The language that is used to describe the Mass as a sacrifice is confusing to me, i. e. calling it "Sacrificial Mass." I understand that Catholics say that Jesus continually offers himself as a sacrifice before God for our sins. From Is the Mass a Sacrifice? : > He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us...So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake What is happening during this offering? Why is is called "Sacrificial Mass" if no sacrifice is taking place but just a reference to the cross?

For those that believe in transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally become the flesh and blood of Christ, why were there no schisms concerning this within the Early Church IF this is what they believed and taught? The Noahide Covenant and the Mosaic Law not only both expressly forbid the consumption of blood - with the penalty of being cut off from Israel - but it is one of the few commands deemed essential for Gentile converts to follow as well, despite not being under the Mosaic Law. It is thus not simply a matter of ceremonial cleanliness at stake; but an ex-communicable offense. The early church itself was composed of Jewish converts who carried with them their previous beliefs. This led to controversies like demanding that Gentiles get circumcised and to those who claimed within the church that there was no resurrection (like the Sadducees) as well as to controversies over what food they were permitted to eat amongst Gentiles. Such concerns are clearly reflective of Jewish religious life back when. Now, if the disciples and apostles had gone around preaching that the Eucharist literally was flesh and BLOOD - do you not think that this would have caused not a little controversy amongst the Jewish Christians? Would not Paul have to defend why he was not cut off from Israel - let alone how Gentiles are grafted onto Israel - if they routinely committed an excommunicatable offense? And even if fellow Christians could be convinced of the matter - it surely would have been a point of objection from those Jewish authorities that sought to persecute the Church; like Paul prior to his conversion. Yet the biblical testimony is absolutely silent on such a controversy. Nor, again, do the Church Fathers record such a controversy; even in their lengthy volumes recording actual or fictional conversations with Jews. The closest we get are apologies against those who assert that Christians were cannibals - a valid claim IF the Eucharist is literal flesh and blood.

If whenever communion occurs the bread and wine literally become Christ's body and blood then how is there enough of Christ's body to last for undoubtedly thousands of communion events every day for the past 2000 years? That would be millions of pounds of bread and wine over time. How is this explained in the transubstantiation belief system? I assume somebody has had to have wondered this before. Is it explained away by saying that the bread isn't *really* the body, but it *really* is? Does God just perform a miracle and allow Christ's body to become theoretically infinite in mass?

As I understand it, the doctrine of transubstantiation maintains that bread and wine *literally*\* become the body and blood of Christ... yet it is impossible to detect this. That is, they do not materially change, so we don't and can't notice, nor can we scientifically show any change. I'm curious: how do Catholics support this view? Especially considering Jesus' statements that the bread and wine were His body and blood could easily be taken as symbolic. --- *In the literal sense of "literally".

The reason I am raising this question is not so much to understand communion as to understand: * "one substance with the Father" (since that seems at odds with Hebrews 1:1-3 to me) * "consubstantiation" * "transubstantiation" My thought is by understanding this specific I might have a better idea of what they might mean. So if someone eats Jesus' body does "same substance", "consubstantiation" or "transubstantiation" suggest that Catholics are they eating the Father's substance? Again, these are probably ignorant questions but the answers might clarify for me what the Catholic theologians are on about.

According to Wikipedia: > When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body", what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration, the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body. **In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before.** and also > The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation So, how can the Eucharist change from bread to body if it is not measurably altered in any way? How is it different from saying that *it doesn't change at all*? Is it an allegory? If not, how does it change *in practical terms*?

I stumbled across the wikipedia article for a sedevacantist, schismatic Catholic group called the Palmarian Catholic Church which states that this group > has also declared the Real Presence of the Virgin Mary in the sacred host and the bodily assumption into heaven of St. Joseph to be dogmas of the Catholic faith I don't really know whether I should be shocked, outraged, amused or curious, but I'll go with curious. Would anyone happen to know the theological justification for the dogma of the Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist?

Catholics believe that the bread and wine in the communion change into the body and blood (and divinity) of the Lord Jesus Christ. They taught that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine despite of the fact that it appears bread and wine. Rather, both are now 100% body and blood (and the divinity) of Jesus Christ himself. This change is specifically defined by Catholicism as a *change of substance* ( i.e. "Transubstantiation"). So, what are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?

