A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Socrates4Jesus]

For the sake of assisting in having a thoughtful discussion, i’d like to propose these as the definitions of substance and accidents:

Substance is that which is required and necessary for a thing or being to be or remain what it is.

Accidents are those attributes of a thing or being which are not required nor necessary for it to be or remain what it is.

I’d like everyone willing to either approve of these definitions or suggest necessary modifications. By this time tomorrow, if there are no objections to, or modifications required for, these definitions, then we shall use them to understand the substance and accidents of the Eucharist.

 

[davidv]

For the sake of assisting in having a thoughtful discussion, i’d like to propose these as the definitions of substance and accidents:

Substance is that which is required and necessary for a thing or being to be or remain what it is.

Accidents are those attributes of a thing or being which are not required nor necessary for it to be or remain what it is.
I’d like everyone willing to either approve of these definitions or suggest necessary modifications. By this time tomorrow, if there are no objections to, or modifications required for, these definitions, then we shall use them to understand the substance and accidents of the Eucharist.

I can agree with these definitions. The one on substance is nearly identical to the one provided by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Substance, the first of Aristotle’s categories, signifies being as existing in and by itself, and serving as a subject or basis for accidents and accidental changes.

 

[DrPiano]

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.

I understand where you’re coming from Soc. I really do. I was born and raised a scientist. I love science and the explanations that it gives. I love the problems that it can solve. I love that on many levels “biology is just chemistry”, something I discovered and told my mom in High School. I received a bachelors degree in biochemistry and now I’m in medical school, learning how to take care of people. I love science.

But one thing I’ve learned over the past few years is that science isn’t everything. There is far more to this world than what we can see or feel or study. There is the physical world made up of atoms. There is also a metaphysical world that underlies it. The beauty of God’s creation is that 99.999% of the time, he makes it so the two match up. Because he commands that the natural world follow these laws he has established for the vast majority of the time, we can study it and make predictions about it.

Studying the natural world is wonderful. Its a good job and a good calling. BUT sometimes, when we think we have God’s creation all figured out, we become tempted to be intellectually prideful. We start saying that what we’ve discovered or learned is all there is. We ignore other truths, other realities.

Philosophy isn’t wrong simply because it looks at the world through different eyes than Biology or Chemistry. Philosophy doesn’t negate the “truths” of Biology and Chemistry. Philosophy studies that which is deeper. It studies the metaphysical realm.

With your questions, you are making the mistake of thinking that “if I just get to the smallest part then I will have found the substance in the material world.” I showed you the error in your thinking about the snowball and so you turned to water. But you’re ignoring things on a macro-level.

Soc, what makes a chair a chair? It isn’t its atoms or molecules: I can make a chair out of almost any substance and then turn around and use those same atoms to create something entirely different. It isn’t how it looks: chairs come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and colors. They can have 2 legs or 4 legs or no legs at all. They can have a short back or a tall back or no back at all. They can have arms or no arms. I can take each of the above parts of a chair (legs, back, arms, and a seat) and make a couch or a love seat or a stool or a foot rest. A chair is a chair because it has the metaphysical substance of a chair. This substance, its “chair-ness” is what makes it a chair. And on some level we recognize that in things. We can walk into a room and see a chair we’ve never seen - perhaps one that even looks VERY different from anything we’ve ever seen - and know that it is probably a chair.

What makes a snowball a snowball? As I demonstrated before, it isn’t its atoms. So, Soc, what makes a snowball a snowball? And what makes a pen a pen? And what makes bread bread? And what makes an atom an atom?

 

[DrPiano]

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)

Regarding Christ’s glorified body, I think Jesus has (and we will have) control over his body as to how “solid” it appears. I’m guessing it has DNA and atoms. But I also think that it can more easily break the laws of physics as we know them. He had the ability to be in one place in one minute and gone in the next. I think he also had the ability to be solid in one moment and semi-solid in the next, not because he wasn’t actually physically raised from the dead, but because our glorified bodies are so integrally connected to our spirit that our spirit will rule them and command them. Jesus continues to bear the marks of crucifixion in his physical body. But I believe he can do many things with that physical body.

