Augustine on Rome has spoken

 About Augustine's thoughts on the pope:

Here is a good quote from Augustine showing clearly that he would have sided with the papacy against Luther and Calvin and the rest of the reformers.

“What has the Roman Chair done to thee, in which Peter sat and in which now Anastasius sits? … Why do you call the Apostolic Chair the chair of pestilence? If it is on account of men whom you consider to be declaring and not keeping the law— did Our Lord, on account of the Pharisees, of whom he said: ‘They say and do not’ do any injury to the chair in which they sat? Did he not commend that chair of Moses, and reprove them, saving the honour of their chair? For he says, Super cathedram, and so on (Matthew xxiii, 2). If you considered these things you would not, on account of the men you speak against, blaspheme the Apostolic Chair, with which you do not communicate. But what does it all mean save that they have nothing to say, and yet are unable to keep from ill-saying.”

(I found this in the Catholic Controversy by St Francis de Sales)

Also see here:

 http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num16.htm

Is reformed worship biblical

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/is-reformed-worship-biblical/

This article questions whether Calvin really follows the Bible in the way he sets up the worship service--or whether tradition is involved. This can be applied to many reformed churches

also from an article in The Journey Home newsletter Feb 3013:

The sacrifice of Calvary, perpetuated in the sacrifice of the Mass, really and truly is the supreme, distinctive worship of God. As we have the true spiritual worship and offer it only to God, we can accept and encourage the over-flowings of the pious heart towards the saints without any danger of idolatry.The holy sacrifice is never offered to a saint, not even to the mother of God; our churches and altars are all dedicated to God alone. Those that bear the name of some saint are, like all the others, dedicated to God, and simply placed under the patronage or intercession of the saint. The saints honored by offices in the church service are not the direct object of the worship. The sacrifice is offered to God in thanksgiving for them: the prayers are all addressed directly to God and only the saints’ intercession is invoked. [So, too], in the authorized litanies of the saints and of the Blessed Virgin, the saints are indeed invoked, but nothing is asked of them but their prayers for us; which is no more than we all ask daily of our pastors, of our friends, and of one another. And why may we not ask as much of a saint in heaven as of a sinful mortal on earth? Is the saint less living, or less dear to God? [Orestes Brownson
(1803-1876)]

about pelagianism and semi-pelagian views

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/is-the-catholic-church-semi-pelagian/

this article explains--and the comments are helpful too

also Father John Hardon http://www.readability.com/read?url=http%3A//www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm :

Two premises served as basis for Pelagius' theory. Arguing from the principle that “A person is free if he does what he wills and avoids what he wants to avoid," he said that heaven and the beatific vision are attainable by the use of our native powers alone, since nothing but free will isneeded to practice virtue and keep out of sin. From the axiom that "Adam neither injured nor deprived us of anything," Pelagius concluded that men require no special help to repair what Adam is supposed to have lost.

Historians of dogma distinguish four stages of development in the Pelagian system: 1) No grace is necessary for right living, but nature and free will are enough to keep the commandments and reach eternal life. 2) Nature itself and free will are grace, because they are free gifts of God. 3) Besides nature and freedom, external graces may be admitted, in the form of preaching, miracles, revelation, and the example of Jesus Christ. 4) If, for the sake of argument, real supernatural grace were needed, it would be only as light for the mind and never internal grace in the will. "You destroy the will," it was argued, "if you say it needs any help."

Pelagianism was therefore in conflict with orthodoxy by claiming that grace is not gratuitous on the part of God, but comes to everyone according to his natural merits and that, in the last analysis, grace is not absolutely necessary but only a help to facilitate the operations of nature.

St. Augustine was the most formidable adversary of Pelagian speculation. At least five of his major treatises were directed against the innovation, which he accused of corrupting the Scriptures and denying man's elevation to the supernatural order.

Directly pertinent to our thesis, the Pelagians denied that Adam was possessed of sanctifying grace as a supernatural gift of God. Regarding Adam's integrity, the principal adversary among the Pelagians was Julianus, who identified concupiscence with the sense faculty. Immortality in the Pelagian theory was not a special gift, nor was infused knowledge in Adam.

westminster confession of faith--on the visible Church

The visible Church . . . is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.2).



similar to RC statements, eh?

What glasses do we use in reading the Bible?

I like this comment which is found on a called to communion post. This comment ia found here and is by Christopher Lake--it is his reflections on the glasses we use when we come to the Bible

Having once been a *firmly* convinced Calvinist (for years), I can empathize with your thoughts here:

The Reformed hermeneutic is pretty tightly packaged and logical, fitting well with our modern self-consciousness, this is true, but when you consider that it was sin after all that God wants to save us from one can hardly help reading Paul in this way. Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord; there is no good in you; none is righteous, no not one……and all that. Hard to see oneself in a different light.

I have “been there.” I have studied the Bible as a Calvinist, and the theology seemed so clearly *there* to me, right in the Scriptures. In part, it was Biblical study and exegesis which *brought* me to Calvinism. (In retrospect, I see *major* problems and holes in that study and exegesis…) I can empathize with how Reformed thinking seems so “solidly Biblical.” Reformed preachers and teachers know how to teach the Scriptures… or, at least, some of the Scriptures.

Which brings me to my next point. In my experience, Reformed people have a horror of “proof-texting.” They disdain it in those of other theological paradigms, and they try to avoid it themselves. However, I have lived as both a Calvinist and a Catholic, and I have seen that, for better *and* for worse, the Reformed paradigm is *built* on proof-texting– or, at best, on “proof-passaging.”

In retrospect, I ask myself, why did my Calvinist pastors/elders almost always go to Pauline passages to teach us about salvation (how to be saved) and to Jesus, to tell us how to *live* in light of our *already-permanent justification and salvation*?

In most of the Reformed preaching and teaching that I heard and read, it was as if Paul was our model evangelist of the true “Biblical Gospel,” and Jesus was, by comparison, our “Christian living” ethicist! Something was wrong…

It became more and more obvious to me that something *was* wrong, when I finally, consciously, took off my “Reformed glasses” for a fresh look at Scripture itself. I began to see, with “new eyes,” Job being described as a man who was “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.” (Job 1:1, ESV) I remembered my pastor preaching about this verse, “exegetically,” reminding us that *no one* is righteous, other than through the imputed righteousness of Christ… which flies explicitly in the face of what the verse actually says about Job!

Not that Job was a morally good person *apart* from God’s grace, to be sure– all goodness on our part is ultimately from God. However, the verse does speak of Job being a morally good person, and there is absolutely no *hint* of imputed righteousness in it. One may well posit that this is so, because Job lived, and the Old Testament was written, so long before the coming of Christ and His death and resurrection.

However, the more that I read and studied of the Bible without my “Reformed glasses,” the Lutheran concept of imputed righteousness appeared, more and more, to be a “doctrine/tradition of man,” built upon proof-texting, and the Catholic teaching of infused righteousness showed itself to be the more *holistically Biblical* teaching.

In the Reformed paradigm, what does it finally mean to say (as Scripture does) that “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working”? If all Christians have Christ’s *perfect* righteousness imputed to them, then no Christian’s prayer is any more “powerful” than any other Christian’s prayer! Such a concept flies in the face of this verse.

There are so many more examples… I could write for hours upon hours, for days, weeks, and months, about how imputed righteousness does not hold together, in light of the whole of Scripture. I will gladly give more thorough examples in another comment, if you want, Alicia, as I don’t want to be guilty of proof-texting myself. (!)