This answer to the question "Is it still prevalent among Roman Catholics to believe that Christ's physical body is present in the Eucharist?" indicates that, according to a 2019 Pew Research survey, as many as 2/3 of self-described Roman Catholics in the U.S. believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are merely symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. > majorities in every age group (including 61% of those age 60 and over) believe that the bread and wine are symbols, not the actual body and blood of Christ. In other words, only 1/3 of those in the U.S. who claimed Roman Catholicism in 2019 believed in transubstantiation (that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ). It is assumed in this question that the current numbers somewhat similar. > a new Pew Research Center survey finds that most self-described Catholics don’t believe this core teaching (bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ). In fact, nearly seven-in-ten Catholics (69%) say they personally believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.” Do self-professed Roman Catholics who disbelieve transubstantiation actually receive the Eucharist when they participate in communion? What I mean is, does the faith of the individual play any role in the proper reception of the Eucharist or is the actual body and blood of Christ consumed regardless of the individual's personal belief? Another way of asking this question (for clarity) is: When a Roman Catholic who disbelieves transubstantiation receives the Eucharist is it mere bread and wine that is consumed? Is there any benefit or detriment to receiving the Eucharist in disbelief?

Jesus sent disciples to prepare a place so He could eat the Passover with them. (Luke 22:8). He did eat with them at this meal (Mark 14:18). I could not find any indication that after having blessed and broken the bread and, declaring that is was his body and distributing it to the disciples, Jesus Himself ate some of it. Since this was a repurposing of the Passover, which Jesus expressed eagerness to eat with them, it seems at least possible that He did partake. There is some more direct indication, however, that He did partake of the wine: > Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. - Mark 14:25. My questions are for those who hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation: 1) Did Jesus partake of the elements of this first Lord's Supper and, if so, 2) Did He eat His own flesh and drink His own blood?

Do most Roman Catholics still believe that Christ's physical body is present in the Eucharist, or do most Roman Catholics believe that it is Christ's spiritual presence in the Eucharist? It is difficult to believe that, if one took the bread during communion and physically analyzed it, that physically it would be anything other than bread. It seems that spiritual presence would be sufficient for a sacrament.

According to the Catholic Church, do the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ when a Protestant church observes the Lord's Supper? What if the church uses grape juice that does not meet the Catholic requirements for mustum?

In 1 Corinthians 10:16, the Apostle Paul says that: > The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (ESV) Transubstantiation theology says that when the priest says the words of consecration, the substance, but not the accidents, of the bread and wine are changed to the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. However, Paul identifies the Eucharist as participation bread and wine **and** body and blood. How is this reconciled? To clarify what exactly my question is, I need to make clear that I am not saying Paul is contradicting REAL PRESENCE theology. That is, I don’t think this verse in Paul’s epistle demonstrates that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist. Instead, I am asking specifically about CATHOLIC real presence theology, which has transubstantiation built in. For a counter example, consider the general Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran views, which hold that bread and wine AND the body, blood, soul, and divinity are present in the communion meal.