I was listening to Father Corapi last night, and he reminded me of something. In the Mass we are, as an entire community, connected with and transported to Christ’s one sacrifice and his presentation of that sacrifice to God. We are the ones who are moved - we’re moved into the heavenly realm. At the consecration our offerings to God of bread and wine, taken from the bounty that he has given to us, are taken by the one God, appropriated to himself, and given back to us as himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ’s soul and divinity are present - you’ve already agreed that this is possible, Soc. But Christ’s human soul and divinity cannot be separated from each other and they cannot be separated from his body and blood. These elements of Christ are inseparable and indivisible. Christ, presenting his sacrifice, is veiled to us in little wafers that to every test look like bread.

Yes, Soc. God is a rational God. But he also breaks the “natural law” that he has established: its called miracles. If he has control over the physical world in that way, surely he has control over the metaphysical world too.

Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.

"As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I suggest reading Job chapters 38-40.​

 

[DrPiano]

For the sake of assisting in having a thoughtful discussion, i’d like to propose these as the definitions of substance and accidents:

Substance is that which is required and necessary for a thing or being to be or remain what it is.

Accidents are those attributes of a thing or being which are not required nor necessary for it to be or remain what it is.

I’d like everyone willing to either approve of these definitions or suggest necessary modifications. By this time tomorrow, if there are no objections to, or modifications required for, these definitions, then we shall use them to understand the substance and accidents of the Eucharist.

I actually disagree with these definitions because I can see how you might use them to make atoms or molecules the “substances” of a thing. So, no, I disagree. I would change it to be such:

Substance is the metaphysical quality of something or someone that makes that thing or being what it is.

Accidents are any attributes of a thing or being that can be observed by the senses or equipment or tools in the physical world, either now or in the future.

 

[jmcrae]

I actually disagree with these definitions because I can see how you might use them to make atoms or molecules the “substances” of a thing. So, no, I disagree. I would change it to be such:

Substance is the metaphysical quality of something or someone that makes that thing or being what it is.

Accidents are any attributes of a thing or being that can be observed by the senses or equipment or tools in the physical world, either now or in the future.

Thank you, these are good definitions.

You should definitely apply for the “swim team.” If you do, then I guarantee, there’s an RCIA facilitator out there who doesn’t know it yet, but is about to get his or her socks blown off.

 

[mikeledes]

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?
   
   

1. 
   Regarding the first question, I answer … why not?
   
   Here is an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
   
   newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3
   
   Regarding the second question, I restate my original argument. When Jesus makes an ambiguous statement that leads to a question and/or objection, His response gives an indication of what that original statement meant, whether it was literal or figurative, etc. His response to the Jews objection reaffirms that He was speaking literally.
   
   God bless,
   Michael

 

[distracted]

Questions like “Is your God a loaf of bread” or “Is Jesus the Pillsbury Dough Boy” are VERY offensive. It felt like (and feels like) your main goal is to ridicule our faith rather than really look for the truth.

I agree… The thing is, a “loaf of bread” can become God, but poster’s implication is that we Catholics believe the loaf of bread is all of God to us.

Poster would do well to read John 6:27-54 and 1 Cor. 11:22 (the dangers of taking Communion unworthily).

 

[distracted]

Is your God capable of changing bread & wine into His Body & Blood…

Mine is. He changed water into wine…

He created human beings out of the dirt…

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I actually disagree with these definitions because I can see how you might use them to make atoms or molecules the “substances” of a thing. So, no, I disagree. I would change it to be such:

Substance is the metaphysical quality of something or someone that makes that thing or being what it is.

Accidents are any attributes of a thing or being that can be observed by the senses or equipment or tools in the physical world, either now or in the future.

So substance would include non-concrete attributes like God is

omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent, Infinite, immutable, all just, etc…
Web Page on God’s Attributes which I would say you are defining as His substance:
preceptaustin.org/attributes_of_god.htm

coorect me if I am wrong.

maryJohnz

 

[maryj]

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?