In the passages of St. Paul, to which you referred, about none of us being righteous, he is making a point about our utter, desperate dependence on God, for any of our goodness (both ontological and moral goodness). St. Paul is not preparing the “Biblical ground,” so to speak, for such Reformed sermons as Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

Calvin on salvation and the church

Have you been Born Again? Catholic Reflections on a Protestant Doctrine, or How Calvin’s view of Salvation destroyed his Doctrine of the Church”

Mar 14th, 2012 | By David Anders | Category: Lead Article found here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/have-you-been-born-again-catholic-reflections-on-a-protestant-doctrine-or-how-calvins-view-of-salvation-destroyed-his-doctrine-of-the-church/

break down of Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm Very good explanation of the 30,000 denominations of Protestants and the break down of population groups in Protestant, Catholic etc

transubstantiation

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html   Gives links on the early church father's and their statements about the real presence

also from comment 26 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/lawrence-feingold-on-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-and-the-ministerial-priesthood/#comment-39778

The Catholic Church teaches that the consecrated Bread is truly his Body–not “also” his Body, as though it remained bread in substance (which is a heresy found among Lutherans and some high church Anglicans), nor only a token of his Body, as though the consecrated elements were not, in substance, the Body and Blood of Christ (which is a heresy found among Baptists and Calvinists). Likewise, the consecrated Wine is truly his Blood. The doctrine of the Real Presence is an integral part of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice, inclusive of the Last Supper.

from comment  176       here:http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/#comment-45642

" After listening to Godfrey’s interpretation of the patristic literature regarding the Eucharist, I could not help but think of the Protestant patristic scholar J.N.D Kelly and his verdict on the same subject. Kelly contradicts Godfrey’s interpretation of the patristic literature on at least two accounts. (the quotes below can all be found in Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, 440-447)

First, Godfrey states that Catholics support the realistic understanding of the Eucharist by picking only those Fathers who agree with their own position and ignoring those who disagree with that same position. To the contrary, J.N.D. Kelly states that the realistic interpretation of the Eucharist is universally taught in the first four centuries of the Church. He affirms,

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood.”

According to J.N.D. Kelly, this was the opinion of the whole Church, not just a few “cherry-picked” Fathers. According to Godfrey some of the Fathers “might be read this way,” but according to Kelly they can only be read this way. I’m not sure what would count as a consensus fidelium if the realistic position does not meet the criteria.

Further, those who challenged such a realistic understanding in the first centuries were either completely pagan or of the heretical Gnostic sects who rejected the Eucharist because they rejected the Incarnation (The Apostolic Father Ignatius of Antioch tells us this much around AD. 110—see section 2 of Tim Troutman’s article). Gnostics and pagans hardly count as evidence against the consensus fidelium. If Godfrey intends to use such men as witnesses against the realistic position, then he is only strengthening the realist’s position. However, if he uses such men as St. Augustine I think he is revealing the weakness of his position.

Godfrey claims that the Church ignores St. Augustine’s symbolic understanding of the Eucharist and claims that Augustine rejected the Church’s realistic position. J.N.D. Kelly states that

“a balanced verdict must agree that he [Augustine] accepted the current realism. . . . There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecessors.”

Kelly goes on to support his position by quoting Augustine. Indeed, according to Kelly, Augustine says that we should adore and worship the Eucharist.

But there is a bigger problem that Godfrey overlooks. It is this: realism does not exclude the symbolic nature of the Eucharist, but symbolism [alone] does exclude the realistic nature of the Eucharist. In other words, it is not a problem for the Catholic to square Augustine’s symbolic language with the realistic position, for the realistic position entails the symbolism of the sacraments. But when Augustine speaks realistically, it is a problem for the symbolism alone paradigm. For instance, I’m not sure how Godfrey could square the following with his own position:

“Christ was carried in His hands when He offered His very body and said, ‘This is my body.’”

Or,

“That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, is Christ’s body.”

Or,

“You know what you are eating and what you are drinking, or rather, Whom you are eating and Whom you are drinking.”

Or, as Tim provided above,

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ.”

Again, there is no either/or within the Catholic paradigm. So, yes, the Catholic can have his cake and eat it too, just as Augustine taught him.

After hearing Godfrey’s presentation, I would like to know what would convince him of the Fathers’ realistic position. Would he like them to explicitly state the realistic position? But they have stated it. Would he like them to support their realistic position with Scripture? When they do reference Scripture they are accused of misinterpreting Scripture. It is really difficult to guess what would convince him."

However on wikipedia it says: The substance (fundamental reality) of the bread and wine is changed in a way beyond human comprehension into that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but the accidents (physical traits, including chemical properties) of the bread and wine remain.

and Bryan answered my question here comment 32 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/augustine-on-adams-body-and-christs-body-is-reformed-theology-truly-augustinian/

Every sacrament has a proper matter, and canon law for the Latin Church requires that for the Eucharist, “The bread must be only wheat.” (Can. 924 §2.) So it is not permitted to use some other grain. (See Redemptionis Sacramentum, 48.) But a low gluten wheat flour may be used to make the altar bread that is to be consecrated, for those who are unable to tolerate gluten. After the consecration, the accidents of bread and wine remain, and remain present in the mode of accident. So the accidents of bread remain, and if the flour used was low gluten flour, then the accidents of bread made from low gluten flour remain, and this does not cause an adverse health reaction in the person with celiac disease.

Me--Note , and explanation of Accidents from Wikipedia explains:

Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal but this is accidental relative to its being a chair. It is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.^[2] To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.^[3][4][5]

To take another example, all bachelors are unmarried: this is a necessary or essential property of what it means to be a bachelor. A particular bachelor may have brown hair, but this would be a property particular to that individual, and from the point of view of bachelorhood it would be an accidental property. And this distinction is independent of experimental verification: even if for some reason all the unmarried men with non-brown hair were killed, and every single existent bachelor had brown hair, the property of having brown hair would still be accidental, since it would still be logically possible for a bachelor to have hair of another color.

The nine kinds of accidents according to Aristotle are quantity, quality, relation, habitus, time, location, situation (or position), action, and passion ("being acted on"). Together with "substance", these nine kinds of accidents constitute the ten fundamental categories of Aristotle'sontology.^[6]

Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the theologyof the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of bread and wine into body and blood. According to this tradition, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but their substances change from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

from here http://www.stanthonymessenger.org/AskAFranciscan/Question.aspx?question=25

Ask a Franciscan

By Father Pat McCloskey, OFM

Why Do We Need Low-gluten Hosts?

I don’t understand why someone who has celiac disease and is, therefore, allergic to gluten needs a low-gluten host. The bread at Mass changes substantially into the Body of Christ. Clearly there is no gluten in flesh. The use of low-gluten hosts suggests to me that there is a lack of faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Answer

I’m afraid you misunderstand what the Church teaches about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The Catholic Church’s teaching on transubstantiation was officially adopted at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 to explain in the terms of scholastic philosophy what the Church had already believed for centuries.

Those terms spoke of substance and accidents. The substance is what something radically is. The accidents are things like weight, color, shape or taste—things that can vary. Not all bread has the same accidents but it can be recognized as bread because it shares the same substance.

In the case of the Eucharist, the substance of bread is replaced by the substance of Christ’s body and blood. The accidents, however, are unchanged. A host does not change weight, color, shape, smell or taste after it has been consecrated. Similarly, the wine has the same weight, color, smell, taste and alcohol content after it has been consecrated at Mass.

If a host contains gluten before it is consecrated, then it will contain gluten after it has been consecrated. Because of that, a person allergic to gluten will have the same reaction to any host that contains gluten—whether it is consecrated or not. For this reason, some people—including Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati—need low-gluten hosts.

And from

http://taylormarshall.com/2013/11/gluten-allergies-and-the-eucharist.html

............

Does transubstantiation remove gluten properties?

Thomas Aquinas would say that the accidental properties of the gluten are still active. Hence, someone with an allergy to gluten will still react to the accidental property of this grain protein even though the substance of bread has changed.

Likewise, if one drank a gallon of the Precious Blood, he would become drunk. In fact, Saint Paul complained that Christians in the first century were getting drunk off the Precious Blood! “One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk” (1 Cor 11:21).*

The accidents remain while the substance changes. The physiological human response to the properties of alcohol or gluten remain even after transubstantiation. Likewise, our physiological response to the calories (also accidental properties of bread and wine) are real. We truly receive natural nourishment from the Holy Eucharist, although the purpose of the Blessed Sacrament is provide supernatural and sacramental nourishment through habitual grace.

Here’s Saint Thomas on this subject:

But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity. (Summa theologiae, III, q. 77, a. 6)

What should Catholics with gluten allergies do?

When provisions cannot be made, those who have Celiac disease (gluten allergy) should receive the chalice alone since the entire Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, is present under both species. If this is not possible, a spiritual communion suffices and provides the same amount of grace, as the Council of Trent teaches. A gluten free host must be truly wheat.

What about a wheat-less Eucharist?

The suggestion to make hosts from rice is no good. The Eucharist can only be confected from wheat bread. Nothing else. No raison bread. Not even barley bread. Not rice bread. Wheat bread. This relates to the Jewish symbolism relating to wheat in the Old Testament – but that’s a whole different post.

From an article found here http://www.catholicbookwriter.com/goldenarrow/catholic/catholic-celiac-conundrum/

How can a transubstantiated host, which is no longer bread, still act like wheat in the human body?
While the entire substance of bread has indeed been transubstantiated into the entire substance of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity) such that the bread and wine cease to exist, their appearances remain, and those appearances act upon the senses just as the substance that they properly belong to naturally would. We sometimes say that Body and Blood of Christ are veiled by the appearances of bread and wine but ‘appearances’ means more than just what we see. The metaphysical term that the Church has employed to more accurately define ‘appearances’ is ‘Accidents’, which means those nonessential properties^[10] that exist in another thing. So those remaining (or attached) appearances (or accidents) belonging to wheat and wine do act upon the senses, are measurable, and do bring about the effects natural to the substance to which they belong. So the Eucharist looks like bread and wine, tastes like bread and wine, and acts like bread and wine, but in substance it is fully Christ and Christ only.

and here is a very good explanation: http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/TransubstantiationExplained.aspx

here is the extended quote from the above link:

Responding to an inquiry from a Ministry Assistant at Calvary Chapel, Mark Bonocore shares the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation.

Please allow me to introduce myself to you.  My name is Dan Hickling and I serve here at Calvary Chapel as Pastor Bob Coy's Ministry Assistant.  Here are a couple of actual quotes taken from the 1994 English edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Article #1374. In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained…It is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

Article #1374. By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change in 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.

This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly called transubstantiation.  Notice the words chosen by the Vatican to define transubstantiation: Substantially: of a corporeal or material nature, pertaining to the substance, matter, or material of a thing.  Wholly: entirety, totality, the whole amount, extent, to involve all.  Entirely: fully and completely (above definitions taken from Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary).  It's very clear what the Roman Catholic Church is saying.  The elements actually become on every level (including the physical) the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

es, you are correct that we Catholics do believe that Jesus is truly, wholly, entirely, and substantially present in the Eucharist.  However, the mistake that you are making is that you are not using the word "substantially" in the sense that the Catholic Church uses it – that is, how it is used in the context of medieval Scholastic / Aristotelian philosophy (i.e., the systematic language in which "Transubstantiation" was dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church in the year 1215 A.D.).  In essence, there is a MAJOR difference between "transSUBSTANTiation" and "transFORMation".  In"transFORMAation", the actual physical properties of a thing are changed into something else.  This would include, not only the thing's shape and size, but the very molecular structure of the thing itself.  However, when it comes to the Eucharist, Catholics obviously don't believe that the little fragment of what is apparently "bread" in the priest's hand takes on the "form" or "structure" of Jesus Christ – a 6-foot, living and breathing Individual.  We also do not believe that, if one placed a Eucharistic host (the wafer of consecrated "bread") under a microscope that one would be able to see the cells of a Divine Jewish Carpenter, etc.

