A Tale of Two Eucharists

[toaslan]

Yes, Davey, but what is the individual substance that makes up bread? What is the individual substance that makes up the body of Christ?

If I may attempt an answer while Davey is thinking it over: the individual substance that makes up bread would be ****the “essence” of bread brought to bear upon matter (i.e., that which is potential to that “essence”). I put ‘essence’ in quotes because bread is an artifact but we can call it “essence” or “nature” by courtesy or by extension from the formal meaning of the word.
Soc:

Perhaps it would help us both come to an understanding of what i am asking if i ask the question this way: **Why are atoms not the substance of that which is made of atoms? **

Dear Peaceful Warrior: Atoms are not the substance of that which is made of atoms because the word “atom” itself describes a body of a sort. A body is enacted by its soul. So the atom is made actual by the form of the atom (said form known only to its inventer, the Atom-Maker). Likewise, that which is made up of atoms, call it X, is caused by the Form of X.

To say the atoms ARE the substance of that which they constitute would be to say

The Material Cause of a thing is the thing.

This is to say that the wood causes the Viking Funeral boat.

In a sense this is, yes, true. But that sense is found at a more superficial level of causality than we are trying for in a thread on Transubstantiation. That sense is found at the level of material cause. The sense we need is that found at the level of substance.

We need to look at causality at the level of nature. Of essence. Of Form.

This means we need to look at the Formal Cause of the atom.

The formal cause of the atom is, let us say, “atomness”. We need to acknowledge the “whatness” of the atom. That way we recognize the most fundamental cause of its being. Its material makeup does cause a thing in a sense–but such material is itself dictated by the cause underlying all causes. Its Formal Cause. Its essence or nature. For living things: its soul.

The atom is formally caused by its own atom-Nature.
The natural thing X , materially caused by atoms, is formally caused by its own X-Nature.

What am I missing, Soc?

 

[toaslan]

If bread cannot stand on its atoms, then on what can it possibly stand?

Beautiful Atlas, beautiful question, Soc!

Bread stands on its atoms, its material components, in the sense that they are its material cause.

Bread stands on its formal cause in a substantial rather than a material way.

Bread can stand on the natures of wheat, water and oil, and on the “essence” of “breadness” in the mind of the baker.

Soc, do you agree that the latter foundation is the deeper–more real–answer to your question?

 

[steve_b]

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.*(Luke 24)*Does verse 35 say they recognized Jesus in the bread or that they recognized Jesus because He broke the bread?

This thread is starting to wander. Getting back to your original question.

You really ask, what remained with them after He disappeared? Mere bread, or His real body?

You’ve already been given 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29, and Jn 6. Cathoic teaching is it is His real body. Heterodox say no. Who’s right?

The ECF’s say it is His real body.

Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of St John)

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 ~A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr (labored in Rome, many ECF’s quote him)

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology *66 ~A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle)

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 ~A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Etc
Etc
Etc
many quotes after this can be given.

It’s clear what is believed and taught as truth, by those closest to the apostles. And it is also clear what is false teaching by the heterodox. Don’t get distracted with all kinds of side issues.*

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, I read the article twice, but found I needed to refer to the source. Grazing through Aristotle’s Metaphysics Ch 5-8, I pulled out just a few bits to help with “substance”, and at the bottom I give proposed changes to our definition:

The study of being is primarily the study of substance. I include this sentence because it justifies spending so much time on this particular definition…

We call ‘substance’

1. all bodies, because they are not predicated of a subject but everything else is predicated of them
2. that which, being present in such things as are not predicated of a subject, is the cause of their being, as the soul is of the being of an animal ….
   4) the essence, the formula of which is a definition, is also called the substance of each thing.

It follows then, that ‘substance’ has two senses, (A) the ultimate substratum, which is no longer predicated of anything else, and (B) …the shape or form of each thing.

Substance is the cause or form which puts matter into a determinate state; it is that in a thing which is distinct from its material elements.

…Substance is a principle and a cause……Therefore what we seek is the cause, i.e. the form, by reason of which the matter is some definite thing; this is the substance of the thing.

The substance is the indwelling form, from which and the matter, the so-called concrete substance is derived, for example, concavity is a form of this sort, for from this and the nose arise ‘snub nose’ and ‘snubness’…

The soul is the primary substance and the body is matter, and animal is the compound of both. I threw this in because it shows the emphasis on soul/essence/definition in the meaning of substance.

Given these exerpts, I propose the following modified definitions of Substance and Primary Substance:

Substance is being as in the “whatness” underlying/causing all things; it is the form/definition/essence/nature of things. Accidents inhere in it; it inheres in nothing.

A Primary Substance is an individual body.

And given this from the Categories Ch 5:

But in a secondary sense those things are called substances within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is included in the species ‘man’, and the genus to which the species belongs is ‘animal; these, therefore–that is to say, the species man and the genus animal–are termed secondary substances.

I would propose that:

Secondary Substances are species and genera.

Do these definitions help make more distinct some of the variables which have arisen as we talk about substance?

I think you are worried about saying many and varied things, Aslan, when only one thing is needed: I’m asking, “What is a primary (or an individual) substance of something?” The Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy indicates that Aristotle defined primary (or individual) substance this way:

The individual substances are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring.
This is the definition i’d like to use, unless you can give me a convincing reason why the professors of this Ivy League school who compiled this encyclopedia are not to be trusted as authorities on the subject of Aristotle’s teachings.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Question 16.

A sanctioned Stanford University publication defines Aristotle’s definition of individual substances this way:

"… Individual substances are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring."

Should we not use this as our guide to understand what the individual substance of the bread of the Eucharist is?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If I may attempt an answer while Davey is thinking it over: the individual substance that makes up bread would be ****the “essence” of bread brought to bear upon matter ****(i.e., that which is potential to that “essence”). I put ‘essence’ in quotes because bread is an artifact but we can call it “essence” or “nature” by courtesy or by extension from the formal meaning of the word.

Dear Peaceful Warrior: Atoms are not the substance of that which is made of atoms because the word “atom” itself describes a body of a sort. A body is enacted by its soul. So the atom is made actual by the form of the atom (said form known only to its inventer, the Atom-Maker). Likewise, that which is made up of atoms, call it X, is caused by the Form of X.

To say the atoms ARE the substance of that which they constitute would be to say

The Material Cause of a thing is the thing.

This is to say that the wood causes the Viking Funeral boat.

In a sense this is, yes, true. But that sense is found at a more superficial level of causality than we are trying for in a thread on Transubstantiation. That sense is found at the level of material cause. The sense we need is that found at the level of substance.

We need to look at causality at the level of nature. Of essence. Of Form.

This means we need to look at the Formal Cause of the atom.

The formal cause of the atom is, let us say, “atomness”. We need to acknowledge the “whatness” of the atom. That way we recognize the most fundamental cause of its being. Its material makeup does cause a thing in a sense–but such material is itself dictated by the cause underlying all causes. Its Formal Cause. Its essence or nature. For living things: its soul.

The atom is formally caused by its own atom-Nature.
The natural thing X , materially caused by atoms, is formally caused by its own X-Nature.

What am I missing, Soc?

Perhaps you are missing nothing, Aslan. Perhaps we will discover some truth is yet to be found by your answer to some questions. Please answer this simple question for me:

If

a = the individual substance of the air inside a balloon
and

w = the individual substance of water inside another balloon

then which of the following is true?

a = w

or

a "Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints", by Norman Swartz w

 

[toaslan]

This thread is starting to wander.

Hi, Steve. Those are great quotes from the ECF witness.

But, good Steve, I have dutifully read every single page of this thread, and the pause–and I hope it’s only a pause–to nail down a definition of substance is not, IMHO, out of place. Soc was handling several balls up in the air at once, one of which was what do we mean by the substance in transubstantiation?

I contributed on that point NOT to prove that transubstantiation is true, because such is not subject to proof. My purpose was to help show that transubstantiation is not against reason, because some objections being raised to the Eucharist were because it didn’t make sense “physically.” Since it does make sense physically, that is, we can identify the natural laws being observed and those being suspended during the miracle, it seemed fitting to offer such thought.

The material is offered to Catholics too who wish to push father their grasp at the human level. What I posted is just brushing the tip of philosophical thought on this most unique of all becomings.

For not only does the Substantial Change which is the Eucharist make sense biblically–which it does; patristically–which it does; historically–which it does; it also makes sense philosophically!

Our belief in the Blessed Eucharist is salvific, gorgeous, righteous, historical, blessed AND reasonable!

I hope my posts on the definition of substance didn’t turn anybody else off!

 

[toaslan]

"… Individual substances

are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring."
Should we not use this as our guide to understand what the individual substance of the bread of the Eucharist is?

Quibble: I know what “individual” means. And it’s modifying the word “substance.” So what does “substance” mean, again?

