A Tale of Two Eucharists

[DrPiano]

(sorry, Soc, I happened to be asleep this morning when you posted your earlier question about God being too hard. We’ll drop “What makes God, God” from the list of questions, although the answer is the same)

Very well, Doc, we can come back to what makes water, water. I will do my best to answer your questions:

Thanks, Soc, for answering my questions.

**Q.1. What makes a snowball a snowball.**A.1. A kid looking for fun (just kidding)! I’d say that every snowball has one thing in common–molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. This is what makes a snowball a snowball.

((to the cute comment - yes, little kids generally make snowballs - but so do bored college students and adults ))

Ah - but Soc, how can a collection of H2O make a snowball a snowball? I can take that same collection, apply a little heat and get water, freeze it again and get ice, boil it and get gas. The substance of a snowball (what makes a snowball a snowball) cannot be H2O because H2O can exist in so many forms. H2O does not automatically make a snowball a snowball. So H2O cannot be the answer. Think about it again, Socrates. What makes a snowball a snowball?

Q.2. What makes a chair a chair? A.2. There is not enough information to answer this question. (For example, i’d need to know of what the chair of which you are speaking is made.) The best answer i could give to the vague question is that it is made of atoms.

It is made of atoms, but so is my television, and my table, and my bed. Even if I told you that this chair in front of me were a wooden chair, the wood particles would not specify that it be a chair. I also have a wooden table, wooden cabinets in the kitchen, and a wooden bookshelf. I could take a very large tree, cut it down, and make a whole living room set out of it. So it being wood - or having wooden particles cannot separate a chair from anything else. What, then, if I have a plastic chair? Is it still a chair, even though it is not made of wood? Of course it is. And being made of plastic (which is a class of polymers, but lets assume for the time that each of these is made of the same kind, which is reasonable) my television is made of plastic, and I have this desk made of plastic, and my blender is made of mostly plastic, and my trashcan is made of plastic. In fact, the pipes under my bathroom sink are also made of plastic.

So, Socrates, wood or plastic or glass or rock particles (or atoms or molecules) cannot make a chair a chair and not something else. Simply posessing those atoms/molecules does not specify that this thing in front of me is a chair. So, think again, Soc: what makes a chair, a chair.

**Q.3. What makes a pen a pen?**A.3. Same answer as (A.2).

((Same problem as before))

**Q.4. What makes God, God?**A.1. I have no clue; do you?

I will drop this from the list of questions, although I believe the answer is actually the same. But before we get into the spiritual tings, we will continue with the things I can see in the physical world.

So again I ask you, Soc - looking at the above problem with your answers (that being made of H2O does not specify that the thing in front of me is a snowball, and the extended problem with the chair and the pen): What makes a snowball be a snowball (and not something else), what makes a chair be a chair (and not something else), and what makes a pen be a pen (and not something else)?

 

[jmcrae]

Very well, Doc, we can come back to what makes water, water. I will do my best to answer your questions:

**Q.1. What makes a snowball a snowball.**A.1. A kid looking for fun (just kidding)! I’d say that every snowball has one thing in common–molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. This is what makes a snowball a snowball.

Actually, your first answer was closer to the mark. A snowball is a snowball, not because it is made of snow, but because it is more or less round, made of snow, and fun to throw. The heavenly snowball prototype from which all snowballs derive their snowballness is made of the aspects “fun to throw,” “round,” and “cold.” It has no water molecules of any temperature.

Q.2. What makes a chair a chair? A.2. There is not enough information to answer this question. (For example, i’d need to know of what the chair of which you are speaking is made.) The best answer i could give to the vague question is that it is made of atoms.

The heavenly chair prototype from which all chairs receive their chairness has the aspect of “can be sat upon.” Since some chairs give way when sat upon, we will not include the aspect of “sturdy” since not all that are called “chairs” are sturdy.

**Q.3. What makes a pen a pen?**A.3. Same answer as (A.2).

The penness of a pen is that it fits the hand and either makes or does not make a mark on paper (depending on whether it is a working pen, or not).

**Q.4. What makes God, God?**A.1. I have no clue; do you?

God is the ultimate heavenly prototype - he is a prototype that has no copies (sturdy or otherwise) in the material world.

 

[distracted]

Yes, He can, but we are not asking, “Can He do it?” rather, we are asking, “Does He do it?”

.