No.  We do not believe that the form of bread or the form of wine changes at all.  Rather, what we believe is that the substance of bread and wine changes into something (Someone) else.  And here,"substance" is a specific metaphysical term used in the language of Scholastic / Aristotelian philosophy – the language which was used to define our dogmatic doctrine.  And what it refers to is the **essence** of the very thing itself.  For example, if I have an ordinary piece of bread, that piece of bread possesses both a physical reality and a metaphysical reality.  It is both something I can see, touch, and taste (its physical properties) and it is something that exists as a reality beyond the perception of my senses (its metaphysical reality).  For, if I were to leave the room, the bread would still objectively be there.  Our Catholic belief is not that the physical properties of bread and wine change.  Rather, we specifically teach (as stated in the Catechism sections that you quote from above) that Christ is substantially present"UNDER THE SPECIES of bread and wine", meaning that the "species"(the "physical properties" also called "accidents" in the language of Aristotelian / Scholastic philosophy) remain the same.  And so our senses (sight, taste, touch, etc.) only perceive bread and wine.  However, the metaphysical properties of the bread and wine (that is, the substances of the bread and wine) do change in a miraculous act of God which we call "Transubstantiation".  In other words, Jesus is truly, wholly, entirely, and substantially present in the Eucharist in a metaphysical sense, whereas the physical "species" (i.e., the physical properties – everything that can be perceived by our senses) of bread and wine remain the same.

And non-Catholic Christians, like yourself, believe is something very close to this in terms of our justification before God through Christ Jesus.  For, as St. Paul says in Scripture, "In Christ, we are made into a 'new creation'."  Now, clearly, this does not apply to our form – our"physical properties", since we don't look any different; and the world does not see any obvious physical change in a person when he or she becomes a believer in Christ.  However, according to the words of Scripture, we know that a metaphysical change HAS taken place – that the former sinner has been re-created in the image and likeness of Jesus, and is now a new creation.  Ergo, the metaphysical substance has changed.  Truly, wholly, entirely, and substantially.  And this is all we believe when it comes to the nature of the Lord's Supper (the Eucharist).

Yet, you also write:

Notice that in describing transubstantiation they did not use the words metaphysical, immaterial, or abstract.  In recent years, Catholic apologists have begun to employ this view in defense of this teaching for obvious reasons.  But this doesn't alter the official pronouncement of the Catholic Church that a complete and total change occurs that goes beyond the metaphysical and into the physical (even though such a change is absolutely imperceptible).

But, Dan, your quotes from the Catholic Catechism above do not include the word "physical" either.  Rather, you are unwisely presuming that.  Indeed, given that the dogma of Transubstantiation was formulated using the language of Scholastic theology, it follows that we should understand the term "substance" within that specific context which is precisely what the Catholic Church does.  And, in the language Scholastic / Aristotelian philosophy, "substance" simply refers to the metaphysical essence of a thing, not to its physical properties.  For example, if you care to turn to section 252 of the Catholic Catechism, you will see "substance" defined as follows:

The Church uses (I) the term substance (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the Divine Being in its unity…

Now, granted, this particular passage is speaking about the Blessed Trinity, but it proves the semantic point.  The substance is the underlying metaphysical nature of a thing.  It is not its physical form.  It is not its molecular structure.

I should also point out, contrary to your misconception above, that"metaphysical" is not the same thing as "immaterial" or "abstract".  Rather, "metaphysical" refers to a God-created reality that transcends the physical.  Big difference.  Per my example above, when one becomes a "new creation" in Christ, one is not made into a "new creation" in an "immaterial" or "abstract" way, but rather in a literal, through metaphysical, way.  As Scripture says, the Church is the Body of Christ.  And when Saul of Tarsus persecuted the infant Church, Jesus did not say to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting my Church?"…or… "Why are you persecuting those who believe my Word?"  Rather, He said, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?" – a reference to a **literal**, though metaphysical, reality – the Church as the Body of Christ.  And, in the same way, we do not believe that Christ is"immaterially present" or "abstractly present" in the Eucharist.  This would be a heresy for a Catholic to say.  Rather, we believe that Jesus is really and substantially present in the Eucharist; but we believe that this Presence is metaphysical in nature, not physical in nature.  Something can indeed be metaphysical and still be material.  It is a mistake to assume otherwise.  Or do you deny that the Bible is the inspired Word of God – a metaphysical reality made manifest by the material printed page, but not something which you can physically discern via the physical nature of the printed page itself (e.g. by comparing a printed page of Scripture to a printed page of the phone book)?

