A Tale of Two Eucharists

[davidv]

Do you believe, David, that Jesus’ body has atoms, as your body and mine has atoms. Or is the stuff of which His body is made something immaterial?

I believe Jesus has a material body. As such it is probably made up of atoms.

 

[dcb188]

Going back to the original question, this bothered me, too. But the most compelling part of the whole thing, for me, is in John, where people are asking, essentially, what? eat your body and drink your blood? Who can do this? And the answer, Does this cause you to stumble? And a lot of people then leave, because they are upset by this literal notion of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. BUT HE DOES NOT CALL THEM BACK AND EXPLAIN THAT HE WAS SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY. And this is the crux of it for me. Why didn’t Jesus call them back? He explained other things to them before and after this. Not every single thing, but quite a few things, when they asked him what He meant by a certain thing he said. But here HE DOES NOT CALL THEM BACK TO CLARIFY or dissuade them from leaving. So he must have been speaking literally. I am not 100% sure about this and I would like to know the Truth of it. But I would rather take it literally than metaphorically, given what Jesus said about it originally, and also what he did NOT say to those who walked away after hearing this. I am always looking for the Truth, capital T, of this doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[dcb188]

And I would say that this is my number one question/concern in all of Theology.

 

[davidv]

**Substance is what a thing or living being is. It is what is essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the thing or living being ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else.**and

**Accidents are the qualities of a thing or living being that is. They are what is not essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if any of these accidents are removed or altered, the thing or living being still remains what it is.**To put it simply: A human body that is burned to ashes ceases to be a living human body. It becomes something else–a non-living pile of ashes. What does this tell us about the substance of a human body? It seems to me that the loss of H2O, which makes up about 60% of a human body, must be at least part of its substance, since removing these water molecules changes the substance from that of a human body to that of a pile of ashes. Therefore, H2O cannot possibly be an accident of a human body, for accidents are those things that can be removed and yet not change the substance.

What do you think?

It seems to me that if we attempt to speak of the “substance of the human body”, we will be mislead. As regard a human being, the body alone is incomplete and does not make a human being. A human being has both material and spiritual aspects, design as to be in the image and likeness of God.

So to ask substance of the body alone is an invalid question. The same goes for the Eurcharist. You may not ask of its substance in context of a separate aspect of it.

 

[dcb188]

To me, substance of the HUMAN body is too general. And the substance of it would, in any case, be temporary, i,.e, as long as life was in it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I believe Jesus has a material body. As such it is probably made up of atoms.

Yes, David, i believe the Bible is pretty clear that He does indeed have a material, physical body that is composed of atoms (albeit, more perfect and immortal atoms).

Jesus’ essence (or being) then might be correctly understood to have three substances:

1. 
   *]His physical human body, which is composed of material atoms.
   *]His non-physical human soul, which is not composed of material atoms.
   *]His non-physical Spirit of the Son of God, which is also not composed of material atoms.
   Do you think this sounds reasonable?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Going back to the original question, this bothered me, too. But the most compelling part of the whole thing, for me, is in John, where people are asking, essentially, what? eat your body and drink your blood? Who can do this? And the answer, Does this cause you to stumble? And a lot of people then leave, because they are upset by this literal notion of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. BUT HE DOES NOT CALL THEM BACK AND EXPLAIN THAT HE WAS SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY. And this is the crux of it for me. Why didn’t Jesus call them back? He explained other things to them before and after this. Not every single thing, but quite a few things, when they asked him what He meant by a certain thing he said. But here HE DOES NOT CALL THEM BACK TO CLARIFY or dissuade them from leaving. So he must have been speaking literally. I am not 100% sure about this and I would like to know the Truth of it. But I would rather take it literally than metaphorically, given what Jesus said about it originally, and also what he did NOT say to those who walked away after hearing this. I am always looking for the Truth, capital T, of this doctrine of transubstantiation.

Could it be, DC, that Jesus intended for them to go away? After all, they wanted Him to lead a revolt, and overthrow the Roman Empire, and thereby become a conquering king. The end result would have been that the Romans would not have crucified Him, and you and i would still be unforgiven and facing the judgement for our sins.

John writes that before He said He was like the bread from heaven given to Moses’ people, this occurred:

14After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.(John 6)biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31

 

[dcb188]

I would agree with you, except that Jesus frequently explains things to His disciples, not because He is required to, of course, but because He knows they don’t understand. Now, with regard to one of the most important things He ever said, re The Eucharist, I don’t think he would have explained this too, except that in this case it needed no explaining?

 

[davidv]

Yes, David, i believe the Bible is pretty clear that He does indeed have a material, physical body that is composed of atoms (albeit, more perfect and immortal atoms).

Jesus’ essence (or being) then might be correctly understood to have three substances:

1. 
   *]His physical human body, which is composed of material atoms.
   *]His non-physical human soul, which is not composed of material atoms.
   *]His non-physical Spirit of the Son of God, which is also not composed of material atoms.
   Do you think this sounds reasonable?

1. 
   No. Please refer to my post #580. Christ’s substance is singular.

 

[maryj]

Going back to the original question, this bothered me, too. But the most compelling part of the whole thing, for me, is in John, where people are asking, essentially, what? eat your body and drink your blood? Who can do this? And the answer, Does this cause you to stumble? And a lot of people then leave, because they are upset by this literal notion of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. BUT HE DOES NOT CALL THEM BACK AND EXPLAIN THAT HE WAS SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY. And this is the crux of it for me. Why didn’t Jesus call them back? He explained other things to them before and after this. Not every single thing, but quite a few things, when they asked him what He meant by a certain thing he said. But here HE DOES NOT CALL THEM BACK TO CLARIFY or dissuade them from leaving. So he must have been speaking literally. I am not 100% sure about this and I would like to know the Truth of it. But I would rather take it literally than metaphorically, given what Jesus said about it originally, and also what he did NOT say to those who walked away after hearing this. I am always looking for the Truth, capital T, of this doctrine of transubstantiation.

Here’s a definition of two different words used by Jesus in John’s Gospel.
Jesus begins to speak of “eating” with the word Phage-to eat
He is questioned, and the word changes to Trogon-to “gnaw” or “chew”
Jesus continues to use-trogon- for the rest of the discussion.
No teacher, least of all the greatest teacher that ever lived, would INCREASE the literality of his words to clarify that a metaphor is not actually to be understood LITERALLY.

Let’s trogon on that for awhile.

 

[dcb188]

That is absolutely fascinating, and goes along with what I said above. If anything, Jesus would have made it clear that he was speaking metaphorically/symbolically and not literally. The people who originally heard Him utter those words were confused, and people today are still confused by it. But He said it, so I go by that. What higher authority is there than that? Thanks for your explanation of the actual words used.

 

[dcb188]

And, moreover, at the Last Supper, Jesus said this IS my body, not “this represents my body”. That is a huge huge indication for me personally, also, that the words are literal. This is MY blood, not “this wine will remind you of My blood”. As I said, this, to me, is the most interesting point in all of theology, if any of you know of any books about it in particular.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No. Please refer to my post #580. Christ’s substance is singular.

Thank you, David, for replying!

I suppose in response i’d ask what about yourself, David? Would you say that your immaterial soul is the same thing as your material body, or a different thing?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I would agree with you, except that Jesus frequently explains things to His disciples, not because He is required to, of course, but because He knows they don’t understand. Now, with regard to one of the most important things He ever said, re The Eucharist, I don’t think he would have explained this too, except that in this case it needed no explaining?

Yes, that makes sense to me. Jesus often explained what He meant when He had something important to say. Do you think, DC, that Jesus did not explain Himself at the time He said He first said He was like bread from heaven? It might help if we both take a closer look, to be certain:

28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

30So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

32Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.” 35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(John 6)

To what does Jesus compare Himself in this passage?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

No. Please refer to my post #580. Christ’s substance is singular.

But the Trinity is Three Persons ( separate identities) in ONE GOD (all having the same substance)

so the essense of eavh person of the trinity is like the separate essence of each of the three aspects of personhood: body, soul, spirit and yet in the Divinized person ( a person who has been spiritually perfected) these three aspects of their personhood are a singular substance. While going through the process of being ‘divinized’ the different aspects might be separated from each other to different degrees because of weakness or sin or some lack.

In Christ all the aspects ( body, soul and spirit) were singular as he was a Divine person. He did not have to go through process of become divinized since HE IS ALREADY GOD, but he did hide His Divinity under the appearance of being totally human, taking the form of man under the affects of original sin with all of the aspects of labor, weariness and suffering man must suffer.

I believe He could have come down from the cross if he had wanted, but He hid His power and became weak as the Gospels say, ‘taking the form of a slave’ so He could win the graces for us to become divinized. If he could appear in the humble stature of a
sinner why could he not appear under the humble nature of bread?

I hear a commentary on EWTN that God created nature to glorify Him in simplicity, animal life to glorify Him in innocence and human beings to glorify Him in reason or will

Does anyone know the last thing for men and women? I can’t remember it…I loved the thought though…afterall animals have souls too but only human souls house God.

In Christ the “TENT” and the “ARCHITECT” of the TENT are ONE.
“Hear O Israel! The Lord Your God is One!”

So in the Eucharist the bread would have to become the Body of Christ…

Mary

 

[davidv]

Thank you, David, for replying!

I suppose in response i’d ask what about yourself, David? Would you say that your immaterial soul is the same thing as your material body, or a different thing?

It is different. But, while I am alive it is inseparable from my body. My substance demands that both be present.

 

[davidv]

But the Trinity is Three Persons ( separate identities) in ONE GOD (all having the same substance)

so the essense of eavh person of the trinity is like the separate essence of each of the three aspects of personhood: body, soul, spirit and yet in the Divinized person ( a person who has been spiritually perfected) these three aspects of their personhood are a singular substance. While going through the process of being ‘divinized’ the different aspects might be separated from each other to different degrees because of weakness or sin or some lack.

In Christ all the aspects ( body, soul and spirit) were singular as he was a Divine person. He did not have to go through process of become divinized since HE IS ALREADY GOD, but he did hide His Divinity under the appearance of being totally human, taking the form of man under the affects of original sin with all of the aspects of labor, weariness and suffering man must suffer.

I believe He could have come down from the cross if he had wanted, but He hid His power and became weak as the Gospels say, ‘taking the form of a slave’ so He could win the graces for us to become divinized. If he could appear in the humble stature of a
sinner why could he not appear under the humble nature of bread?

I hear a commentary on EWTN that God created nature to glorify Him in simplicity, animal life to glorify Him in innocence and human beings to glorify Him in reason or will

Does anyone know the last thing for men and women? I can’t remember it…I loved the thought though…afterall animals have souls too but only human souls house God.

In Christ the “TENT” and the “ARCHITECT” of the TENT are ONE.
“Hear O Israel! The Lord Your God is One!”

So in the Eucharist the bread would have to become the Body of Christ…

Mary

According to the Catechism the Trinity has only one substance while being expressed in three persons.

266 “Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal” (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

 

[Pax]

**Substance is what a thing or living being is. It is what is essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the thing or living being ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else.**and

**Accidents are the qualities of a thing or living being that is. They are what is not essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if any of these accidents are removed or altered, the thing or living being still remains what it is.**To put it simply: A human body that is burned to ashes ceases to be a living human body. It becomes something else–a non-living pile of ashes. What does this tell us about the substance of a human body? It seems to me that the loss of H2O, which makes up about 60% of a human body, must be at least part of its substance, since removing these water molecules changes the substance from that of a human body to that of a pile of ashes. Therefore, H2O cannot possibly be an accident of a human body, for accidents are those things that can be removed and yet not change the substance.

What do you think?

What if the living human body is something greater than the sum of its parts?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It is different. But, while I am alive it is inseparable from my body. My substance demands that both be present.

Yes, i agree. Do you think, David, that something that is different from another thing must, by virtue of being different, have a different substance than that other thing?

For example, the body of a loved one that one buries in the ground is different from the soul of that loved one who is in Purgatory of perhaps heaven. Does this sound reasonable?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

But the Trinity is Three Persons ( separate identities) in ONE GOD (all having the same substance)

so the essense of eavh person of the trinity is like the separate essence of each of the three aspects of personhood: body, soul, spirit and yet in the Divinized person ( a person who has been spiritually perfected) these three aspects of their personhood are a singular substance. While going through the process of being ‘divinized’ the different aspects might be separated from each other to different degrees because of weakness or sin or some lack.

In Christ all the aspects ( body, soul and spirit) were singular as he was a Divine person. He did not have to go through process of become divinized since HE IS ALREADY GOD, but he did hide His Divinity under the appearance of being totally human, taking the form of man under the affects of original sin with all of the aspects of labor, weariness and suffering man must suffer.

I believe He could have come down from the cross if he had wanted, but He hid His power and became weak as the Gospels say, ‘taking the form of a slave’ so He could win the graces for us to become divinized. If he could appear in the humble stature of a
sinner why could he not appear under the humble nature of bread?

I hear a commentary on EWTN that God created nature to glorify Him in simplicity, animal life to glorify Him in innocence and human beings to glorify Him in reason or will

Does anyone know the last thing for men and women? I can’t remember it…I loved the thought though…afterall animals have souls too but only human souls house God.

In Christ the “TENT” and the “ARCHITECT” of the TENT are ONE.
“Hear O Israel! The Lord Your God is One!”

So in the Eucharist the bread would have to become the Body of Christ…

Mary

When the Son of God took on human flesh, Mary, do you think that God changed, or did God remain the same?