But yes, I agree that Individual substances are as above defined–by my understanding of substance.

 

[toaslan]

Please answer this simple question for me:

If

a = the individual substance of the air inside a balloon
and

w = the individual substance of water inside another balloon
then which of the following is true?
a = w

or

a "Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints", by Norman Swartz w

OK, my answer is
ahttp://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/beyond_experience/not_equal.gifw

 

[NDfan]

Perhaps you are missing nothing, Aslan. Perhaps we will discover some truth is yet to be found by your answer to some questions. Please answer this simple question for me:

If

a = the individual substance of the air inside a balloon
and

w = the individual substance of water inside another balloon

then which of the following is true?

a = w

or

a "Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints", by Norman Swartz w

Socrates a very good book you can read to help with this dilemma you have is Christ in the passover. If you study the Jewish seder meal it will become very clear what Jesus was doing with the last supper.

At one time the seder meal contained the meat of a real lamb that was sacrificed at the Temple. The Jews ate this lamb to commemorate for lack of a better word the lambs that were slaughtered prior to the Exodus from Egypt. This is how GOD redeemed the Jews from the Pharaoh as you know with the blood of the lamb on the top and sides of the doorway. When the Jews would celebrate passover and participate in the seder meal they would literally try to bring the past to the present. The word used for that is Amnesis in Greek and is found in the NT when Jesus states “do this in remembrance (Amnesis) of me”. This means to literally stop what you are doing and almost enter a meditative state to recall the event.

As part of the seder meal the Jews would drink 4 cups of red wine to signify different things. The red wine was mixed with warm water and was used to “symbolize” the blood of the lamb. One of the most important cups was the 3rd cup which was drunk after the meal. This 3rd cup was called the “cup of redemption” because again as you know it was the blood of the Lamb that GOD used to redeem the Jews from the Pharaoh.

Now an important note about the seder meal is after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD the Jews had no place to sacrifice their lambs and the seder meal was changed a bit to reflect this. Instead of eating a lamb the Jews would place a shank bone of a lamb in place of the real lamb to represent or symbolize the ancient passover sacrifice. This shank bone was called the zeroah.

After the seder meal was complete the Jews would take olive sized pieces of unleavened bread and eat those to symbolize the body of the Lamb. This was done with the 3rd cup of redemption which as stated above was red wine mixed with warm water to symbolize the blood of the lamb. This is called the Afikomen. So picture this part of the meal and remember exactly what Jesus did the night HE ate with the disciples. They were eating the seder meal and upon completion Jesus grabbed bread and stated that it was HIS body. Jesus was foreshadowing the Afikomen part of the seder meal because he knew the temple would be destroyed. Instead of the bread symbolizing the lamb of the passover, Jesus was now showing us the bread symbolized HIS body as the perfect and final sacrificial Lamb for all sin. Likewise when Jesus took the cup, this was the same cup of redemption that was drank after the seder meal. Now instead of Jesus drinking it as the symbol of the passover lambs from the Exodus, HE states that it is HIS blood now which represents the new covenant of redemption. HIS blood which was shed at the cross. The seder meal was complete symbolism and the bread and wine after the seder meal were and are symbols.

To really understand what Jesus was doing that night you have to understand the Jewish culture and the seder meal. What I find most interesting is we see after the resurrection that the seder meal which is celebrated once a year was substituted with the Agape meal. The meal of love. Early Christians ate this Agape meal together which we see also referred to as “breaking bread”, and then participated in the Lord’s supper after. Using the unleavened bread and the 3rd cup of redemption to represent Jesus body and blood, doing it in Amnesis of Jesus as he requested. It’s noted that Ignatius would literally meditate for like 3 hours after receiving the Lord’s supper, remembering HIS great sacrifice in tears.

There’s so much more that could be discussed but we would quickly run out of space. Hope this helps a little.

PEACE

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quibble: I know what “individual” means. And it’s modifying the word “substance.” So what does “substance” mean, again?

But yes, I agree that Individual substances are as above defined–by my understanding of substance.

