A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hey, all, i’ve got a bathroom to paint, kids to feed, a dog to walk, and house to clean up before my wife returns from Detroit.

Please feel free to leave replies for me to answer tomorrow. I do appreciate all the time and talent you are devoting to answering my questions. Thank you!

Blessings to all of you,

Soc

 

[Hrvoje]

Hence, i’m still trying to figure out how the flesh and bones of Jesus can truly be said to be the bread.

Might I offer a possible solution to your dilemma?

What you are wondering is how the flesh and bones - accidents - are in the bread, correct?
But - you are wondering over accidents rather than substance.
Well, transaccidation isn’t what happens, it’s transubstantiation, meaning that the substance is what changes. The substance is Christ, although the accidents of the bread and wine remain.
I’m sure you are familiar with such philosophical terms, so forgive me if I didn’t understand you correctly.

 

[maryj]

Yes, MaryJ, His sacrificial death and resurrection from the dead was the sign of the new and everlasting covenant. The miraculous sign was the resurrection.

Do you think He was saying that the bread and wine represent that sign?

Yes, but let’s leave it alone till you get done with your other conversation here. We’ll revisit this. Hope you got your honey-do list done before your bride arrives home

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Isn’t grape juice and crackers the anti-Eucharist?

If Jesus isn’t present isn’t that the real abomination of desolation?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Hey, all, i’ve got a bathroom to paint, kids to feed, a dog to walk, and house to clean up before my wife returns from Detroit.

Please feel free to leave replies for me to answer tomorrow. I do appreciate all the time and talent you are devoting to answering my questions. Thank you!

Blessings to all of you,

Soc

Socrates, I’m going to try to develop two concise definitions. I’ll have it posted by tomorrow morning.

 

[murphdog261]

This article is the best one I’ve read so far:

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html

Here are some excepts:

From “Transubstantiation and Reason” – by John Young

“The truth is that denial of the reality of substance is a contradiction of common sense. For something must either exist in its own right, such as water, a tree, a cat; or else it must exist in something else, such as color or shape. What “stands on its own feet,” as it were, is a substance; what exists in something else is an accident. Denial of substances leaves color, size, weight and so on without a subject of inherence; which implies a color which is not the color of anything, size which is not the size of anything, weight which is not the weight of anything.”

The substance is the essence, the nature, of a thing which exists in its own right. It isn’t inert, but dynamic, for it is the source from which all the powers and activities emanate. The accidents depend on it for their existence and their operation.

Take a stone, by way of example. We experience its hardness, its smoothness, its color, its shape. But the substance that has these attributes eludes our observation. Even were we to break the stone in two we wouldn’t see the substance; if we broke it into a hundred pieces we would be no more successful. So we might try some scientific tests, but still the results would be in the order of phenomena.

The substance of the stone is material, but it is not sensible. Yet it is not unknown, for** its accidents manifest it.** From the accidents perceived by sight and the other senses, the intellect gains an insight into the essence (the substance). Therefore words like stone, water, tree, horse have meaning: each brings to mind the thing named, and we have in our intellect the essence of the reality in question, although never perfectly, for **no substance can be perfectly understood through abstraction from sense knowledge. **

The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change; we know it only by faith in God’s word.

After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “. . .** the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject.”5
**

The second half of the article answers common questions about the soul and divinity of Christ, and the accidents of the body and blood of Christ being present within the substance.

The word “concomitance” is used, which means “in existence in connection with another”

…real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are really in this sacrament.9 But the mode of their existence is conditioned by the fact that Jesus becomes present through transubstantiation. Substance is converted into substance, and the accidents, consequently, are there in the manner of substance.

Under the species of the Eucharist, there is the flesh, blood, and soul and divinity of Christ, because these things are inseparable.

My next post will paraphrase the common objections more clearly. If you read this before my next post is up, then the article will do a better job than I will.

I am constantly praying for you Soc.

MurphDog

 

[Pax]

Lazer:

I’m not brushing aside what you are saying; i do appreciate the time you are taking in explaining. Let me try to paraphrase what you said, and please tell me if i’m getting it:

1. • All things spiritual or material have attributes or qualities
   • All attributes or qualities are either substances or accidents
   • Substances are those attributes which exist in and of themselves
   • Accidents are those attributes which cannot exist in and of themselves
   • All things spiritual and material have both substances and attributes
   • No substance is an accident
   • No accident is a substance
     I have two questions:
   • Are these premises accurate?
   • Is the atomic, molecular, and chemical structure of a material thing a substance or an accident?

1. 
   I think that your last question is the crucial one and I failed miserably in attemting to address this earlier. This is the toughest one to appreciate.
   
   The atomic, molecular, and chemical structure of a material or thing are the accidents rather than the substance. The characteristics of water as a fluid, solid, and vapor are helpful here. These accidents are observable characteristics. Likewise, the atomic, molecular, and chemical characteristics are also observable given the right tools. These are accidents in the same way that the fluid, solid, and vapor characteristics of water are its accidents.
   
   Let’s now look at our Divine Savior, Jesus. Jesus is, in His substance, a human being. Likewise, Jesus has all of the accidents that come with that humanity. Likewise, Jesus is God. The essence of Jesus is that he is true God and true man. The accidents of Jesus humanity are all that can be physically “observed.” Jesus humanity underwent/included a fundamental change at the point of His conception. Jesus is unique in that He has a human body and soul united with the Second Person of the Trinity. God accomplished this without a single change in the “accidents” associated with his humanity.
   
   Likewise, the Eucharist has a change in substance but not in accidents. The bread and wine become Jesus in his glorified state as true God and true man without any change to the “accidents” of the bread and wine. The accidents of the bread and wine go all the way to the atomic level.
   
   The miracle of the incarnation has no observable change in the accidents associated with the person of Jesus, and the miracle of the Eucharist has no observable change in the accidents associated with the bread and wine.
   
   I hope this helps.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why is it that people believe in their own soul which they cannot see but can’t believe in Jesus’ soul underneath the accidnets of bread and wione which they also cannot see?

Do they believe in themselves more than they believe in Jesus?

If the soul of Jesus can be there then his body, blood, and divinity being there is a piece of cake.

Belief in the eucharist doesn’t require any kind of proof–all it requires is an open heart that believe in Jesus’ word simply because Jesus is The Truth regardless of wehat our physical eyes might tell us.

without the Eucharist there is no personal relationship with Christ because personhood entails not only the soul but also the body and the blood.

in fact the Eucharist is beyond just a trite Protestant view of a relationship with Jesus–it is the infinite god being joined with us not only spiritually with the soul, and body and blood as we physically know each other but divinely which is beyond any human comprehension!

Why can’t people see that Jesus kinew what he was doing–that the eucharist is the way that Jesus and the Trinity commune with us and perfect us and sancitify us!

The eucharist is the Real Truth!

Anything less is a man made approximation that limits God!

Why would anyone want to do that?

 

[truthsilence]

Hey, Tami, thanks for asking an expert!

My difficulty is seeing how this statement can be true:

(a) There is no physical change in either the bread or the wine at the atomic or sub-atomic level.And how this statement can also be true:

(b) Nonetheless, it is Christ’s body and blood, and Christ’s soul and divinity.You see,

(a) is the opposite of (b)and (b) is the opposite of (a)so it is a logical contradiction to assert that both (a) and (b) are both true, and logical contradictions are always false.My reasoning is this:

(b1) The is Eucharist is believed to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.(c1) The Eucharist is also bread and wine.(d1) Bread and wine are physical (or material) and are composed of atoms.(e1) The soul and divinity of Jesus are spiritual (or non-material) and not composed of atoms.(f1) The body and blood of Jesus are physical (or material) and are composed of atoms.(g1) There is believed to be a metaphysical (spiritual or immaterial) change of the Eucharist, as it becomes the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.(h1) Jesus’ body and blood are physical (not metaphysical or spiritual or immaterial)(a1) There is no evidence of a physical (or material) change in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. They remain atomically, and molecularly, and chemically bread and wine.

Therefore (conclusion):

It is a logical impossibility that the bread and wine of the Eucharist has actually become the body and blood of Christ. However, it is not logically impossible that it becomes the soul and divinity of Christ.
Understand that i really want to believe that the Eucharist is true, but i also want to love the one who is the Truth. He tells me that i must love Him not just with all my desire, but also with my mind (or reason):

Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ "(Matthew 22:37)
It is my firm conviction that to accept a logical contradiction as being true is to fail to love Jesus. I cannot accept the Roman Catholic teaching on the Eucharist as true until i understand how it is in no way a logical contradiction, for, as i said, logical contradictions are always false.

See my dilemma?

Yes, I do. But it is not a contradiction. It is a miracle. And you believe other miracles, so I think you can believe this too.

I don’t know how Jesus got into that locked upper room after his crucifixion, to be able to stand among his frightened disciples. Perhaps he had a key? No, I don’t believe he did. It wasn’t a natural occurrence that He was able to get in there without a key; it was a supernatural one. How he did that is anyones guess, because the answer is not given. And I’m quite sure the disciples were having a dilemma of their own at that moment.

I make this connection on purpose, because I believe it shows perfectly that God is able to do many things that are beyond our capacity to fully comprehend. I know you believe this too, unless you tell me you fully understand how He was able to get into that room without a key, or how he could appear as a flaming fire, etc.

So we don’t know exactly how Jesus comes to us under the appearance of bread and wine. We have been told by the good Deacon in his wisdom that it is through a Sacramental transformation, and something metaphysical, rather than physical. A Sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace, instituted by Christ, for the sanctification of our souls. The Eucharist is the Ultimate Sacrament. Everything else in our faith flows from it. No one can explain exactly how this Sacramental transformation occurs, but we do know why, and that is, because God loves us. It is a way for Him to be truly and fully present with us, each and everyday until He returns again in Glory.

I have told you that I didn’t expect those words of Christ to come to life for me the way that they did. And now that they have, I can’t look at them any other way. What seems impossible, actually is possible, simply because He said so.

Your sister in Christ,
Tami

 

[murphdog261]

Here is my second post, which is a summary of the article I attached before, by John Young: catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html

This second half of the article covers a few things:

1. the reasonableness of transubstantiation
2. the relation of accidents to substance
3. How the soul and divinity of Christ can be present within the Eucharist without the bread and wine changing into the soul and divinity of Christ.
4. How the accidents of the body of Christ are present in the Eucharist, in the manner of the substance of Christ’s body. (This one’s a bit tricky)
5. What concomitance means: in “existence in connection with another”.

Answers to some difficulties

I quoted Louis Berkhof’s assertion that separation of a substance and its properties is contrary to reason.

If we said this happened naturally it would indeed be contrary to reason. But what we say is that it happens through the supernatural action of God. He holds all things in being simply by an act of his will, the accidents depending on their substances as on secondary causes; and in the Eucharist he dispenses with those secondary causes.

whether the accidents are hiding the substance from our gaze so that their removal would be like drawing back a curtain, allowing us to see Jesus’ body.

A substance can’t be seen or tasted or experienced by any of the senses. To think otherwise would reduce substances to the status of accidents, thus making it impossible to see what the dogma of transubstantiation means, and inevitably leading one into bewilderment when trying to explore the teaching.

• whether the bread and wine are converted into our Lord’s soul and divinity.*

…that cannot be the answer, for it would involve the absurdity of a piece of bread becoming God. It would be converted from bread into divinity. A finite piece of matter would become the Infinite Spirit.
The Church teaches that the bread is changed into Christ’s body and the wine into his blood, and that **his soul and divinity become present through concomitance. ****He is one indivisible being, so when the bread is changed into his body, the whole Christ necessarily becomes present. **But the actual transubstantiation—the changing of one substance into another—is only of his body and blood. It is the change of a **material substance into another material substance. **

*What of the accidents of Christ’s body? *

They too are there; otherwise he would not be fully present. As St. Thomas says: “. . . since the substance of Christ’s body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are really in this sacrament.9

But the mode of their existence is conditioned by the fact that Jesus becomes present through transubstantiation. Substance is converted into substance, and the accidents, consequently, are there in the manner of substance.