**I've heard a million complex arguments about this for both sides - but here is my take on it.** There are only 3 possible things in this situation. 1. The bread truly becomes Jesus' body. 2. The bread does not become Jesus' body and its a 'figure of speech'. 3. The Holy Spirit made a mistake when writing the Bible. Lets be a bit odd and using the process of elimination going bottom to top. If you're a believing Christian and understand the properties of God, then simply the Holy Spirit can not make mistakes since it is God. God does not make mistakes so whatever is written in the Bible exactly how it is we must take as FACT. Many protestants like to argue that Jesus did not mean that the bread is his body. They like to believe it is symbolic rather then a meaning in actuality, just a mere representation. I asked a lot of them and they tend to say well my pastor said it or someone else said it - seems a lot of people just believe things they are told rather then going out and studying the actual Bible. It seems that people are forgetting that the Bible is literally God communicating with humans, smart, dumb, whoever you are it is for you to read and understand. It's not always a huge puzzle that requires an insane amount of mazes to navigate. One example of this is when Jesus says 'I am'. Jesus says I am so many times through out the Bible and not once is it 'symbolic' or 'he didn't actually mean that'. - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - "I am the resurrection and the life." - "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." - "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." - "I am the light of the world." Nobody has anything to say against these yet it clearly states "I am" NOT "I am like". - "I am the bread of life." - John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life." - John 6:48 - "I am the living bread that came down from heaven" - John 6:51 However when he says this all the protestants lose their mind. Hypocrisy! Also to absolutely put a cap once and forever on this topic; when Jesus did want to represent something or use symbolic language... he did! Just look whenever he wants to use a metaphor or a simile he does with rightful semantics! - "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, **as a hen** gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." - Matthew 23:37 Why didn't he say 'Jerusalem you are a hen', hmm maybe because it was symbolic. - "You **are like** whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead" - Matthew 23:27 Why didn't he say 'you are whitewashed tombs', hmm maybe because it was symbolic. This proves that when Jesus says 'I am' he means it. Otherwise you better start re interpreting every other verse rather then just one and live up to your logic. Protestants tend to think that because they are modern they have somehow found new intellect that hasn't been accessible for the past 1500 years by Church fathers before their creation. I can already think what some people will wrongfully reply under here and I'll try my best to keep track of this thread and decimate any argument that is put against this one with ease. P.S - I am not Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. I am Christian! As you all should be. TL;DR - Jesus said 'I am the bread' not 'I am like the bread' or 'The bread is like me'. Take his word for it not anyone elses.

Are there examples of transubstantiation that happens in other places/moments that are not in the celebration of Mass? I mean, somewhere in nature or in psychology, maybe philosophy. I am asking this because many theological concepts sometimes have analogues in nature or happen also in other non-religious places, so it would be a bit easier to understand it if there were counterparts. To clarify a bit, it's like the idea of "balance". This is a concept that can be found in many "realms", such as in nature (ecological balance), psychology (well-being), and philosophy (Aristotle's idea of virtue as balance of extremes). Is transubstantiation seen anywhere else beyond theology?

According to Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist, the objects that look like bread and wine are instead literally Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity. In which case, when a Catholic eats the object that looks like bread, but is really God, is it correct to say that the Catholic is eating God, within the context of Catholic beliefs regarding the eucharist? This seems a corollary of calling Mary the mother of God. When she conceived a little baby that appeared to be a normal human, but was in actual fact God, she was given the title "Mother of God". Similarly, when a Catholic eats an object that appears to be bread, but is really God, it seems like they are literally eating God, so would be called "eaters of God" in a similar fashion. UPDATE: This question is different than "On the Eucharist and Human Digestion? ". The digestion question is asking about the process, how does the body interact with the Eucharistic substance after it is eaten. My question is a syntactical question, not about the process, asking whether it is syntactically correct to say that Catholics literally eat God.

**My Question:** Does the real presence of the Eucharist persist even after digestion to the point of being taken out of the body by defecation? Yes this is a serious question. In case the answer is no, where does the real presence go then? Is it integrated into our bodies like vitamins? I realize that Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. I understand that there are spiritual advantages to taking the Eucharist, but what I would like to now understand is also how those advantages are communicated to us when we eat Christ. **The process.**

The Roman Catholic celebrates the Holy Eucharist in commemoration of the Last Supper in which during the celebration, Catholics believed that bread and wine are transformed into blood and body of Christ. Now. What is the stand of the Catholic Church for eating the blood and body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

According to those who hold that the bread and wine do not merely represent the body and blood of Christ, but actually are those things, why are those things eaten? Should they not be buried?

During a mass, there's the moment when the congregation express their connection to Jesus by consuming his (metaphorical) flesh and blood (in practice, wine and bread). Today, we discussed that sacrament and a question popped up. Since Jesus is both a human (sent by God) and a god (as a part of the holy trinity, son of God), whose flesh and blood is consumed? Is it the human Jesus' or the godly Jesus'? Or perhaps it's not known or impossible to make the distinction? Furthermore, if such a distinction can be defined, what does that imply? Does the congregation express the connection to the earthly Jesus who dies? Or the resurrected Jesus who's about to ascend? I learned form comments that it also will depend on the denomination, so I'm curious about the difference between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants.