A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Thank you, Lazer! (BTW, i think that link you gave me where i got the definition of accidents also had the definition of substance. You might want to start there.)



And please, call me Soc (or if you get really perturbed with me call me stinky old Sock)!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Quote:
“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.”

…

I agree.

Quote:
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.

Ahhh, i don’t agree. Isn’t the substance of a stone is it’s molecular structure? Remember the definition of 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 being the molecules H2O making up a snowball.

Quote:
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. **

Right, like i said, look at a stone on the molecular level and you can see what the naked eye cannot: Its substance, which is the source of it’s essence, which is it’s molecular structure.

Quote:
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**

Accidents cannot exist without substance. Remember the definition of accidents:

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. The yellow color of a snowball after my dog Buttons pees on it is another example.If the substance ceases to exist, it’s accidents cease to exist as well. Reason tells me that the one you are quoting is being unreasonable, or irrational, for he appears to be contradicting himself, or what we agree is the definition of accidents. A self-contradiction can never be true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Apology accepted.

God bless,
Michael

Thank you, Arc Angel Guy! BTW: As i see it, there are two roadblocks standing in my way of seeing the Eucharist as you do:

1. 
   *]How the material body and blood of Christ can possibly be in the Eucharist.
   *]How one can understand Jesus to be speaking literally when He says the bread and wine are His material body and blood.
   Eventually, i’m going to have to get past both.
   
   So, if you want to continue discussing (2) where you left off, i’d welcome that. Perhaps we could take a closer look at the words of John, chapter 6?
   
   

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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)
No. See above.

The physical make up of a thing are its accidents.

Davy:

Please give me one example of a substance and its accidents, so i can see how i am misunderstanding you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

You’ve lost me, MJ. Sorry!

What does this have to do with proving the substance of Jesus’ material flesh and bone are present in host?

 

[jmcrae]

Davy:

Please give me one example of a substance and its accidents, so i can see how i am misunderstanding you.

The substance of a snowball - it’s “snowballness” if you will, can be perceived even when most of its accidents are not present. For example, if you make a drawing of a snowball (accidents: white and round) a child will immediately recognize it as “a snowball.”

In the Eucharist, none of the accidents of Christ’s body are present, but the fullness of His “Christness” are present, under the appearance (accidents) of the bread and the wine, which no longer contain the substance of bread and wine, but rather, the substance of Christ.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The substance of a snowball - it’s “snowballness” if you will, can be perceived even when most of its accidents are not present. For example, if you make a drawing of a snowball (accidents: white and round) a child will immediately recognize it as “a snowball.”

In the Eucharist, none of the accidents of Christ’s body are present, but the fullness of His “Christness” are present, under the appearance (accidents) of the bread and the wine, which no longer contain the substance of bread and wine, but rather, the substance of Christ.

Why is H2O not the substance of a snowball?

**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.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Gotta go! But i look forward to reading your responses later.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

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.

http://www.alamut.com/images/2001_misc/doubtingThomas.jpg

I think this is a well worded explanation:

The erroneous Docetists claimed that Christ only appeared human but was not really man. Dare we say that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ but not really the body of a man? Yet we know that it is not the body of Christ before his resurrection but the glorified body of Christ which has an agility and an ability to be in many places at one time, no longer held to the bondage of the mortal bodies we inhabit here on earth. The Body of Christ in the Eucharist is the same glorified body that passed through the closed doors of the upper room to be with the terrified apostles. It is the same body with which Christ ate fish on the seashore when Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him. It is the same glorified body of Christ into which Thomas was invited to place his fingers and hand.

When Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit and visited St. Elizabeth, Elizabeth exclaimed, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”(Luke 1:43). Knowing Mary’s love it is not much of a mystery. Knowing Mary is a channel of God’s love it is not such a mystery that she would go to Elizabeth. The real mystery for me is that if Elizabeth was amazed that Mary, the mother of our Lord would come to her, what a much greater mystery it is not so much that Christ would contain himself in the host but that He would come to me. Like Elizabeth, I wonder, “Who am I that God Himself would so annihilate Himself to come to me, a sinner in the Holy Eucharist.”

What are the physical properties of a “glorified body?”
Can you come up with a DNA for such a body? I think once a body is glorified it is the body of the person but it has been spiritualized in some way as shown by the power Jesus possessed in His body after the Resurrection. How do we know that the original Adam and Eve did not have ‘spiritualized bodies’ before the sin in the garden? We really don’t know that for sure…

Perhaps the change in their bodies
after the Fall was what brought about their deep sense of shame.
Maybe when the words of scripture tell us they were clothed in ‘animal skins’, it is telling us that the spiritualized nature of their body had been taken away?!