Yes, well, just what the individual substance of a thing is, is what we are trying to discover, Aslan!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Please answer this simple question for me:

*If *

a = the individual substance of the air inside a balloon

and

w = the individual substance of water inside another balloon

then which of the following is true?

a = wora "Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints", by Norman Swartz​

w

​

OK, my answer is
ahttp://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/beyond_experience/not_equal.gifw

Yes, that would be my answer, too! Now, let’s say the balloon with water also has some air. Would you say, Aslan, that inside that one balloon ahttp://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/beyond_experience/not_equal.gifw? That is, are there two individual substances in close proximity to one another, or are they now one individual substance?



http://dkchan.org/pic/b/dkchan-b-220-0-200707.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates a very good book you can read to help with this dilemma you have is Christ in the passover. If you study the Jewish seder meal it will become very clear what Jesus was doing with the last supper.
…

Fan:

About books about topics of which i know little, i’d have to concur with Socrates:

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them. For the book cannot protect or defend itself.
(Phaedrus 275)
However, if you would like to discuss the book with me, i’d be happy to do so.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This thread is starting to wander. Getting back to your original question.

You really ask, what remained with them after He disappeared? Mere bread, or His real body?

You’ve already been given 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29, and Jn 6. Cathoic teaching is it is His real body. Heterodox say no. Who’s right?

The ECF’s say it is His real body.

Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of St John)

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 ~A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr (labored in Rome, many ECF’s quote him)

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology **66 ~A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle)

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 ~A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Etc
Etc
Etc
many quotes after this can be given.

It’s clear what is believed and taught as truth, by those closest to the apostles. And it is also clear what is false teaching by the heterodox. Don’t get distracted with all kinds of side issues.

How can what the Eucharist is be a side issue, SteveBee? It seems to me that this is the primary issue at hand.

Regarding the quotes you provided, i’d like some assurance they can be trusted before i accept them as true. With this in mind, i have two questions:

1. 
   *]How do you know they were sincere, but not sincerely wrong?
   *]How do you know that these quotes allegedly attributed to them are what they actually wrote or said?
   

 

[toaslan]

Now, let’s say the balloon with water also has some air. Would you say, Aslan, that inside that one balloon ahttp://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/beyond_experience/not_equal.gifw? That is, are there two individual substances in close proximity to one another, or are they now one individual substance?

My answer to that is: A balloon with air and water inside it has two individual substances inside it, with substance meaning underlying form.

By the way, let us not call Toaslan by the name of the Great Lion Himself; rather let me go with you on our way to Him .

 

[toaslan]

"toaslan:

I agree that Individual substances are as above defined–by my understanding of substance.

Yes, well, just what the individual substance of a thing is, is what we are trying to discover…

Sorry, Soc, to be unclear.

I was trying to say that “individual substance” is a compound phrase, each term needing definition. Without agreement as to “substance” we may talk at cross purposes about “individual substance”.

Or the difficulty may not arise–but I have a feeling it is germane.

However, I like and accept your definition of Individual Substance given my definition of Substance.

Will this work for you?

 

[clmowry]

I hope my posts on the definition of substance didn’t turn anybody else off!

I find it quite useful and necessary to the discusion at hand.

Continuing to use definitions of “substance” that preclude that used in the tormulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation makes contiued fruitful discusion of the Eucharist very difficult I think.

Chuck

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

My answer to that is: A balloon with air and water inside it has two individual substances inside it, with substance meaning underlying form.

By the way, let us not call Toaslan by the name of the Great Lion Himself; rather let me go with you on our way to Him .

Sounds reasonable to me, ToAslan! Let us say we add a third balloon with helium or perhaps hydrogen gas in it. Would you say that it’s individual substance is different from that of water or oxygen?

To save time, would you also agree, that if one of the balloons had all three (oxygen, water and hydrogen) then the balloon had within it three individual substances?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[toaslan]

Sounds reasonable to me, ToAslan! Let us say we add a third balloon with helium or perhaps hydrogen gas in it. Would you say that it’s individual substance is different from that of water or oxygen?

yes, i would say that a helium-filled balloon has a different individual substance than does a water-filled balloon or an air-filled balloon.
Soc:

To save time, would you also say, that if one of the balloons had all three (oxygen, water and hydrogen) would you also agree that the balloon had within it three individual substances?

Depending on the relative amounts of these individual substances involved, we could find ourselves holding either a big fat water balloon without any gases at all; or a water balloon also containing some leftover hydrogen gas or leftover oxygen gas.

So I think we have either
–only one individual substance in the balloon, water; or
–two individual substances, water and one of the gases;
–where before we had three separate individual substances…

So it would seem there has been inside the balloon…what shall we call it; oh, I don’t know–how about: “a substantial change”?

 

[toaslan]

I find it quite useful and necessary to the discusion at hand.

Continuing to use definitions of “substance” that preclude that used in the tormulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation makes contiued fruitful discusion of the Eucharist very difficult I think.

Chuck