituting it at the Last Supper. The doctrine preceded the institution of the sacrament in each of these cases.

All that said, the institution of the Eucharist was at the Last Supper and the divine command to do it was clearly directed to those present: the Apostles, who also became the first of the ministerial priests empowered to do what Jesus did in changing bread and wine to his body and blood.

So we have 2000 years of practice whereby only a properly ordained ministerial priests can consecrate or change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, all based on what happened at the Last Supper and what preceded that in John 6. Prior to the Reformation, no one remotely suggested that anyone other than an ordained priest could perform the consecration of the bread and wine and convert it into the Real Presence in the sacrament. That was limited to the Reformers and their progeny. The Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches continue to teach that only a properly ordained priest has the power to do it. Period. That's why what happens in your church and frankly every other church that is not an apostolic church possessed of holy orders is merely a symbol and not the Real Presence.

Jesus told us what was necessary (eating his flesh and drinking his blood) and then he provided the means to make it possible for us to do what is necessary. He did the same thing with the Sacrament of Baptism (John 3), and he did the same thing with the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession) (Matthew 16 and 18 and John 20).

Interestingly, while the ordinary person for performing baptism in the Catholic Church is a Deacon or Priest, that is not necessarily the only way to effect a valid baptism. In an emergency, an atheist could baptize someone who was dying as long as the person receiving baptism intends to be baptized and the atheist uses the proper form - "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit" while pouring water over them or submerging them in water. That baptism would be considered valid. Also, the Sacrament of Marriage is normally performed by a Deacon or Priest in the Catholic Church and in some very limited circumstances with the permission of the local Bishop, a lay person can do it. On the other hand, only a properly ordained priest has the power to pronounce absolution for the forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (John 20) and the power to confect the Eucharist, both powers coming from Jesus himself.

---

Frok said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

scripture being central and explained rightly.

---

where's that in the Bible?

---

I think 2 Timothy 4:2 is a good example. Preach the Word, reprove, rebuke, and exhort.

---

Quote:

---

Does this not point to scripture being paramount?

---

Zobel said:

---

Frok said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

scripture being central and explained rightly.

---

where's that in the Bible?

---

I think 2 Timothy 4:2 is a good example. Preach the Word, reprove, rebuke, and exhort.

---

This has nothing to do with the order of worship on Sunday?

---

Quote:

---

Scripture does not mandate a service order or schedule. It's not about a pastor picking verses, it's about scripture being central and explained rightly.

---

Zobel said:

---

Not trying to be pedantic but I snipped it -

Quote:

---

Scripture does not mandate a service order or schedule. It's not about a pastor picking verses, it's about scripture being central and explained rightly.

---

This seems to suggest that the service is about this. I don't understand how the verse you quoted has anything to do with what Sunday worship is about.

---

Zobel said:

---

First apology.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

---