Yet, you also write:

…If you disagree on this, please show me an actual quote or pronouncement from the Catholic Church, itself, which clearly says that a physical change does not occur within the sphere of transubstantiation.  Thanks for your patience in receiving this response.  I also appreciate you taking the time to explain the intricacies involved with the Catholic concept of transubstantiation.  I still believe that this was a relatively recent distinction that the Catholic Church has been forced to make…and that the majority of Catholics out there are under the impression that a complete transformation of the elements takes place…but what you've shared will be helpful to me in my future studies on this subject.  Thanks again and may the Lord bless you as you follow after Him.  Amen, brother.

Thank you for the blessing and for your charitable and very Christ-like attitude toward me, even though I am a Catholic Christian and, as we know, you at Calvary do not approve of many of our beliefs.  But, the charity of Christ clearly prevails in you, and for that may He be glorified by both of us together.  Also, in regard to Transubstantiation and your belief that the distinction between the "species" (physical properties) of bread and wine and the "substance" (metaphysical reality) of Jesus Christ are, as you say, "recent distinctions"… Well, if you don't mind (and, again, not to win you over to the Catholic position, but merely for the sake of objective truth and also, of course, to show how we Catholics are not trying to deceive anyone), please allow me to illustrate how Transubstantiation has always meant what I described in my previous email.  For example, as I'm sure you already know, St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the leading theological minds that led to the Catholic Church's 13th Century dogmatic definition of Transubstantiation.  In fact, as I previously touched on, it was Aquinas' Scholastic language that was used by the Lateran Council in order to formulate the dogma.  And, writing at that very time (as Transubstantiation was defined by the Church), Thomas Aquinas says many things, such as:

Nothing is more marvelous, for there it comes to pass that thesubstance of bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.  Here there is perfect God and perfect man, **under the show** of a morsel of bread and a sup of wine.  He is eaten by His faithful, but not mangled.  Nay, when this Sacrament is broken, in each piece He remains entire.  THE APPEARANCE (physical nature) OF BREAD AND WINE REMAINS, but THE THING (substance) IS NOT BREAD AND WINE.  Here is faith's opportunity, faith which takes what is unseen and disguised and keeps THE SENSES from misjudging about the wonted APPEARANCES.  (Thomas Aquinas, Breviary Lessons, Corpus Christi, in Disputations, XXVII de Veritate 4, 336)

and also…

That Christ's true Body and Blood are present in the Sacrament can be perceived neither by sense nor by reason, but by faith alone, which rests on God's authority.  In the text, "This is my Body which is given for you", Cyril comments (i.e., St. Cyril of Jerusalem, c. 360 A.D.) that we must not doubt that this is true, but must take the Savior's word on faith; He is Truth and does not lie.  (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3a, 75, I)

So, as you can see, Dan, these statements by Aquinas (and we can produce countless others from his Summa and from the other writings of the 13th Century Scholastic doctors) are in perfect agreement with the 19th Century quote from Pope Leo XIII, which I presented to you in my previous email.  The Catholic position has not changed between the time that the dogma was defined (in 1215 at the Lateran Council IV) and the time of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) or today.  And, indeed, we can trance this back far earlier that Aquinas and far earlier than the defined dogma of Transubstantiation.  For, our Catholic belief is there, and there universally, in the organic Apostolic Tradition of the ancient Church.  For example, writing between 170 and 180 A.D., St. Ireneaus of Lyon, who was the disciple of St. Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John himself, writes on the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) and says:

For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of TWO REALITIES, EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.  (Ireneaus, Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis, Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.)

