S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, David, but what do you think? When the second person of the Trinity took on human flesh, did God change, or did the substance of God remain the same?
- Status
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, Pax, that makes sense to me. A material human being must be greater than the sum of its physical parts. For, an immaterial soul, having no atoms, must have no physical parts.
Does it make sense, then, that your human body and mine have at least two substances–a material one and an immaterial one?
Does it also sound reasonable to say that a non-living thing, such as a rock or water in a pool, must be different from a living human body, in that it has only one substance, which is a material one?
A dead body, then, is more like a stone than a living king who can sit himself on a throne. For a dead body has no substance of an immaterial soul. It merely has the substance of a material body, so it is no longer living. One might say, i think accurately so, that the difference between the dead and the living is that the dead have only one substance, but the living have two.
I think this is true, do you?
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Well that is what I tried to say…three distinct persons, one substance. I used the word ‘identity’ in place of distinct persons…and they are perfectly united in ONE GOD totally indwelling within each other. i found this statement of belief helpful:
ATHANASIan CREED:
*Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit:
And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal;
as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit:
And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God:
And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord:
And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.*…
And lately I see so much on TV about being united in a false way under human doctrines that I think this is a Divine attribute we need to honor and put our faith in and desire for mankind.
But this is a unity of Three distinct persons joined in full union as One God. Their substance I believe is Holiness and all that Holiness means…love, mercy perfect justice, purity, perfect humility, etc…
But pardon me if I need to ponder the idea of three distinct persons all having the same substance and existing as One…in other words, what makes them distinct persons if their substance if the same? How do you explain that?
Does it have to do with relationship? With action? If you can help me with that I wouldbe grateful.
God Bless, maryJohnZ
D
distracted
Guest
the problem is that the substance of bread never changes as long as the thing remains what it is… but if God wants to change bread into Christ’s Body, He can do that because He is the one who made the substances in the bread in the 1st place… In this example, the thing changes (except in appearance) AND the use (intended use) also changes. Therefore it is a logical possibility that breadi-ness and Bodiness are words to describe the functions of the Host… Function, therefore, is not the same as substance (but again, they can be if God so desires)…
I cannot answer your last question due to the fact that i do not understand it…
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
I was looking at sacred geometry sites today in relationship to Chartres Cathedral in France. and they were talking about a theory that matter is really made up of a series of in and out vibrations that have a geometrical order to them that can be seen in patterns discovered by the ancients.
quote:
A wave structure of matter had already been proposed 130 years ago by William Clifford, he declared that ‘all matter is simply undulations in the fabric of space’. Unfortunately, his colleagues never took his work seriously.
In the WSM theory matter is just the interference pattern of in and out waves. The in-waves of a given particle are the out-waves of another particle. In this way all matter in the universe is sustained and mutually dependent. In and out waves tie all the matter in the universe together.
(1)
Perhaps someone who is more competant with science and math can understand this better than I.
They tied this to the in and out walking patterns of the round floor labrynth in the floor of Chartres. They also show how this pattern is sen in other art forms including Leonardo’s Vetruvian man…and perhaps some will think this way out, but it was pretty interesting.
I am just sharing this because they seemed to be saying the human body had proportions that could be seen to be the blue print for the universe. But could Christ’s body be present in the host in the form of vibrations of light or somthing like that?
I do believe the theories on sacred geometry do have some truth in them.
D
davidv
Guest
I believe you are using a different meaning for “substance” in the question than the one you proposed, so I don’t know.
Using the definition proposed, it depends.
In one case, I own two high chairs, one that I constructed and one that was purchased. Since they both belong to a class of things called high chairs, I would say the share the same substance, that of “high chairness”, even though they are exist separately (different) within the class.
In a second case, lets compare the squirrel that runs through my oak tree and the cardinal that perches on my neighbors evergreen tree. Since one has the substance of squirrelness and the other that of birdness, they have different subtances.
D
davidv
Guest
I agree with what I quoted. God does not change. His substance, often referred to as His essence, is unchangeable.
P
Pax
Guest
Yes, I would agree with all of this. I would also add that all other living things are different from rocks as well.