Does that mean they were no longer Adam and Eve? No…but they were less than they were before,

and after the resurrection Jesus is not a different Jesus (substance), but His body is changed and He is more than He was before…he is the glorified Christ. What is ‘glorified matter’ like?

So, maybe if we think outside of the box for a minute we can see a new way of seeing the human body…

I hope I am not saying something wrong, so correct me brothers and sisters if i am…

God Bless, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

1Corinthians 15:44 speaks of our death and resurrection: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. " The spiritual body is what I earlier called the glorified body. It is the body of the saints when it has been resurrected. It is an incorrupt body, but it is a body.

Just to add a quoite from Corinthians about the nature of a glorified body…

God Bless, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Here is the article from New Advent on the nature of a ;glorified body’

newadvent.org/summa/5085.htm

*On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 13:43): “The just shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” and (Wisdom 3:7): “The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds.”

Further, it is written (1 Corinthians 15:43): “It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory,” which refers to clarity, as evidenced by the previous context where the glory of the rising bodies is compared to the clarity of the stars. Therefore the bodies of the saints will be lightsome.

I answer that, It is necessary to assert that after the resurrection the bodies of the saints will be lightsome, on account of the authority of Scripture which makes this promise. But the cause of this clarity is ascribed by some to the fifth or heavenly essence, which will then predominate in the human body*

God Bless, MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I loved the last part of the New Advent article which answers that the glorified body is controled by its pricipal part which is the Soul,thus it is not necessarily seen …

*“Reply to Objection 3. Quantity is inherent to the glorified body itself, nor would it be possible for the quantity to be altered at the soul’s bidding without the glorified body suffering some alteration incompatible with its impassibility. Hence there is no comparison between quantity and visibility, because even this quality whereby it is visible cannot be removed at the soul’s bidding, but the action of that quality will be suspended, and thus the body will be hidden at the soul’s command.” *

God Bless Socrates!

MaryJohnZ

 

[DrPiano]

I agree.

Ahhh, i don’t agree. Isn’t the substance of a stone is it’s molecular structure? Remember the definition of 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 being the molecules H2O making up a snowball.
Right, like i said, look at a stone on the molecular level and you can see what the naked eye cannot: Its substance, which is the source of it’s essence, which is it’s molecular structure.

Accidents cannot exist without substance. Remember the definition of accidents:

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. The yellow color of a snowball after my dog Buttons pees on it is another example.If the substance ceases to exist, it’s accidents cease to exist as well. Reason tells me that the one you are quoting is being unreasonable, or irrational, for he appears to be contradicting himself, or what we agree is the definition of accidents. A self-contradiction can never be true.

I think part of the problem is that whoever “okay’ed” that definition of Substance didn’t notice that you were including “An example being the molecules H2O making up a snowball.” This is actually NOT true and NOT part of the definition of “substance” that we’re all using. The first part is fine:

**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.

We’re saying that the molecules are part of the “accidents”, and that “substance” in itself is a far deeper concept.

Here’s (in part) why: I can have the molecules H2O without making a snowball. I can freeze them solid and make ice. I can then chip that ice into bits and make bits of ice. I can melt that ice to water and put it in a glass. I can vaporize that water into gas. In each of these H2O is not equal to a snowball. If a dog pees on my white snowball, you’ve changed what makes the snowball up (the urine contains more than just H2O) but its still a snowball (although a bit of an icky one). With Dry Ice (CO2), if I work it right, I can make a snowball that isn’t composed of ANY H2O (or if a bit gets in, the amount of H2O is minimal)

I can make a chair out of wood or plastic or stone. I can make a pen out of a feather or plastic or wood. I can make a pen out of different shapes, colors, sizes. I can make bread out of rye, wheat, barley, even rice. I can make it with or without sugar, honey, yeast, banannas, nuts, other fruits. I can change a bread recipe almost any way.

What makes these things a snowball or a chair or a pen or a loaf of bread? It isn’t their chemical composition. It isn’t their atoms. Its something FAR deeper than what they are composed of. Why is my snowball a snowball but my glass of water isn’t? Its because it has the “substance” of a snowball, its “snowball-ness”. It isn’t what it looks like. It isn’t its atoms. H2O doesn’t “equal” a snowball. Its something far deeper than that. So that no matter what test I do, no matter how good my “eyes” (or my tools) are, I can never truly “see” a thing’s substance. I can only ever measure/examine/see its accidents.

