A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Lazerlike42]

This is good, Lazer, you would make ancient Socrates proud!



The first step to talking with someone and not at him is to come to an agreement about the meaning of the words you both use. We now have these two definitions:

**Substance **is the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. Substance is what makes a thing what it is, and that which cannot be changed without changing the thing itself. An example is the molecules H2O making up snow.

Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion.
Now, lets apply these definitions to the point you were trying to explain to me:

It helps me to use examples, so i’ll use that of a snowball. The substance of a snowball is, on a molecular level, H2O. An accident of a snowball is that it is white.

Now, if my schnauzer were to pee on the snowball, the substance would still be H2O, but the accidents might be yellow and white. Then again, if my son were to take the snowball inside and put it in the microwave oven and heat it for 10 minutes, the substance would change to hydrogen and oxygen molecules, as the snowball melts and then transforms into a gaseous form. The change of substance would, in effect, change what the snowball is. That is, it would cease to be a snowball.

Am i understanding substance and accidents correctly, Lazer?

Ok, you’ve got it, I think.

The thing is that the substance of a thing is not it’s molecular structure. The molecular structure would be considered an accident. The molecular structure is a physical property. It’s what a thing is made of, not what a thing is.

I can see how this would be confusing, because you’re dealing with a very scientific world here. That’s not to say science is bad - hardly! - but rather that science is dealing with things on one level, whereas philosophy deals with it on a deeper level. I think the key is really grasping why water is made of H2O. It is because God made it that way. It didn’t have to be; if God had wanted to make water be made of CH4 or NaCl, or if He had wanted water to be one of the four basic elements of matter, as ancient philosophers believed, He could have.

Water is H2O because God made water H2O. He could have made it differently. In other words, if God had wanted, “water” would not be H2O, but something else. The composition does not define water. You’re getting confused because, in the world as God designed it, water is always made of H2O. But in the world as God made it, water is always transluscent, too, and it’s always liquid and always weighs 1 gram per cubic centimeter. These things are all clearly accidents, and should help us to see through the confusion over the molecular structure.

So in other words, God could have made water in some other way, and so water’s composition does not define it. It does in our natural world, but the nature of reality extends far beyond our natural world.

In transubstantiation, God replaces the substance of the bread with the substance of Christ, but He changes the accidents of Christ to those of bread - the molecular structure included. He does this because it would simply gross us all out to eat flesh that looked like flesh, as, if you watched the video of the miracle of Naju that I linked, you’d know from experience!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

A sign shows Divinity. It is recognizable, shows us(proof) that it comes from God.
…

Yes, i agree with that. Every miracle Jesus did, from turning water into wind, to giving sight to a blind man, to raising His own body from the dead, was a sign. It was irrefutable evidence that He was God.

Please tell me, how is the Eucharist a sign?

…and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
11This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

(John 2)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Ok, you’ve got it, I think.

The thing is that the substance of a thing is not it’s molecular structure. The molecular structure would be considered an accident. The molecular structure is a physical property. It’s what a thing is made of, not what a thing is.
…

Is the substance of a snowball the actual matter of the snowball, as opposed to the appearance or shadow? or is the substance of a snowman the actual matter of a snowman as opposed the the appearance or shadow?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Thank you, Alicia. I gave this example to someone else to try to express my stress (please tell me what you think):

Lets say that when Christianity was in its infancy the critics of the faith tried to kill it in its cradle. Lets say they removed the stone from Jesus’ tomb and pulled out His body and brought it to Peter and said, “Here is your God; behold, He is dead!”

Lets say Peter replied, “Behold, it’s a miracle! For He is not really dead, He only appears dead. The reality is He is alive–not just in spirit, but in the flesh!”

Would any of us be Christians, today? That’s the kind of struggle i’m having here. When you tell me the bread is not really bread, it’s like i’m being told a corpse is not really dead.
Of course, my story is completely fictional. *What *the truth is, is NO mystery, for it is an historical fact that Jesus got up and walked. How Jesus accomplished this feat is a mystery. If you told me that the how of the Eucharist was a mystery, i would have no problem with that. However, what you are telling me is that the what of the Eucharist is a mystery, which does not make rational sense to me.

See my dilemma? Wanting to believe is not enough. Faith is not desire; its trust in sound and rational evidence.

Faith transcends evidence, Socrates. What you are talking about is not at all faith. Faith is believing what God says simply because He says it, rather than for any evidence at all. There may in fact be evidence, but it’s not why we believe something on Faith. We believe something in Faith because we believe God, and God has told it to us.

That’s why He said to St. Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have *not seen *and yet have believed.”

Hebrews says, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

This is why what matters most is to figure out what God has said, not what our eyes tell us. As Augustine said, “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 the Blood of Christ.”

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I’m with Lazerlike on this one I’ll defer my questions/answers to only those dealing with this area for now

OK, I don’t want to interupt the thought process. I read the article on 'accidents and substance", and I understand that accidents are attributes associated with a form but can alos bepart of other forms while substance is more about the essential nature of something.

That is what I got out of it…

I also looked up the word 'consecration: since that is the moment when the miracle takes place and so it seemed pertinent to look at what that means, since the substance and accident of “bread” is effected by the words spoken.

“Fom the Latin consecrare, to render sacred. The dedication of a thing or person to divine service by a prayer or blessing.”
So when the consecration takes place the bread is placed into the service of God and the Will of God is that the
accidents of the bread and wine, or their appearance remains but the substance of the bread is replaced with His Substance.
I also saw that they term this Real Presence the SACRAMENTAL PRESENCE, so we can understand this in a new way as a unique presence… so talking about molecules and atoms will not really explain it…

“He is not physically or spiritually present, but rather sacramentally present. Sacramental presence is absolutely as real as physical presence. If His presence were merely physical and historical we would have only His body and blood. If His presence were merely spiritual it could include soul and divinity but not body and blood. His sacramental and substantial presence in each species contains His body, blood, soul and divinity.” secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/consecration.htm

This is a description of the sedar meal from the Hebrew Catholic site showing how it has ‘mazza bread’ or unleaved bread prefiguring the story of Jesus in many ways:

*During the Seder, the head of the family takes three pieces of unleavened bread, reminding us of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He breaks in half the second piece, suggesting the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity crucified. He then wraps one of these two pieces, called the afikomen (Hebrew: festival procession), a reminder of Jesus’ constant call, “Follow Me,” in white linen, reminding us of Jesus linen burial cloth, and “buries” or hides it, as Jesus was entombed. Later the youngest at table “resurrects” or finds the afikomen as Jesus rose from the dead. The head of the family then breaks the afikomen and passes it around for all to eat, as Jesus did when He told His apostles, Lk 22:19 “This is My Body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” In that way, Jesus through the Seder calls us to follow Him into His death and resurrection, to become a new person in Christ. *

FROM:
therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

And I hope I am not breaking into any thought process…

God Bless, maryJohnZ

 

[Lazerlike42]

Is the substance of a snowball the actual matter of the snowball, as opposed to the appearance or shadow of a snowball?

The substance of snowball is “snowball.” It is simply what the thing is. The thing is a snowball. It is made of frozen water. The question to ask yourself is, “could God make a snowball without using water?” Well of course He could, since He is the one that made water be water in the first place.

I had written up a whole thing on substance and accidents, which I wasn’t going to post when you showed you understand the subject. However, I think it may be helpful, after reading this post. Look for it next.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Socrates, let me try to write up my own defintion of accidents and substance, in very unconfusing, clear language.

Right now, I have a thing in front of me. Here’s what I notice about the thing in front of me. The thing in front of me is mostly white. The tip of it is black. It is also cylindrical. It’s light - doesn’t weigh too much. It doesn’t seem to have any particular odor to it. It has a very smooth texture. The thing is also made up of atoms.

Now I just so happen to have a second thing here at my desk. This second thing is not the first thing, obviously, because I can see them both here: they’re two seperate things.

This second thing actually shares all the same characteristics of the first thing:

• White body
• Black tip
• Cylindrical
• Light
• No odor
• Smooth texture
• Made of atoms

This second thing is a AA battery.

Now notice something. All of those things I noticed about the first thing and the second thing are true of both of them. Both are white. Both have some black. Both are cylindrical, and are light, and don’t smell and are smooth and are made of atoms. These are qualities that can be found in many different things. They are also qualities that can’t be found except in a thing. You can’t just reach down and pick up “white.”

You can’t touch “cylindrical,” or “odorless.” You can pick up a thing that is white, or touch a thing that is cylindrical or is odorless, but apart from being qualities of actual things, they don’t exist. These are accidents. Accidents are those qualities which don’t exist in and of themselves, but only when they are found in things. Furthermore, accidents can be found in many different things; they aren’t restricted to one thing. I have a two things here - a AA battery and a pen - and “white” exists in both of them.

But do those qualities define the things? Is a pen something that is white with a black tip, cylindrical, light, odorless, smooth, and is made of atoms? Well no, it’s not. After all, the AA battery had these qualities, too. Furthermore, I have another pen here, and this other pen is yellow, not white. It’s also got a funky smell, and it’s triangular. The accidents then, don’t define a pen. I have here two things, both of them pens, and both of them with completely different accidents.

What makes a pen be a pen, then, is something else. This is called the substance of a thing. The substance of a thing is what the thing is. Whatever all the accidents happen to be, a thing’s substance is what it really is. Thus, I have two pens, each of which have different accidents. I have two AA batteries, with different accidents. The substance of a pen is it’s “penyness,” the quality of being a pen. The substance of a battery is “batteryness” - the quality of being a battery. Not what it’s made of, not what it looks like, just that quality of, in its being, being a battery.

So let’s compare the two. Accidents are those qualities which don’t define a thing - which don’t make it what it is. The color, the weight, the shape, the size, the smell, the composition, etc. “White” does not make a pen be a pen, it makes a pen be a “white” pen." Thus, an easy way to think of them is like adjectives. That quality of a thing that does define a thing - that makes it what it is - is it’s substance. So, you can sometimes think of substances like nouns.

Note that a thing can have any number of accidents - white, cylindrical, light, etc. - but only one substance - pen, or battery, or dog, or human.

If that makes sense, I’ll add a few final notes.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The substance of snowball is “snowball.” It is simply what the thing is. The thing is a snowball. It is made of frozen water. The question to ask yourself is, “could God make a snowball without using water?” Well of course He could, since He is the one that made water be water in the first place.

I had written up a whole thing on substance and accidents, which I wasn’t going to post when you showed you understand the subject. However, I think it may be helpful, after reading this post. Look for it next.

**Substance **is the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. Substance is what makes a thing what it is, and that which cannot be changed without changing the thing itself. An example is the molecules H2O making up snow.Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion. OK, perhaps i’m confused, Lazer. Are you saying God changes the accidents of the bread, but keeps the substance of the bread the same? or are you saying God changes the substance of the bread but keeps the accidents the same?

 

[Lazerlike42]

**Substance **is the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. Substance is what makes a thing what it is, and that which cannot be changed without changing the thing itself. An example is the molecules H2O making up snow.Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion. OK, perhaps i’m confused, Lazer. Are you saying God changes the accidents of the bread, but keeps the substance of the bread the same? or are you saying God changes the substance of the bread but keeps the accidents the same?

Substance is not the *matter *of a thing - it’s what the thing really, truly is. In our modern day, scientifically obsessed world, we tend to think as though the matter of a thing is what makes it what it is, but that’s not so.

For example, the matter of Jesus Christ matched up with what we know of as human flesh - but He was in reality God.

I’m going to quote this again, from myself. Now Socrates - slow down. I think one of your problems is you’re reading through things at blazing speed. You would have to be, to be responding to the long posts you are only a minute after they’re posted! You’re very excited, and trying to learn a lot, I know - but just slow down. Just like the tortoise, slow and steady wins the race!

---

Water is H2O because God made water H2O. He could have made it differently. In other words, if God had wanted, “water” would not be H2O, but something else. The composition - the matter - does not define water. You’re getting confused because, in the world as God designed it, water is always made of H2O. But in the world as God made it, water is always transluscent, too, and it’s always liquid and always weighs 1 gram per cubic centimeter. These things are all clearly accidents, and should help us to see through the confusion over the molecular structure.

So in other words, God could have made water in some other way, and so water’s composition does not define it. It does in our natural world, but the nature of reality extends far beyond our natural world.

In transubstantiation, God replaces the substance of the bread with the substance of Christ, but He changes the accidents of Christ to those of bread - the molecular structure included.

 

[murphdog261]

During the act of consecration, transubstantiation occurs where:

The substances of bread and wine are changed into the substances of Christ’s body and blood

The accidents of the bread and wine remain

 

[murphdog261]

another clarification:

In the case of the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, it is a non physical / non-material change.

Since molecules are physical/material, they cannot be included in the substance of Christ’s body.

For it to be a sacrament, it must be a physical sign (bread) containing invisible (not physical) grace

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Substance is not the *matter *of a thing - it’s what the thing really, truly is. In our modern day, scientifically obsessed world, we tend to think as though the matter of a thing is what makes it what it is, but that’s not so.

For example, the matter of Jesus Christ matched up with what we know of as human flesh - but He was in reality God.

I’m going to quote this again, from myself. Now Socrates - slow down. I think one of your problems is you’re reading through things at blazing speed. You would have to be, to be responding to the long posts you are only a minute after they’re posted! You’re very excited, and trying to learn a lot, I know - but just slow down. Just like the tortoise, slow and steady wins the race!

…

It’s not that i’m rushing through, it’s that i’m taking it one step at a time, Lazer. At this point, i think, you need to change your definition of substance. We agreed that this definition is sufficient:

**Substance **is the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. Substance is what makes a thing what it is, and that which cannot be changed without changing the thing itself.

You are now appear to be saying that the agreed upon definition is faulty:

Substance is not the *matter *of a thing - it’s what the thing really, truly is.
You are actually saying that substance is the opposite of what we agreed it was when we began. I don’t mind changing your definition, i just want to be sure this is your intention before we move on.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

sub·stance http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngcache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif/ˈsʌbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngstəns/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationsuhb-stuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation*–noun *1.that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: *form and substance. *2.a species of matter of definite chemical composition: *a chalky substance. *3.[controlled substance.](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=controlled substance) 4.the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc. 5.the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. 6.substantial or solid character or quality: *claims lacking in substance. *7.consistency; body: *soup without much substance. *8.the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing. 9.something that has separate or independent existence. 10.Philosophy. a.something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b.the essential part of a thing; essence. c.a thing considered as a continuing whole. 11.possessions, means, or wealth: *to squander one’s substance. *12.Linguistics. the articulatory or acoustic reality or the perceptual manifestation of a word or other construction (distinguished from form). 13.a standard of weights for paper. —Idiom 14. **in substance, **a.concerning the essentials; substantially. b.actually; really: *That is in substance how it appeared to me. *****

---

Lazer:

Perhaps i missed something, but it was my understanding that you said definition # 5 was the one i should use. If i am wrong, or if you have changed your mind, please let me know.

 

[Lazerlike42]

It’s not that i’m rushing through, it’s that i’m taking it one step at a time, Lazer. At this point, i think, you need to change your definition of substance. We agreed that this definition is sufficient:

**Substance **is the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. Substance is what makes a thing what it is, and that which cannot be changed without changing the thing itself.

You are now appear to be saying that the agreed upon definition is faulty:

Substance is not the *matter *of a thing - it’s what the thing really, truly is.
You are actually saying that substance is the opposite of what we agreed it was when we began. I don’t mind changing your definition, i just want to be sure this is your intention before we move on.

I’m sorry, I don’t recall having agreed to that definition. Well I do now: it was the dictionary definition. I recall saying that was the best one on the list, but it’s not an accurate definition of what Aristotle meant by substance. Sorry for any confusion!

I made a long post trying to explain substance; it was just a few posts down. It’s the one with the bullet points, from 8:31 PM ET, or 7:31 or 6:31 or 5:31, depening on where you live. IT starts off, “Socrates, let me try to write up my own defintion of accidents and substance, in very unconfusing, clear language.”