Now, here, of course, Ireneaus is not speaking in the 13th Century Scholastic (Aristotelian) language that was used to dogmatized Transubstantiation at the Latin-speaking Lateran Council of 1215, but uses the ancient Patristic (neo-Platonic) language of the Greek fathers.  And so, while his use of the term "reality" (i.e., "two realities") is not as precise a term as a Scholastic/Aristotelian like Aquinas would use, the clear meaning remains the same: Catholics do not believe, nor have we ever believed, that a physical change takes place at the Consecration of the Eucharist.  Rather, the change, though absolutely real, is a metaphysical one – a change in substance, not a change in form or physical property.  So, again, Dan, I would seriously urge your Pastor to adjust his view on this.  I am sure that the Pastor has every good intention, and is not trying to misrepresent anything.  And so, for the sake of his own reputation as a student of Christian theology, I simply do not wish to see him embarrass himself by stating something that is clearly, and verifiably, incorrect.

Also, on your point that there are many Catholics out there who are under the impression that a "complete transformation of the elements takes place", you are probably very correct about that.  However, as with Calvary Chapel members who hold opinions that are contrary to your faith, the misunderstanding of such Catholics cannot be applied to the Church itself, since the Church itself clearly teaches otherwise.  We do not teach "transFORMation" (the very word you use above), but"TranSUBSTANtiation", and that word has, and has always had, a specific meaning which, of course, is what I have been trying to convince you of here.

Anyway, dear brother… May the Lord bless and increase you and always hold you close to His Sacred Heart.

Pax et bonum (Peace and blessings)…

Mark Bonocore

So end of quote. One guy at another place http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84931
makes this statement:

After the consecration, a transubstantiated Host retains all of the physical properties it had before consecration, and gains no physical properties of Christ's body. By this I mean that no scientific test (including a different response to it by a celiac) could tell the difference. A change in metaphysical substance only is what occurs in the Sacrifice of the Mass.

from wikipedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Further information: Substance theory

The distinction between "substance" and "accidents" - the latter term is not used in the Catholic Church's official definition of the doctrine^[10] but has been used in the writings of theologians - arose from Aristotelian philosophy, but in Roman Catholic eucharistic theology is independent of that philosophy, since the distinction is a real one, as shown by the distinction between a person and that person's accidental appearances.^[45] "Substance" here means what something is in itself, its essence. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them.^[46] While the appearances, which are also referred to, though not in the Church's official teaching, by the philosophical term 'accidents', are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.^[47]

Consider the classic example^[48] of the human body. All of the separate chemical compounds, minerals and water—which when piled together constitute the sum total of the actual physical matter of the human body—are not of themselves a human body, however much they may be physically compounded and mixed and rearranged in the laboratory, since they are still only a pile of organic chemicals, minerals and water in a particular complex configuration. If this has never been alive it is not a human body. If they are participant in the integral physical expression of a living human being who has absorbed and metabolized them, or if they are now the physical remains of a once-living human being, the substance of what they actually are is human, hence, a human body. The substantial reality of what is before us is human. The substance (substantial reality) of what is seen is not solely that of a complex organization of organic chemical compounds, but is (or has been) someone. The chemical elements of the food a person eats become in a few hours part of that person's human body and are no longer food but have been turned into the human flesh and blood and bone of that person, yet the physical chemical elements of what was once food remain the same (calcium, copper, salt, protein, sugars, fats, water, etc.). The substance of any matter that has become an integral part of any human being has ceased to be the substance or reality of food and has become incorporated as an integral part of the physical manifestation or expression of that human person. To touch that matter now is not to touch a batch of chemical compounds or food but to touch that person.^[49]

When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body",^[50] what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: the "species" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that, when Jesus made that declaration,^[51] the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was changed into 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. 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^[52] when the words are spoken in persona Christi "This is my body ... this is my blood." In Orthodox confessions, the change is said to start during the Liturgy of Preparation and be completed during the Epiklesis.

Teaching that Christ is risen from the dead and is alive, the Catholic Church holds that when the bread is changed into his body, not only his body is present, but Christ as a whole is present (i.e. body and blood, soul and divinity.) The same holds for the wine changed into his blood.^[53] This teaching goes beyond the doctrine of transubstantiation, which directly concerns only the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

In accordance with the dogmatic teaching that Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and continues to be present as long as those appearances remain, the Catholic Church preserves the consecrated elements, generally in a church tabernacle.....