Jesus said (John 6) “This IS my Body”… not “this is a representation of or symbol of my body…”

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Actually, your first answer was closer to the mark. A snowball is a snowball, not because it is made of snow, but because it is more or less round, made of snow, and fun to throw. The heavenly snowball prototype from which all snowballs derive their snowballness is made of the aspects “fun to throw,” “round,” and “cold.” It has no water molecules of any temperature.

The heavenly chair prototype from which all chairs receive their chairness has the aspect of “can be sat upon.” Since some chairs give way when sat upon, we will not include the aspect of “sturdy” since not all that are called “chairs” are sturdy.

The penness of a pen is that it fits the hand and either makes or does not make a mark on paper (depending on whether it is a working pen, or not).

God is the ultimate heavenly prototype - he is a prototype that has no copies (sturdy or otherwise) in the material world.

WHAT IS GOD?

GOD IS LOVE!

You really don’t need to know how He does it, just that He can do it and that if God is LOVE then it doesn’t make sense that He would just give a symbol of Himself as that would not be the most loving response possible…

I once saw a picture of a rose that was taken at a marian apparition site. In the center of the rose you could see the most perfect image of Our Lady’s face. I was caught with delight, it was so beautiful. Then I thought, 'God, how did you do that?" and immediately something shifted and I saw how the petals and flower shapes formed the face. The original wonder was gone. I learned my lesson… understanding the image did not make it more wonderful for me and I missed the original sense of wonder I had when I first saw the picture.

But, it also shows that if this is a question that nags you, then ASK GOD… ask Him to explain it in “SOCRATEZE” language, because I think he will know what you need to hear from Him. Be childlike…if your children can ask you questions then see God as your Father and ask Him.

He might just tell you that you have to accept this on faith however, but better to hear it from Him.

I really believe you can seek these things by prayer.

God Bless, mary

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I was speaking of the evidence in all of scripture and tradition that pointed to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. it seems to me to be overwhelming.
But,
Jesus created His own body through nature. His ‘body’ existed in one sense in His Divine mind and knowledge even before it took a concrete form in time and space… in some way, it always existed before God as a Bread of Presence, and I accept by faith that God is omnipresent, but the atomic, visible structure is not always in the concrete form you are talking about.

I tend to see God as more like ‘light’ then anything else. And perhaps we will be transfigured into light by Grace… and that is just a possibility which i would not say with certainty

I am not a scientist so I can’t apply scientific formulas to come up with an explanation for you and besides i don’t think it has to fit a formula.

God Bless, maryjohnZ

Have a Holy and Blessed Holy Thursday to all…

Well, you might have something, there. For years scientists studying light were on opposing sides. Some said light was a wave. Others claimed it was particles. When they got together and compared notes, they found their experiments showed it was both.



Still, i’m not quite sure i understand what you believe about the body of Christ prior to the incarnation. Do you think it was a physical body with atoms, or a spirit body without atoms, or something else?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

(sorry, Soc, I happened to be asleep this morning when you posted your earlier question about God being too hard. We’ll drop “What makes God, God” from the list of questions, although the answer is the same)
…

No need to apologize, Doc! That’s the beauty of a discussion forum. You leave a gem of an idea as a gift for someone, and she takes the gift and gives you a pearl of truth in return. There’s no rush. It’s kind of like being a kid on an Easter Egg hunt!

http://www.st-charlesparks.org/images/easter egg hunt.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus

Well, Doc, i’m sure you have, in your pursuit of med school, taken chemistry tests. I’m sure you’ve had to demonstrate your knowledge of the molecular structure of some protein or other molecule. If you were asked, on a multiple choice question, which of four molecules was a nucleotide of DNA, i’m sure you would not answer:

None of the above! DNA is not nucleotides, it is DNA-ness.

For if you did consistently answer so, you would be sure to flunk each exam!



In answer to your question, i’d have to say that a snowball is H2O at a certain temperature. If it were not H2O, then it would not melt into water when it is heated, nor would it cease to be water when it is heated further to the point where the hydrogen separates from the oxygen.

I’m sure you understand far more about the molecular structure of material things than i do. What does your medical training tell you?

Do you think it is possible for a snowball to remain a snowball without hydrogen? It seems to me that the snowball my dog eats would become the air it breaths when the hydrogen is removed, leaving only oxygen.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, Doc, i’m sure you have, in your pursuit of med school, taken chemistry tests. I’m sure you’ve had to demonstrate your knowledge of the molecular structure of some protein or other molecule. If you were asked, on a multiple choice question, which of four molecules was a nucleotide of DNA, i’m sure you would not answer:

None of the above! DNA is not nucleotides, it is DNA-ness.

