The dumbest questions ever asked about transsubstantiation

Factual Questions
1

First, the back story: While I was on Medicine at the VA last month, we had a patient who was NPO (that is, who could have nothing by mouth). We happened to see in his chart a note from the Chaplain, who said that he was set to receive communion the next day. We gave him a call and said, “We don’t want to seem like a bunch of heathens or anything, but NPO means NPO.”

If I understand correctly, a major sticking point between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants see communion as a symbolic re-creation of the Last Supper, while Catholics believe that the wine and wafer actually contain the blood and body of Christ.

When in the process does this occur? When does the wafer go from being a flat, tasteless little cracker to being a part of JC himself? Is it when it is blessed? In the hand of the priest? In the mouth? In the sigmoid colon?

Also, how much of the blood and body does it contain? Is the whole gulp of wine supposed to become blood (as I might infer from the words, “This is my blood”)? Or is it just a trace amount?

Finally, isn’t this one aspect of the faith that is, well, falsifiable? Seems to me that it wouldn’t be hard at all to figure out whether that wine has any blood in it, with some rudimentary lab equipment.

I don’t mean any disrespect to the Catholic faith; on the contrary, this seems like good information for a doctor to understand if he intends to respect the religious views of his patients. If my understanding of transsubstantiation is mistaken (as it may be, being a recovering Southern Baptist and all), I would welcome its clarification.

Thanks!
Dr. J

2

The eucharist is the glorified manifestation of Jesus Christ that takes the form of bread and wine. Catholics believe that these forms literally contain the real, true and substantial presence of Our Lord, and that the transsubstantiation takes place when the priest consecrates the bread and wine during mass. In case you’re interested, we are also taught that once the eucharist is no longer in this form, no longer is it Christ’s body and blood.

This literal presence does not mean anyone is under the impression that you’ll taste something other than bread or wine or that if you desecrated the bread and wine via a lab test that you’d discover the proof of flesh and blood. That’s what we mean by Christ’s body and blood “taking the form” of bread and wine.

Hope this helps.

3

I’m sure I’m mangling the theory, but this goes back to some ancient Greek ideas about matter. Supposedly there were two aspects to matter (I forget the names), the way it appeared physically, and it’s true essence. During the eucharist the true essence of the wafer and wine turn the the body and blood of Christ, but the outward appearence remains the same (i.e. wafer and wine). Thus, no physical test could tell that a transformation took place. All this rested on the Greek physics principles, and was worked out sometime in the middle ages.

I’m sure the religous scholars on the boards will clarify and correct this vague recollection :slight_smile:

Arjuna34