Yes, MJ! It has been said that Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote primarily to the Jewish people, but John’s gospel had the purpose of evangelizing the Greeks and Romans. Having studied pagan religions and Stoic philosophers, i see evidence of this. Please allow me to explain​

The pagan religious believers and the Stoic philosophers were looking for God in all the wrong places. It is my opinion that John was showing them that the one whom they were searching was Jesus. He was using all these metaphors to show the pagans that their beliefs were merely symbols of the reality that they could find only in our Lord. Jesus, the bread from heaven, was sent from God to give life to a lost and dying world.

What do you think?

(soc)

A symbol as opposed to a sign. shall we discuss the differences?

And why was the world lost and dying?

Yes, please explain the difference.

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

There were nine covenants made between God and his people. Dueteronomy shows us the curses for breaking the covenant.
Here’s a breakdown in biblical timeline fashion.
1 One holy couple Adam-Gen 1-3 sign #7
2. One holy family Noah-Gen9 sign: Rainbow
3.one holy tribe Abraham- Gen15,17,22 sign:circumcision
abraham was given 3 covenants Land/ Dynasty(David)/family blessings
4. One holy nation Moses- Ex 24/ Deut 29 sign: Law (giving)
5. one holy kingdom David- 2 Sam. 7 sign: temple
6. One holy, catholic, and apostolic church
JESUS- Mk 14 Sign: the Eucharist

The New Covenant, the everlasting covenant. There is no share in the New Covenant if we remain in the old. Here’s the kicker:
Jesus was sent to take our punishment for breaking our covenant with God. He was the ONLY sacrifice that God would except. And God was the one who gave this sacrifice to us. what a great God, the God of Justice and of Mercy. shall I continue…

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!!!

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

So Soc, I have tried to show you that the Eucharist is not a symbol, but a “sign”. Good luck and God bless on your journey. If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart.

 

[DrPiano]

So substance would include non-concrete attributes like God is

omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent, Infinite, immutable, all just, etc…
Web Page on God’s Attributes which I would say you are defining as His substance:
preceptaustin.org/attributes_of_god.htm

coorect me if I am wrong.

maryJohnz

Ah. I see where the mistake is. An accident is any attribute (not just the physical ones). God isn’t God because he’s omnicient, God is God because he has the substance of God. Same with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The three persons of God are the one God because they have the single substance of God.

Thus, I amend my definitions to the following:

Substance is the single metaphysical quality of something or someone that makes that thing or being what it is.

Accidents are any attributes of a thing or being. These include attributes that can be observed by the senses or equipment or tools in the physical world, either now or in the future, as well as any metaphysical attributes of that thing.

You should definitely apply for the “swim team.” If you do, then I guarantee, there’s an RCIA facilitator out there who doesn’t know it yet, but is about to get his or her socks blown off.

Thanks My fiance and I are planning to join the Catholic Church as soon as possible after our wedding next January. I’m looking forward to going through RCIA proper and I think I’d love to teach RCIA eventually.

 

[jmcrae]

Ah. I see where the mistake is. An accident is any attribute (not just the physical ones). God isn’t God because he’s omnicient, God is God because he has the substance of God. Same with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The three persons of God are the one God because they have the single substance of God.

Thus, I amend my definitions to the following:

Substance is the single metaphysical quality of something or someone that makes that thing or being what it is.

Accidents are any attributes of a thing or being. These include attributes that can be observed by the senses or equipment or tools in the physical world, either now or in the future, as well as any metaphysical attributes of that thing.

Thanks My fiance and I are planning to join the Catholic Church as soon as possible after our wedding next January. I’m looking forward to going through RCIA proper and I think I’d love to teach RCIA eventually.

Then I highly recommend that you get going with the process as soon as possible, and then roll on, January!!

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Ah. I see where the mistake is. An accident is any attribute (not just the physical ones). God isn’t God because he’s omnicient, God is God because he has the substance of God. Same with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The three persons of God are the one God because they have the single substance of God.

Thus, I amend my definitions to the following:

Substance is the single metaphysical quality of something or someone that makes that thing or being what it is.

Accidents are any attributes of a thing or being. These include attributes that can be observed by the senses or equipment or tools in the physical world, either now or in the future, as well as any metaphysical attributes of that thing.

Thanks My fiance and I are planning to join the Catholic Church as soon as possible after our wedding next January. I’m looking forward to going through RCIA proper and I think I’d love to teach RCIA eventually.