Ah, but the test isn’t asking about the philosophical substance of DNA; it’s asking about its material characteristics. Two entirely different things.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus

It appears to me, Doc, that the presupposition behind what you are saying is this:

**A thing is what you do with it.**When you say, “What makes a chair is not atoms, but chairiness.” you appear to be asserting that the function of the chair defines its existence. I’m sure you affirm the same of a boat, or a coffin, or a cross.

“A boat is not wood,” you might tell me; “it is boatiness. Neither is a coffin wood; it is coffiness.” I’m pretty sure you would say this with complete confidence, believing, without a doubt, you are correct. You might even tell me, with complete certainty, that the cross upon which Jesus died for you and me was not wood, but crossiness.

My job, however, is not to believe everything my ears hear, but to have ears to hear what truth Jesus would have me hear. My duty is to pray daily, before i visit this forum, for wisdom to be able to separate the truth from the lies, like a farmer separtes weat from weeds. So, please forgive me if i test the spirit of what you say to see if it rings true to me:

==================================================================

When it comes to a chair, or a boat, or a coffin, or a cross, i’d say they are all wood. If i were as good a carpenter as Jesus was, i’d be able to tell you exactly what tree from which each came. If i were as accomplished a chemist as you, i’d know the exact molecular structure of each.

You see, it appears to me that chair, and boat, and coffin, and *cross *are merely words we use to describe the purpose of each thing. A thing is not what its objective is; rather, that is merely what use to which we put it.

Let me show you why i have reached this conclusion: You said the substance of a thing is what it is, and you defined substance this way:

Substance is the single quality of something or someone that makes that thing or being what it is and separates it from any other thing (or being).Now, if boatiness were the substance of a boat and wood was not its substance, then the purpose of a boat would never change (for a thing’s substance, you said, never changes). However, what one person calls a boat, another calls a shelter from a storm, for a boat, turned upside down, can protect a person from hail and rain. What one person calls a boat, still another person might call a coffin, for ancient people often used boats as floating funeral piars. So, one thing that a person calls boatiness, another will call shelteriness,and yet another will call coffininess. I find that if all these are the substance of the same thing, then the same thing has many substances, each different from the other.

However, this contradicts your definition of substance, for you said it is “the single quality of something or someone that makes that thing or being what it is and separates it from any other thing.” Thus, the substance of a thing cannot be its iness, for iness can be many things for one and the same thing.

In my back yard stands a cross. It is large enough to nail a man upon and become an implement of torture, but that is not what its substance is. We use it as a cross upon which a beautiful vine grows and produces sweet smelling, deep purple blooms each spring, but that is not what its substance is. That cross is not a torture-stakeiness, nor is it a *vine-stakeiness. *It is, in a word, wood. The role of this wood is up to the one who uses it. That role, however, cannot be its substance, for it is subject to change.

In summary, i’d have to ask:

Is not a thing that of which it is made?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Ah, but the test isn’t asking about the philosophical substance of DNA; it’s asking about its material characteristics. Two entirely different things.

Is not a thing that of which it is made?

 

[jmcrae]

Is not a thing that of which it is made?

No. A thing is the use to which we put it, and the meaning to which we attribute it. The stuff from which it is made is purely incidental. Form follows function; not vice versa.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No. A thing is the use to which we put it, and the meaning to which we attribute it. The stuff from which it is made is purely incidental. Form follows function; not vice versa.

Please read post #545 and tell me exactly what i said that is untrue, and why it is a lie.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Gotta go! Talk with you later, JM.

 

[Pax]

Soc,

I can visualize a cross, a chair, a boat, a snow ball and other things in my mind. If someone were to ask me, at a given moment, what I was thinking of I might answer “a cross.” The fact that the cross in my visualization has no atoms doesn’t make it any less a cross. The substance of my visualization is a cross.

Does this help in any way?

 

[DrPiano]

Well, Doc, i’m sure you have, in your pursuit of med school, taken chemistry tests. I’m sure you’ve had to demonstrate your knowledge of the molecular structure of some protein or other molecule. If you were asked, on a multiple choice question, which of four molecules was a nucleotide of DNA, i’m sure you would not answer:

None of the above! DNA is not nucleotides, it is DNA-ness.