The bread and wine are changed into body of Christ.

We cannot say that the bread and wine change into the soul and divinity of Christ…but we can say that the substance of Christ’s body, through concomitance, has the presence of his soul and Divinity.

The same goes for the accidents of the body of Christ.

We cannot say that the bread and wine change into the accidents of Christ’s body (we are not cannibals)

The accidents, which are part of the “whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body” are really in the sacrament. The presence of Christ’s accidents, however, are only there in presence by concomitance, since Jesus’ body is wholly there.

The substance of bread changes —> substance of Christ’s body.

*within *the presence of the changed substance Christ’s body, the soul, divinity, and accidents are present. This is because nothing of Jesus’ body is separable.

That is as clear as I can make it,

Murph

 

[jmcrae]

What Luke is describing is more like Jesus moving at the speed of thought and teleporting (e.g., one moment He was outside the door and the next moment He was inside the door, but He did not pass through the door as if He were a ghost). Me being a geek (as i work in Information Technology) i liken it to the transporter on Star Trek, only much faster.

Actually, He didn’t teleport from outside the door, but from Emmaus, because at the same moment that he appeared to the disciples in the Upper Room, the disciples at Emmaus were amazed to recognize Jesus in the breaking of the bread.

That Jesus had a physical body is shown conclusively by the Jesus’ words:

“Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”*(Luke 24:39)*Hence, i’m still trying to figure out how the flesh and bones of Jesus can truly be said to be the bread.

Jesus still has a physical body. The accidents of his physical body when he comes to us in the Eucharist are bread and wine.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

We know that Jesus had a physical body after the resurrection.

We know that Jesus came from Heaven THROUGH the walls of the upper room to see the disciples.

At the exact time and instance that Jesus’ body was passing through those walls it was really there underneath the accidents of the material that made up those walls!

Look if people can materialize on Star Trek in walls–don’t tell me that Jesus can’t go through them and that when He passes through them that He isn’t bodily there just as He is bodily in the Eucharist!

Beyond that the true Substance of the bread and wine becomes Jesus!

What’s so hard about God doing that?

And what’s so hard about believing that the true substance of Jesus could be there underneath the accidents unseen just as His body was unseen going through the walls of the upper room?!

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Yes, you make an interesting point, MJ. However, the gospel writer does not describe Jesus walking through a door, as if He were a ghost.

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”(Luke 24:36) That’s one thing i like about the Luke, he pays close attention to details. Renowned archaeologist and scholar William F. Albright called him the best of all the ancient historians. What Luke is describing is more like Jesus moving at the speed of thought and teleporting (e.g., one moment He was outside the door and the next moment He was inside the door, but He did not pass through the door as if He were a ghost). Me being a geek (as i work in Information Technology) i liken it to the transporter on Star Trek, only much faster.

That Jesus had a physical body is shown conclusively by the Jesus’ words:

“Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”*(Luke 24:39)*Hence, i’m still trying to figure out how the flesh and bones of Jesus can truly be said to be the bread.

As long as you say that Catholics believe the flesh and bones of
Jesus are bread your words betray your misunderstanding…

No one has said that bread=Jesus
what has been said is that an invisible reality ( Jesus fleah and blood and soul and divinity) has REPLACED the bread but we can only see, taste, smell bread and wine…

BREAD (at words of consecration the bread is given to God and put at His service and Jesus is saying those words, swearing by His own Being which is Divine)

APPEARANCE OF BREAD ( at words of consecration this is what remains on the altar)

THE APPEARANCE OF BREAD WHICH HAS BEEN CONSECRATED IS ALL THAT REMAINS OF THE BREAD.

And there is no real way to explain that in terms of physics because God is not bound by the rules of time and space, He owns time and space and matter…

So it all comes down to faith.