Read that, and then if you want to write up a concise definition to agree on, go for it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m sorry, I don’t recall having agreed to that definition. Well I do now: it was the dictionary definition. I recall saying that was the best one on the list, but it’s not an accurate definition of what Aristotle meant by substance. Sorry for any confusion!

I made a long post trying to explain substance; it was just a few posts down. It’s the one with the bullet points, from 8:31 PM ET, or 7:31 or 6:31 or 5:31, depening on where you live. IT starts off, “Socrates, let me try to write up my own defintion of accidents and substance, in very unconfusing, clear language.”

Read that, and then if you want to write up a concise definition to agree on, go for it.

Are you saying, then, that definition # 5 is never true? In other words, Lazer, are you telling me the online dictionary got it completely wrong, because it gives the exact opposite of what the definition of substance should be?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Before you answer, Lazer, do you also think that the Webster’s and American Heritage medical dictionaries are giving the wrong definitions to those in our medical professions?

American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This sub·stance (shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifsthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifns)n.

1. 
   *]That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
   *]A material of a particular kind or constitution.
   The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
   
   Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This Main Entry: sub·stancePronunciation: (shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifsthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifns)
   Function: noun1 : physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence <the substance of nerve tissue> 2 : matter of particular or definite chemical constitution 3 : something (as drugs or alcoholic beverages) deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction <possession of a controlled substance> <has a substance problem> Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

[murphdog261]

It is easy to get stuck between something being substantially present and physically present (since it could be said that the substance/essence of a thing has to do with the matter of a thing).

This is what the catechism of the catholic church has to say about physically present and sacramentally present:

**1374 **The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 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."202 "This presence is called 'real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

And St. Ambrose (around 400’s AD says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205

 

[Pax]

Soc,

Your example of H2O is a good one. Your example gives a perfect insight into how the “accidents” of the “substance” we call H2O, can change from liquid, to solid, to gas, and even back again.

The trick now is to simply realize that God can also change the substance without changing the accidents. The bread and wine retain their accidents right down to the atoms and molecules, but the substance becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

God created both the substance and the accidents of all that we perceive.

The “accidents” that we perceive around us are what the senses perceive about the substance, but they do not reveal the substance itself. We cannot see the soul of a person even though we know it to be part of their substance. The changing accidents of water provide us with a parallel that enables us to understand that God can also change the substance which is hidden without changing the accidents which are visible.

We know that Jesus body is now a glorified body and we have the testimony of the apostles to inform us of at least some of what this meant. We know that Jesus could appear out of nowhere, and we know that he could apparently pass through material barriers based on the fact that he appeared to the apostles in the “locked” upper room. We also know that Jesus could consume food, and that Jesus still has the marks of the crucifixion. We also know that He now sits at the right hand of the Father in glory. We know that He is in heaven with a glorified physical body.

The transformation of Jesus body has some significance to this discussion. Jesus is able to be visible and physically present to the disciples after the resurrection and yet a moment later He can be invisible to them. These mysterious aspects of Jesus resurrected and glorious body give us a glimpse of why we can and should believe that Jesus can be present in body, blood, soul, and divinity within the Eucharist. All of these things are mysteries and difficult to understand, but they are what Jesus promised.

When God says something it happens. When God said “Let there be light” there was light. He created everything out of nothing. This creative act resulted in matter that has substance and accidents. God chose what both aspects would be. Surely He can change the substance of something while preserving the accidents of something else. The clues are all there, but we also must make the leap of faith.

I will pray for you as you ponder this great Christian mystery.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Socrates,

the problem that we’re dealing with here is that you can’t use a dictionary for this sort of thing. We’re dealing with philosophy. Philosophy uses words in completely different ways than what you tend to see in the dictionary. Every once in a while, you’ll find a dictionary that lists a philisophical usage as one of the definitions, but not always.

We run into this same problem with science. Science often uses words in ways inconsistent with how they are used generally speaking. Again, the dictionary will sometimes have a given scientific usage listed as one of its definitions, but not always.

None of the definitions I’ve seen corresponds to what the words mean in philosophy. Check out the post I referred to: that is what the words mean in philosophy.

 

[Pax]

murphdog,

While I’m typing away you quote Ambrose. He puts everything better than I can. Go dawg!