The world isn’t just a collection of atoms. Its a collection of atoms that behaves according to metaphysical properties that are far deeper, that we cannot measure. I sympathize with you. I’m a scientist. I have a tendency to see my world in its various parts, down to cells and atoms. But we’re so much more than that. There is more to this world than atoms. What makes a “thing” a “thing” is much deeper than its atoms.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

1Corinthians 15:44 speaks of our death and resurrection: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. " The spiritual body is what I earlier called the glorified body. It is the body of the saints when it has been resurrected. It is an incorrupt body, but it is a body.

Just to add a quoite from Corinthians about the nature of a glorified body…

God Bless, maryJohnZ

Was Jesus raised from the dead with an immaterial (not physical) body? Or was He raised with an immortal material (physical) body?

Please read Luke’s words and tell me what you think:

36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look 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.”
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things.

(Luke 24)

I’ve spoken to Jehovah’s Witnesses who say He was raised with a spiritual body, which they describe as immaterial (without matter and without molecular structure or DNA). Do you think they are correct, MJ?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think part of the problem is that whoever “okay’ed” that definition of Substance didn’t notice that you were including “An example being the molecules H2O making up a snowball.” This is actually NOT true and NOT part of the definition of “substance” that we’re all using. The first part is fine:

**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.We’re saying that the molecules are part of the “accidents”, and that “substance” in itself is a far deeper concept.

Here’s (in part) why: I can have the molecules H2O without making a snowball. I can freeze them solid and make ice. I can then chip that ice into bits and make bits of ice. I can melt that ice to water and put it in a glass. I can vaporize that water into gas. In each of these H2O is not equal to a snowball. If a dog pees on my white snowball, you’ve changed what makes the snowball up (the urine contains more than just H2O) but its still a snowball (although a bit of an icky one). With Dry Ice (CO2), if I work it right, I can make a snowball that isn’t composed of ANY H2O (or if a bit gets in, the amount of H2O is minimal)

I can make a chair out of wood or plastic or stone. I can make a pen out of a feather or plastic or wood. I can make a pen out of different shapes, colors, sizes. I can make bread out of rye, wheat, barley, even rice. I can make it with or without sugar, honey, yeast, banannas, nuts, other fruits. I can change a bread recipe almost any way.

What makes these things a snowball or a chair or a pen or a loaf of bread? It isn’t their chemical composition. It isn’t their atoms. Its something FAR deeper than what they are composed of. Why is my snowball a snowball but my glass of water isn’t? Its because it has the “substance” of a snowball, its “snowball-ness”. It isn’t what it looks like. It isn’t its atoms. H2O doesn’t “equal” a snowball. Its something far deeper than that. So that no matter what test I do, no matter how good my “eyes” (or my tools) are, I can never truly “see” a thing’s substance. I can only ever measure/examine/see its accidents.

The world isn’t just a collection of atoms. Its a collection of atoms that behaves according to metaphysical properties that are far deeper, that we cannot measure. I sympathize with you. I’m a scientist. I have a tendency to see my world in its various parts, down to cells and atoms. But we’re so much more than that. There is more to this world than atoms. What makes a “thing” a “thing” is much deeper than its atoms.

Yes, now that you mention it, i agree that the semi-solid state of a snowball is one of its accidents, not its substance. You are correct that the substance of a snowball is water (or wateriness, as Aristotle might call it). Hence, i should rephrase my questions:

What makes water different from hydrogen and oxygen, Doc? What is the hydrogeness of hydrogen? What is the oxygeness of oxygen?

What *is *the wateriness of water?



http://www.burnie.net/html/images/waterfall_large.jpg

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Was Jesus raised from the dead with an immaterial (not physical) body? Or was He raised with an immortal material (physical) body?

Please read Luke’s words and tell me what you think:

36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look 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.”
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things.

(Luke 24)

I’ve spoken to Jehovah’s Witnesses who say He was raised with a spiritual body, which they describe as immaterial (without matter and without molecular structure or DNA). Do you think they are correct, MJ?

I didn;t say without DNA…just that we can’t understand ‘glorified DNA’…and I know that Jehovah witness are not really Christian’s in that they don’t believe Jesus was the Eternal Son of God ,so I don’t plan on comparing beliefs with them.

But most belief systems have some aspect of thruth to them so perhaps they have some true understanding of the resurrected body of Christ…I don’t really know how they think of that…

B ut the key things seem to be the Fall of Adam created a separation in the being of a person between body and soul and set up a type of war within the person .