Did you know that Jacob’s Well was the well that Jesus offered the ‘living water’ to the Samaritanm woman and it was at that well that Jacob had wrestled with the angels and had the dream of the ladder going up to heaven which I blieve was meant to foreshadow the descent of the Eucharist on our altars since the Eucharist is the summit and source of all graces…And jesus foretold this when he said someday there would be a universal sacrament offered all over the world which is the Eucharist…

I think you are wrestling with things just like Jacob.

God Bless, maryJohnZ

Bread and Wine + Consecrationg of Bread and Wine by Priest acting as Jesus=
Jesus under the appearance of bread and Wine

 

[mikeledes]

May i ask what i said that offended you, Michael, and why was it was offensive?

The Eucharist for Catholics is sacred. Asking if we believe Jesus is the Pilsbury Doughboy is very offensive and does not sound like something that would come out of the mouth of a person searching for the truth. Why? Because if you truly believed that the Real Presence could possibly be true, then you would not trivialize it in such a manner because you would be offending God Himself.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Question 13.

I’d like to apologize and say i’d like to make a change so as to not offend. Would anyone be willing to give me a second chance, or have my remarks warn out my welcome?

“So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

–Jesus (Luke 17:3-4)

Apology accepted.

God bless,
Michael

 

[davidv]

Lazer:

I’m not brushing aside what you are saying; i do appreciate the time you are taking in explaining. Let me try to paraphrase what you said, and please tell me if i’m getting it:

1. • All things spiritual or material have attributes or qualities
   • All attributes or qualities are either substances or accidents
   • Substances are those attributes which exist in and of themselves
   • Accidents are those attributes which cannot exist in and of themselves
   • All things spiritual and material have both substances and attributes
   • No substance is an accident
   • No accident is a substance

1. 
   Premises 2. and 3. are not correct.
   Premise 2: Attributes and qualities are “accidents” and can never be “substance”.
   Premise 3: Substances are not attributes (accidents)
   

   I have two questions:
   

   • Are these premises accurate?

   No. See above.
   

   Is the atomic, molecular, and chemical structure of a material thing a substance or an accident?

   The physical make up of a thing are its accidents.

 

[maryj]

Yes, MaryJ, His sacrificial death and resurrection from the dead was the sign of the new and everlasting covenant. The miraculous sign was the resurrection.

Do you think He was saying that the bread and wine represent that sign?

covenant- concrete "signs’ are exchanged to remind the two parties about their agreements. these covenants were formally ratified- sealed in blood. check out Gen15:7-19 on how the covenant with abram was ratified, ie how there was the shedding of blood and the passing of God’s presence through it.

Pope John Paul ll the theology of the body, his explanation on the signs of the covenant-books.google.com/books?id=svA0moWkh30C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=signs+of+the+covenants&source=web&ots=eXlwyBldoK&sig=fM0ZmbcSmyXbi2qY3V5OHRrkijM&hl=en#PPA17,M1

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Might I offer a possible solution to your dilemma?

What you are wondering is how the flesh and bones - accidents - are in the bread, correct?
But - you are wondering over accidents rather than substance.
Well, transaccidation isn’t what happens, it’s transubstantiation, meaning that the substance is what changes. The substance is Christ, although the accidents of the bread and wine remain.
I’m sure you are familiar with such philosophical terms, so forgive me if I didn’t understand you correctly.

HRV:

I think you have accidents confused with substance:

**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.Substance is that which cannot change without changing what the thing or person is. Accidents are those things that can change without changing what the thing or person is.

The flesh and bone of Jesus body are not accidents, they are the substance of who He is. Some of the accidents of His body are the scars on His hands and feet and in His side that He bore for you and me.

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

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, but let’s leave it alone till you get done with your other conversation here. We’ll revisit this. Hope you got your honey-do list done before your bride arrives home

It about killed me, and took a whole day, but it’s done.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Isn’t grape juice and crackers the anti-Eucharist?

If Jesus isn’t present isn’t that the real abomination of desolation?

If the physical body and physical blood are present in the Eucharist, JJ, then why does it still have the DNA or bread and wine?