For if you did consistently answer so, you would be sure to flunk each exam!



In answer to your question, i’d have to say that a snowball is H2O at a certain temperature. If it were not H2O, then it would not melt into water when it is heated, nor would it cease to be water when it is heated further to the point where the hydrogen separates from the oxygen.

I’m sure you understand far more about the molecular structure of material things than i do. What does your medical training tell you?

Do you think it is possible for a snowball to remain a snowball without hydrogen? It seems to me that the snowball my dog eats would become the air it breaths when the hydrogen is removed, leaving only oxygen.

If I were asked that on a test, I would answer with the answer that the professor is looking for: that the molecules adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine are the 4 molecules that compose DNA (in the physical realm). That is the answer the professor is looking for, so that is the answer that I would give (and have given). I would know that these four molecules are the basis for DNA only because God made them them that way, and I would probably not feel the need to point that out to the instructor. However, if a philosophy instructor asked me to explain what makes a chair a chair, I would answer that it shares the substance of the archetypal “chair”. I have answered each way in the past on separate tests.

Philosophy doesn’t cancel out chemistry and chemistry doesn’t invalidate philosophy. They are two different, separate ways of looking at the universe. My medical training cannot tell me what makes a snowball a snowball. It simply can’t. Science cannot examine or reach the metaphysical. It can only look at the material, physical world. But there is more - far more - beyond the physical world, supporting the physical world.

A snowball is distinct from “water at a given temperature.” I can take water - at the same temperature as the snowball - and have ice rather than water (as both are water below 0 degrees celcius). I can (and have done so) make a snowball out of CO2 at a colder temperature. It behaves in much the same way as a snowball does, but it is not made out of water. I’ve even made snowballs out of “fake snow” - which isn’t H2O either. Snowballs need not be made out of H2O. Thus H2O cannot be “the thing” that makes a snowball a snowball. It is typically the molecule that the snowball is composed of, but it does not in itself make a snowball a snowball.

In a similar way, DNA may be composed of adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, but these in themselves do not make DNA. RNA is also composed of three of these (adenine, guanine, and cytosine) with a different fourth base (uracil). I can have each of these separately (adenine - or ATP - is one of the molecules your cells use for short-term energy storage and transfer) or together and not necessarily have DNA. Science can tell me what things are typically composed of, but they cannot tell me what makes an object and object.

You’ve asked what my medical training has taught me about what makes a snowball a snowball. I can answer honestly - it hasn’t taught me anything. It hasn’t even tried. Science isn’t concerned with a thing’s substance - or what makes object A object A and not object B - it is usually concerned with a thing’s composition - what is object A made of - and a thing’s behavior. Composition and behavior are accidents in philosophical terms.

Science may even tell me that something is always composed of a certain atom or molecules. You’ve asked about water. Water is (barring a miracle) always composed of the atoms H2O. That is the way our God has made it and continues to keep it. But H2O is not the substance of water. The two are distinctly different. This is not a question for science to answer, it is a question for philosophy to answer. As I’ve said, the two do not contradict - but they also do not look at the same things. Each sees the world entirely differently. Science can only look at the physical world. That is all it can see. Philosophy tends to look (if not always, then most of the time) at the metaphysical world - that which is beyond the physical world, that which upholds the physical world - something science cannot.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc,

I can visualize a cross, a chair, a boat, a snow ball and other things in my mind. If someone were to ask me, at a given moment, what I was thinking of I might answer “a cross.” The fact that the cross in my visualization has no atoms doesn’t make it any less a cross. The substance of my visualization is a cross.

Does this help in any way?

Thank you, Pax.

Yes, i can visualize a cross; i can also visualize an intelligent alien being from another dimension. She stands about as tall as my 10-year-old son; has smooth, cool, silvery-gray skin; has no noticeable ears or nose; and has deep, dark, sensitive eyes as big as the rear-view mirrors on my car. I can even dream about such a being. In my dream, she might take me in her space craft to different times and strange new worlds. She might tell me amazing things i’d never heard before (not with her lips but with her thoughts that i can somehow hear in my own mind). She appears real to me when i close my eyes, but when i open them she slips away.

I can do the same with a cross. The cross in my mind is no less a cross than the one upon which Jesus suffered and died for you or i, but it is less real. In fact, it is not real at all! It is just a product of my imagination.

