Explaining Transubstantiation

If bread and wine at mass becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus, why don't we see any physical change? Trent Horn explains what the Church teaches about Transubstantiation to a Protestant caller on Catholic Answers Live.

After his conversion to the Catholic Faith, Trent Horn earned a bachelor's degree in history from Arizona State University and a master's degree in theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is currently pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy from Holy Apostles College.

Trent is a regular guest on Catholic Answers Live, a lecturer who speaks across the country on issues related to the Catholic Faith, and the author of two books, Answering Atheism and Persuasive Pro-life, both of which are published by Catholic Answers Press.

If you are interested in booking Trent Horn for an upcoming event, please contact Catholic Answers at 619-387-7200.

[MichaelGlowacki]

The caller has studied physics but not chemistry. He claims incorrectly that bread and wine don't contain carbon while flesh and blood does have carbon as his explicit objection. All matter that was once alive or produced from such material (including wheat, bread, grapes and wine) contains carbon atoms.

I appreciate Trent's explanation. This call highlights the poor catechetical teaching in many Catholic schools and religious education programs. Children learn what to believe and virtually nothing about why we believe. The reasons for the dogmas and doctrines are not obvious from the Scriptures or preparation for first sacraments. They can easily learn the reasons too.

[mariahernandez-nnpz]

it's the essence of christ body and blood. easy it simple stupid! I really love you guys! And I get a kick out of every time a caller tries to flip the script on you guys, you say " oh okay hear we go". I love it! keep up the good works guys, and I'll be praying for you all. peace be with you.

[SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

All organic matters contain carbon. How can the caller claim to be studying physics and science and state that bread and wine does not contain carbon?

[towerzfell]

My non-catholic aunt asked me why Catholics will not allow non-Catholics
to receive the Blessed Host. I am not sure if I explained it correctly
but my belief is that if you do not believe in the transubstantiation of
the Blessed Host AND you have not confessed your sins prior to
receiving the Host, then you are UNWORTHY of the BODY of CHRIST. The
cleansing of mortal sins and the belief in the transformation of the
Host are ABSOLUTELY necessary to receive the body of the Lord.

[DeuteriumH]

I had to do a "face-palm" upon the caller's statement that bread and wine do not contain carbon. I had to do a double face-palm when Pat and Trent missed the opportunity to correct this outrageous and ill-informed claim. The caller is incorrect. Bread and wine most certainly contain carbon. A LOT of carbon. What does the caller think carbohydrates (sugars) in wine and bread are constructed from. CARBON. Also, the molecular formula for ethanol (alcohol) is C2H6O. Boom, two carbon atoms in every molecule of ethanol in wine. That's not even including the latent CARBON dioxide that is in the wine. The myriad of phenols present in both bread and wine are also carbon-based molecules.

[johnrgraham]

I suppose I would also say (not being an expert in Aramaic or Greek) that stating "I am the door" is not the same as pointing at a door and stating "This door is me." Same with "I am the way, " vine, " etc. Similarly, when Jesus says "I am the bread of life" that is the same sentence structure and figurative. When he takes bread and states "This is my body..." it is a different sentence structure: "I" is not the subject. The species (bread) is the subject. So, that would support it being understood literally.

[jeremyjames]

In every instance in the gospel of John, Jesus had to correct people who were taking him literal. First you had Nicodemus who thought you literally had to be born again. Then the was the Samaritan woman at the well who thought Jesus was offering water so she would literally never be thirsty again. Then there's John 6 where Jesus says to eat his body etc. Jesus explained to his disciples who scripture says were offended, because they thought he meant literal cannibalism. In John 6:63 Jesus says "the flesh profiteth nothing, THE WORDS I say unto you, they are spirit, and they are life". Remember in John 1 it tells us Jesus was the Word made flesh? Do you honestly think Jesus meant this literally after knowing this? It's the Word of God that "makes one wise unto salvation" you cannot be saved, except through scripture. Faith is believing the account that God gave of his Son, believing that Jesus died on the cross for the remission of sins, and that all who believe on Jesus Christ will recieve the remission of sins. How does one know this without scripture? Of coarse Jesus didn't mean for anyone to literally eat his flesh, if so then why didn't he offer a leg, or arm at the last supper? Why didn't he pass around a cup of his blood? Roman Catholicism emphasizes John 51-57. If that's all you read, then yes it doesn't sound like cannibalism, but that called taking scripture out of context. At least read up to verse 63, and gives Jesus time to explain himself. It would be better to read the whole gospel, especially John 1 where it sets the tone for the whole gospel by saying clearly that Jesus was the Word made flesh.

[rlburton]

WE are eternal beings with imperishable souls, but scientifically if you analyzed every last cell, you would only ever find temporal meat, bone, and blood.

[brendanobrien]

Great job guys. And you've been mentioning the new digs on air frequently...they look great.

I've no idea whether Patrick or Trent will read this, but twice in recent weeks I've had the "The Bible has had so many re-writes" argument to question its validity. I've not been aware of this as an argument much in the past. Is this the newest of the arguments of those that wish to create doubt in Christianity?

And if you do read this Trent, when approximately is your book about faith in Biblical accuracy due to be released please?

[kimterry]

When Jesus spoke of us eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He was referring to those of us who believe upon Him and His Atoning death on the Cross. Through Faith in Jesus Christ and His Work on the Cross, we eat His flesh and Drink His blood Spiritually.  "Who His Own Self bear our sins in His Own Body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto Righteousness: by Whose strips we are healed." 1 Peter 2: 24  The idea of "transubstantiation" used to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was not  expressed until Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours termed it in the 11th century. By the end of the 12th century the term was in widespread use.The Fourth Council of the Lateran, which convened beginning November 11, 1215, spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ. This transubstantiation false doctrine and many other made up teachings are exactly what inspired the Reformers (who were Priest!) to stand up to the Roman Catholic Church and said, "Hey, wait a minute....we are no longer teaching Christianity

[jeremyjames]

Hebrews 9:28!tells us Jesus was offered ONCE, not millions of times a week. You act as though his finished works wasn't enough to save, so you have to offer him up millions of times. Scripture clearly tells us the next time we see Jesus will be when he returns with the saints....Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

[djembe]

The way it's been explained to me is that spiritually it becomes the bread and blood not physically it transforming whether that is visible in matter or not. These seems to disagree with that teaching

[MsJohnnythunder]

Ok. I studied this subject a bit now. This seems like a beautiful example of a selective reading & interpretation of the text. I too, at first, thought it confirmed the sacrament of communion as conceived by the Catholic Church. Until I read it several times, without the interpretation bias.

[wilfojac]

so I've never understood transubstantiation and never had anyone explain it to me but now that i have i understand that it is just a hilariously ridiculous concept.