In Christ this separation is defeated. The physical being of a person is reigned in by the Spirit residing in their soul. Body and Soul are in union again. What the affects of that seems to be a ‘new creation’…
and the sign of that is a glorified body capable of new wonders.

Some saints shared in these wonders, for example Padre Pio was said to have bi-located during his life. That isn’t what nomal DNA does… Teresa of Avila was said to have elevated and floated at times during Mass and there were written instructions for her nuns to hold her down if she should start to do this.We have incorruptible Saints…etc.These are just some of the evidence that holiness changes the person from the inside and that this change effects the body as well.

God Bless,

MaryJohnZ

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Here’s some food for thought:

Science is a moving train. What scientists believe today to be true is, in many ways, different from what scientists believed just a hundred years ago, not to mention more than 2,000 years in the past!

Aristotle was the greatest scientist of his day, and Alexander the Great was extremely blessed to have him as a tutor. But Alexander the Great live more than 2,300 years ago. Aristotle was a genius when it came to biology, but he had no concept of molecular biology. He was brilliant in his knowledge of chemistry and physics, but he had no clue about even a simple thing like the molecular structure of a snowball. Aristotle was the the ancient Greeks what Einstein was to my grandfather’s generation, but my 10 year old son knows more about some things than Aristotle did.

If i asked my youngest son what a snowball and he have in common, he would tell me they are both made of atoms. If i smiled and praised him and asked him how he became so smart, he’d tell me he learned about atoms by watching the cartoon Jimmy Neutron.

Just because Aristotle was ignorant of atoms, we should not be so ourselves. Whatever definition this Father of Science had, we should modify it to fit the reality that we know. As the teacher of Aristotle’s teacher said:

We ought not to speak of a name, but contemplate the thing for which it stands.–Socrates (Theaetetus 177) Rather than take some disproved, ancient, scientific theory and try to make reality fit it like making a square peg fit a round hole, we ought to follow Socrates’ advice: We ought to take what we know to be the reality about physical matter and come up with a concept (or word) that best describes reality.

For, if we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?*–Socrates (Phaedrus 274)*Thinking rationally is necessary for being a Christian. It is one way in which we worship the one who has done so much to reason with us by the demonstration of His love and ultimate sacrifice for us, by dying for our sins and raising, in a physical body, from the dead. He was, and is today, both God and man. We should worship Him as we know Him to be.

Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming … and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” *(John 4:21-24)*I don’t know about anyone else, but i want to worship Jesus in truth.

 

[AliciaCL]

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.

 

[maryj]

Was Jesus raised from the dead with an immaterial (not physical) body? Or was He raised with an immortal material (physical) body?

Please read Luke’s words and tell me what you think:

36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look 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.”

40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things.

(Luke 24)

I’ve spoken to Jehovah’s Witnesses who say He was raised with a spiritual body, which they describe as immaterial (without matter and without molecular structure or DNA). Do you think they are correct, MJ?

Jesus was raised with a glorified body and hopefully so will we someday.

 

[AliciaCL]

Reply to Socrates4Jesus. I made a software blooper in trying to reply before.

You still can’t understand the what of the Eucharist? Neither could some of the apostles. I think it is the same as manna was in the Old Testament. It was physically real bread or breadlike but was sent from a divine source. As I’ve said, the only way I can understand the Eucharist is that it becomes imbued, infused, imbedded with the Holy Spirit which IS God and Jesus. I suggest a spiritual presence which is supernatural, divine, thus we are unable to intellectually grasp it. What difference does it make whether it has a dual nature of bread and God/Jesus or just God/Jesus? The understanding of this is spiritual, not physical.

Mother Theresa knew the truth that the Eucharist was God/Jesus but suffered for 50 years by failing to spiritually feel His presence. This may be similar to your issue. Ultilmately, if you don’t believe, you don’t. The bible verses are there. Perhaps it may be helpful for you to try to figure out what alternative there could be for Christ saying “This IS my body” and telling the apostles 4 times, you must eat my flesh and blood for eternal life, like the sacrificed lamb of passover had to be eaten.

Why God/Jesus made some things more cryptic than others, I don’t know. It also should carry some weight that the early Christians, before the bible was complied, were taught, passed down from the apostles, taught by Jesus himself. The believed in the real presence in the Eucharist as a Mass-like liturgy in the first centruy. The difficulty in explaining away these facts may give you a boost. Also, it never hurts to pray for faith. I think it indicates you are on the right path that you are seeking to understand soo hard. I haven’t read all of this thread but you do not seem to be getting angered, but continue to try to understand. To me that is a strong indication that you are on the right path. Often conversions of heart and faith (unfortunately) take years. Best to you.******