Do you, Pax, really believe the cross you see only with your mind is the same cross upon which your Redeemer was tortured and executed?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If I were asked that on a test, I would answer with the answer that the professor is looking for: that the molecules adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine are the 4 molecules that compose DNA (in the physical realm). That is the answer the professor is looking for, so that is the answer that I would give (and have given). I would know that these four molecules are the basis for DNA only because God made them them that way, and I would probably not feel the need to point that out to the instructor. However, if a philosophy instructor asked me to explain what makes a chair a chair, I would answer that it shares the substance of the archetypal “chair”. I have answered each way in the past on separate tests.

Philosophy doesn’t cancel out chemistry and chemistry doesn’t invalidate philosophy. They are two different, separate ways of looking at the universe. My medical training cannot tell me what makes a snowball a snowball. It simply can’t. Science cannot examine or reach the metaphysical. It can only look at the material, physical world. But there is more - far more - beyond the physical world, supporting the physical world.

A snowball is distinct from “water at a given temperature.” I can take water - at the same temperature as the snowball - and have ice rather than water (as both are water below 0 degrees celcius). I can (and have done so) make a snowball out of CO2 at a colder temperature. It behaves in much the same way as a snowball does, but it is not made out of water. I’ve even made snowballs out of “fake snow” - which isn’t H2O either. Snowballs need not be made out of H2O. Thus H2O cannot be “the thing” that makes a snowball a snowball. It is typically the molecule that the snowball is composed of, but it does not in itself make a snowball a snowball.

In a similar way, DNA may be composed of adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, but these in themselves do not make DNA. RNA is also composed of three of these (adenine, guanine, and cytosine) with a different fourth base (uracil). I can have each of these separately (adenine - or ATP - is one of the molecules your cells use for short-term energy storage and transfer) or together and not necessarily have DNA. Science can tell me what things are typically composed of, but they cannot tell me what makes an object and object.

You’ve asked what my medical training has taught me about what makes a snowball a snowball. I can answer honestly - it hasn’t taught me anything. It hasn’t even tried. Science isn’t concerned with a thing’s substance - or what makes object A object A and not object B - it is usually concerned with a thing’s composition - what is object A made of - and a thing’s behavior. Composition and behavior are accidents in philosophical terms.

Science may even tell me that something is always composed of a certain atom or molecules. You’ve asked about water. Water is (barring a miracle) always composed of the atoms H2O. That is the way our God has made it and continues to keep it. But H2O is not the substance of water. The two are distinctly different. This is not a question for science to answer, it is a question for philosophy to answer. As I’ve said, the two do not contradict - but they also do not look at the same things. Each sees the world entirely differently. Science can only look at the physical world. That is all it can see. Philosophy tends to look (if not always, then most of the time) at the metaphysical world - that which is beyond the physical world, that which upholds the physical world - something science cannot.

Yes, Doc, but you have not answered my objection. Please consider answering this question for me:

You defined substance, thus:

Substance is the single quality of something or someone that makes that thing or being what it is and separates it from any other thing (or being).You said that the substance of a snowball is snowballiness and the substance of a chair is chariness.

So, i asked whether the substance of a boat is boatiness. I pointed out that the same wood can be a boat to one person, or a shelter from a storm to another person, or a floating coffin to a third person. The same object is found to be boatiness to one person, and shelteriness to another person, and coffininess to someone else. One object; three substances.

In my basement is a waterbed. But it does not have waterbediness. For i took what was a waterbed frame and made it a bookshelf. It now has bookshelfiness, but it is the same waterbed we bought at the furniture store. One object; two substances.

My question, again, is this: How can your definition of substance be correct when the same object is found to have two or more substances?



http://www.cp-tel.net/pasqualy/kingmole/242F.jpg

 

[davidv]

Well, you might have something, there. For years scientists studying light were on opposing sides. Some said light was a wave. Others claimed it was particles. When they got together and compared notes, they found their experiments showed it was both.



Still, i’m not quite sure i understand what you believe about the body of Christ prior to the incarnation. Do you think it was a physical body with atoms, or a spirit body without atoms, or something else?

I believe, which I also believe to be consistant with Church teaching, is that prior to the Incarnation, Christ had no phyical body. He was pure spirit, the Word of God. It was only when He assumed a human nature (the Incarnation) that He acquired a body.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I believe, which I also believe to be consistant with Church teaching, is that prior to the Incarnation, Christ had no phyical body. He was pure spirit, the Word of God. It was only when He assumed a human nature (the Incarnation) that He acquired a body.