OK, I don’t know about anyo0ne else but I think being omnicent is
something that is always a part of being God… So I think I am not understanding what you mean by ‘metaphysical’…Please define that word fpr me.

Thank you and God Bless, maryJohnZ

PS. I believe there are two posters on board that have use MJ and sometimes i sign as MJ but I won’t anymore because maybe our posts are getting confused…not that it matters that much anyway.
everything the other MJ has said I agree with.

 

[maryj]

OK, I don’t know about anyo0ne else but I think being omnicent is
something that is always a part of being God… So I think I am not understanding what you mean by ‘metaphysical’…Please define that word fpr me.

Thank you and God Bless, maryJohnZ

PS. I believe there are two posters on board that have use MJ and sometimes i sign as MJ but I won’t anymore because maybe our posts are getting confused…not that it matters that much anyway.
everything the other MJ has said I agree with.

And I agree with all you have said, and I’m with jmcrae, swim that tiber girl. Mj

 

[DrPiano]

OK, I don’t know about anyo0ne else but I think being omnicent is
something that is always a part of being God… So I think I am not understanding what you mean by ‘metaphysical’…Please define that word fpr me.

Thank you and God Bless, maryJohnZ

PS. I believe there are two posters on board that have use MJ and sometimes i sign as MJ but I won’t anymore because maybe our posts are getting confused…not that it matters that much anyway.
everything the other MJ has said I agree with.

I’ll go with Merriam Webster’s definition of metaphysical: “of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses”. Omnicience is a metaphysical quality, but its an attribute, not the substance. I specified metaphysical in my definition to point out that an atom (which is physical) cannot possibly be the substance of something. As far as why omnicience is an attribute and not a substance, think of it this way:
God is omnicient because he’s God. Omnicience is tied to his being God, its an attribute of his being God. Same with omnipotence and omnipresence. These are attributes of God. Any thing (or being) can have only one substance - that which makes it a specific “it”. Thus, God’s substance is “God”. Tied to that single substance are many attributes that emanate from it: omnicience, omnipresence, omnipotence, holiness, love, mercy. These are all attributes of God - things God is because he has the substance “God”.

I hope that explains it better…

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I’ll go with Merriam Webster’s definition of metaphysical: “of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses”. Omnicience is a metaphysical quality, but its an attribute, not the substance. I specified metaphysical in my definition to point out that an atom (which is physical) cannot possibly be the substance of something. As far as why omnicience is an attribute and not a substance, think of it this way:
God is omnicient because he’s God. Omnicience is tied to his being God, its an attribute of his being God. Same with omnipotence and omnipresence. These are attributes of God. Any thing (or being) can have only one substance - that which makes it a specific “it”. Thus, God’s substance is “God”. Tied to that single substance are many attributes that emanate from it: omnicience, omnipresence, omnipotence, holiness, love, mercy. These are all attributes of God -
things God is because he has the substance “God”.
I hope that explains it better…

Thanks, but I think I need to just sit back and listen to see where everyone goes with this. It is obviously beyond me.

I feel like when we are talking about God we are talking about a 'substance" which is beyond the physical realm, or metaphysical in nature. He is the Supreme Good, the Great " I AM", so the words that best describe the substance of God to me are the words He gave to Moses… “I AM”…He is “Being”.

Perhaps we should be more concerned about proving to God that WE exist!

Anyway…go for it, all you philosophers. I am on the sidelines.

GodBless, MaryJohnZ.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

MJ:

If you and i are to know the truth about Jesus, we should consider what He said about His body after rising from the dead. He said to His disciples after His resurrection:

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 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 24:37-39)*Will you at least agree that Jesus was showing them that whatever His glorified body is, it is a material, or physical, body?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.******

Alicia:

At this point, i’m not trying to comprehend how it can be true, i’m only try to *apprehend *that it can be true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I can agree with these definitions. The one on substance is nearly identical to the one provided by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Thank you, David! I may be taking baby steps, but i’m learning.



If no one else has any objections, we will use these definitions to help us understand the Eucharist:

Substance is that which is required and necessary for a thing or being to be or remain what it is.

Accidents are those attributes of a thing or being which are not required nor necessary for it to be or remain what it is.