It is important to note that human beings have a material body and an immaterial soul, but one must keep in mind that the whole substance of a human being is the sum of the material and the immaterial. When we die our soul lives on, but we are not complete and whole until our soul is reunited with our glorified body. That is the ultimate substance of a human being.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Here is the definition of substance i am using, and that i believe is similar to the definition Aristotle might have used:
Substance is what a thing or living being is. It is what is essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the thing or living being ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else.Here is the definition of accidents that i am using and believe Aristotle might have used:
Accidents are the qualities of a thing or living being that is. They are what is not essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if any of these accidents are removed or altered, the thing or living being still remains what it is.
What i am thinking, David, is that you are correct. The physical body and the non-physical soul are, indeed, different from one another. Since they are different, they cannot be the same. Since they are not the same, than they cannot possibly be the same substance.
Therefore, you and i are not one substance, but two. We are a composite of substances who coexist with one another, but who are not one another. That is what i am thinking, but please tell me what are you thinking.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, David, you make an important distinction!
It appears, then, that you are talking apples and i am talking oranges. The fruit about which you are talking is secondary substance, and the fruit about which i am talking is primary substance. An explanation of each, from the Stanford University Web site, is here:
There is an important distinction pointed out by Aristotle between individual objects and kinds of individual objects. Thus, for some purposes, discussion of substance is a discussion about individuals, and for other purposes it is a discussion about universal concepts that designate specific kinds of such individuals. In the Categories, this distinction is marked by the terms ‘primary substance’ and ‘secondary substance’. Thus Fido the dog is a primary substance — an individual — but dog or doghood is the secondary substance or substantial kind. plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/I should then amend my definition of substance to avoid confusion:
Primary Substance is what a thing or living being is. It is what is essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the thing or living being ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else.Two chairs, then, will have the same secondary substance in common (they will be like each other in that they are both chairs). However, each chair will have separate primary substance (they will be different from each other in that they are not the same chair).
My thinking is that your own body and soul each has its own primary substance. What is your thinking?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I think, Distracted, that when Jesus did a miracle, there was wonder at how a miracle was done, but there is no question that a miracle was done! For example, when Jesus turned water into wine, no one questioned that the material substance of the water was altered–what was water had actually become wine. One taste proved that to be the case.
So, i’m confused when someone tells me that what was bread on the alter at Mass has become the body of Christ. Are Catholics using the word body in some metaphorical sense when they say this? Surely, the material substance of the bread is not altered. What was once bread does not actually become human flesh, does it? What once had the primary substance of bread does not exchange this for the primary substance of Jesus body, does it?
D
davidv
Guest
My thinking is that we are not communicating very well. If “substance” is what you defined above, then I, as a human being, can have only one substance, not two as you propose. So, what am I missing?Yes, David, you make an important distinction!
It appears, then, that you are talking apples and i am talking oranges. The fruit about which you are talking is secondary substance, and the fruit about which i am talking is primary substance. An explanation of each, from the Stanford University Web site, is here:
There is an important distinction pointed out by Aristotle between individual objects and kinds of individual objects. Thus, for some purposes, discussion of substance is a discussion about individuals, and for other purposes it is a discussion about universal concepts that designate specific kinds of such individuals. In the Categories, this distinction is marked by the terms ‘primary substance’ and ‘secondary substance’. Thus Fido the dog is a primary substance — an individual — but dog or doghood is the secondary substance or substantial kind. plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/I should then amend my definition of substance to avoid confusion:
Primary Substance is what a thing or living being is. It is what is essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the thing or living being ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else.Two chairs, then, will have the same secondary substance in common (they will be like each other in that they are both chairs). However, each chair will have separate primary substance (they will be different from each other in that they are not the same chair).
My thinking is that your own body and soul each has its own primary substance. What is your thinking?
J
jmcrae
Guest
A human being has one substance; not two.
The substance of a human being subsists in the union of his body and soul while he is alive on the earth.
At the moment of death, it begins to subsist in his soul alone.
At the time of the Resurrection, when body and soul are reunited, it will again subsist in the union of body and soul.