Yes, i believe Jesus and the authors of the Bible taught the same, David. Do you also believe He still has a physical body today?

Is Jesus still, as He was at the moment He was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 100% God and also 100% man?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Thank you, Pax.

Yes, i can visualize a cross; i can also visualize an intelligent alien being from another dimension. She stands about as tall as my 10-year-old son; has smooth, cool, silvery-gray skin; has no noticeable ears or nose; and has deep, dark, sensitive eyes as big as the rear-view mirrors on my car. I can even dream about such a being. In my dream, she might take me in her space craft to different times and strange new worlds. She might tell me amazing things i’d never heard before (not with her lips but with her thoughts that i can somehow hear in my own mind). She appears real to me when i close my eyes, but when i open them she slips away.

I can do the same with a cross. The cross in my mind is no less a cross than the one upon which Jesus suffered and died for you or i, but it is less real. In fact, it is not real at all! It is just a product of my imagination.

Do you, Pax, really believe the cross you see only with your mind is the same cross upon which your Redeemer was tortured and executed?

http://www.augiemania.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/alien1.jpg

In Catholic belief you can say yes, the cross you visual for all purposes is the same cross Jesus died on when you are meditating. This belief is based on two things:

God exists outside of time and space and has access to past, present and furture all at once so when I meditate on any sacred mystery it is the same as accessing that time and place directly. This is applied to meditation in the Ignatian method of prayer and it is also a part of the power of praying the mysteries of the rosary. In the mass it is especially true since we have Jesus’ word that time is suspended and we are actually present at Calvary during the mass. Thus everyone has access to the Sacred moment when Jesus died for them. The Merode Altar piece is an example of Northern renaissance artwork that shows this concept. it is a tryptych and in the first panel a couple kneels in prayer holding rosaries. As they meditate a mystical door opens leading to the second panel : an Annunciation scene. The artwork teaches how Catholics conceive of meditation. Time is accessed and the people are brought into that moment when the angel appeared to Mary.

The second thing I would say this is based on ( and this is just from me) is that God has the most senstive Spirit possible. Now we know that when someone says a harsh word or looks at us with disdain it can hurt our human spirit. We have all experienced that. Now, if you are imaging the cross of Christ in your mind and in you thoughts you are telling God of your gratitude and sorrow over what he went through it will effect His Divine Spirit which is more senstive than any human spirit and in God’s eyes it is the same as if you did it for Him at the foot of the cross. As a devotee of the Holy Face I see this as wiping Christ’s Face just as Veronica did and I believe God knows my desire to actially comfor Him and it is real to Him.

In this sense the spiritual world and the physical world are always close together.

For many years people only received Holy Communion a few times a year. The Carmelites I belong to had a talk about how many times during the mass the faithful and the Carmelite nuns (1800s) were given blessed bread not consecrated bread at mass. They believed if they received the Blessed Bread with the same faith that God would be in it out of love for them as equally in a spiritually sense as if they were receiving consecrated bread, then the spiritual benefit was equally there there. This was an exercise in faith that helped them when they actually were given Consecrated Hosts.

I truly believe that a Spiritual Communion can be as equally beneficial as receiving the actualy consecrated Hosts if that is all you are able to have on a specific day…not that I am advocating skipping Communion if you can actually go…

And some people who can’t receive for some reason at mass ( Divorce for example) If they are longing and loving Jesus in the Eucharist more than those who do receive it may be receiving Jesus more in their Spiritual Communion than those who are receiving in a luke warm or unbelieving fashion.

You and I both existed in God’s mind before we were conceived and born. But God’s mind is the mind of the Creator and He has given us use of a mind to know Him and access Him. We are created in God’s image afterall.

Can human minds be focused wrongly or have false ideas…surely…

So the alien figure you are drawing could become an actual moving force for you if you took it seriously and treated it as real, but hopefully nothing like that does happen in your mind!

Science has always shown the human mind to be an amazing thing, but can any of us even conceive the all knowing, all wise nature of God and His thoughts!

Anyway, I hope I said something that made sense.

God Bless, maryJohnZ

A Holy Good Friday to everyone. Remember the hours between 12 and 3 are a special time of grace to pray, begin with Psalm 51 the penetential Psalm of David… Let us join in praying to end abortion and for the conversion of all the world.