The substance of a human being subsists in the union of his body and soul while he is alive on the earth.
At the moment of death, it begins to subsist in his soul alone.
At the time of the Resurrection, when body and soul are reunited, it will again subsist in the union of body and soul.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I think i am the one who is missing something!
Please tell me why it is impossible for a human being to have two primary substances (one a physical body and one a non-physical soul).
My thinking is that the you or i might apply the definitions of substance this way:
(1a) Primary Substance of a soul is what a soul is. It is what is essential for a soul to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the soul ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else. **(1b) Primary Substance of a human body **is what a human body is. It is what is essential for a human body to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the human body ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else.The reason why i think a soul must have a different substance from a human body is that the human body can be completely destroyed (such as in the case of the atoms of a human body being vaporized during a nuclear explosion) yet the soul survives after the body ceases to exist. Therefore, the soul must have a different primary substance than the body.
Paul seems to be teaching the same when he writes this while he is on death row:
22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
*(Philippians 1)*He appears to be talking about the primary substance of his soul surviving after the primary substance of his body ceases to exist.
D
distracted
Guest
I was running out of time when reading this post, so maybe that’s why, when reading it, i felt my brain was being strained too much…
It is easier for me just to accept that the Host is really Jesus…
That saves on brain-cell burn out
D
distracted
Guest
Are you saying that there is not “evidence” that a miracle takes place on the altar? I have evidence and plenty of it, but i am not sure you would accept the evidence because it is not “tangible” (at least not to you)…
Have you read about the Miracle of Lanciano?. What was once bread does not actually become human flesh, does it?
Also, there are other Eucharist miracles… There is book written aobut them by Bob & Penny Lord
Jesus never said this believe was easy. When he spoke of the Eucharist (St. John 6:27-54) & said we must “eat [Him]”, many could not accept it… he lost a lot of followers, yet as they walked away, he never called them back to say anything like “I meant it symbolically…” He let them go away in disbelief…
I’ve been Catholic all my life (though was not catechized as a child
)… & i still sometimes have moments of difficulty believing, but doubts never last long.Whne i spend time with Jesus at the Blessed Sacrament, “doubts” disappearI. I feel a Presence i do not feel anywhere else… experience things i do not experience anywhere else…
And that is my “evidence”… evidence one does not understand until one experiences it himself…
D
davidv
Guest
What you are missing is that your use of “substance” in statements 1a and 1b are unacceptable, and not in keeping with its definition. Body and soul are not separate in the substance of the human person. See jmcrae’s post above.I think i am the one who is missing something!
Please tell me why it is impossible for a human being to have two primary substances (one a physical body and one a non-physical soul).
My thinking is that the you or i might apply the definitions of substance this way:
(1a) Primary Substance of a soul is what a soul is. It is what is essential for a soul to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the soul ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else. **(1b) Primary Substance of a human body **is what a human body is. It is what is essential for a human body to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the human body ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else.The reason why i think a soul must have a different substance from a human body is that the human body can be completely destroyed (such as in the case of the atoms of a human body being vaporized during a nuclear explosion) yet the soul survives after the body ceases to exist. Therefore, the soul must have a different primary substance than the body.
Paul seems to be teaching the same when he writes this while he is on death row:
22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.*(Philippians 1)*He appears to be talking about the primary substance of his soul surviving after the primary substance of his body ceases to exist.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Then, JM, is the one primary substance of a human being material (that is, made of atoms) or immaterial (that is, not made of atoms)?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Then, David, is the one primary substance of a human being material (that is, made of atoms) or immaterial (that is, not made of atoms)?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I’d say that i’m unaware of any physical evidence that the bread on the alter has the same material substance as the body of Jesus. So, i’m trying to understand how the physical body of Jesus, with all of its atoms, can possibly be understood to be present.
Not to distract you, Distracted, but can you think of even one bona fide miracle in the Old or New Testaments that did had absolutely no physical evidence to back it up?
- Parting the Red Sea
- Causing the blind to see
- Walls of Jericho falling down
- The crippled dancing around
- Christ risen from the dead, eating fish and breaking bread
Miracles like these point out, that physical evidence removed all doubt.
- Status