A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think we’re getting closer.

I don’t completely agree with the car analogy (although it kind of works), since it is the presence of my soul within my body that causes my autonomic functions to - uh - function.

If my soul were to leave my body, these functions - breathing, blood circulation, blinking, sweating, instinctive responses, etc., would cease to occur. Not so with the car - the car still responds to things like cats jumping on it, even if the driver is absent. Also, the car can be driven by anyone who has a driver’s license, whereas my body can only be “driven” by my soul; nobody else’s. My body and my soul were designed uniquely for each other, and no other will do.

Yes, it is an imperfect metaphor!

Your statement about the body not ceasing to function until the soul is absent is profound. Food for thought for someone considering pulling the plug on a relative who is said to be brain dead. Some may make such a decision thinking that the person is already dead, when she might not, in reality, be (or rather not not be). Hmmm.

Thanks for giving me something to think about! Hope to talk with you soon. Good night.

 

[davidv]

Is your Lord and mine there in His physical body, His non-physical soul and Spirit, or both?

The “essence” of His body, blood, soul and divinity is what is present. The physical attributes that His essence takes on is that of bread.

 

[jmcrae]

The “essence” of His body, blood, soul and divinity is what is present. The physical attributes that His essence takes on is that of bread.

Thank you.

 

[davidv]

Thank you.

You are welcome. All of this philosophical stuff makes my head hurt sometimes.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Edit:

Our human substance is not material - it is our essence.

I think that i do not understand what you mean when you use the word substance, Davey. This puts me at a disadvantage, for, as Socrates said:

How can a man understand the name of anything, when he does not know what the thing is?*(Theaetetus, 147)*So, as i lay awake in bed this morning asking God how i might better understand you, the idea came to me: What will help me think about what you say is if you help me to think in the way that often helped Socrates to think. He said to his friend:

I am myself a great lover of these processes of division and generalization, Phaedrus. They help me to speak and think.*(Phaedrus, 266)*Thus, i’d like to propose that you help me think about the meaning of substance by way of division and generalization. Allow me to explain:

While i was staring at the ceiling above my bed in thoughtful prayer and contemplation, i came to the conclusion that all that exists (whether real or imagined) must belong to one of seven categories:

1. 
   *]Material - that which is made of atoms
   *]Immaterial - that which is not made of atoms
   *]Space - that which is neither material or immaterial
   *]Time - that which is the duration between one moment and another
   *]**Eternity - **that which exists in some way beyond, or outside of, time
   *]Thought - that which exists only in the mind of some being
   *]God - the one who is self-existent
   From your statements, Davey, i gather that you believe that anyone who talks about material substance is talking nonsense. It appears to me that you are saying it is an absolute impossibility for any substance to be (1).
   
   So, i’d like to ask you, this: Please tell me, in your view, to which of the remaining categories of existence–(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), or (7)–does primary substance rightly belong?
   
   I should also like to ask you to please heed the advice that Socrates gave another:
   
   … and do not say you cannot answer. Be brave, like a man, and if God is willing, you will be able to answer.(Theaetetus, 151)

 

[davidv]

I think that i do not understand what you mean when you use the word substance, Davey. This puts me at a disadvantage,

I am beginning to think that I don’t know what it means either, particularly with the regards to this thread. So, I went back to the dictionary. Dictionary.com lists 13 definitions for the word substance. There are at least two of these definitions which are very different with each other.

1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: form and substance.
   and
2. Philosophy.a. something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b. the essential part of a thing; essence. c. a thing considered as a continuing whole.

for, as Socrates said:How can a man understand the name of anything, when he does not know what the thing is?(Theaetetus, 147)

So, as i lay awake in bed this morning asking God how i might better understand you, the idea came to me. What will help me think about what you say is if you help me to think in the way that often helped Socrates to think. He said to his friend:I am myself a great lover of these processes of division and generalization, Phaedrus. They help me to speak and think.*(Phaedrus, 266)*Thus, i’d like to propose that you help me think about the meaning of substance by way of division and generalization. Allow me to explain:

While i was staring at the ceiling above my bed in thoughtful prayer and contemplation, i came to the conclusion that all that exists (whether real or imagined) must belong to one of seven categories:

1. • Material - that which is made of atoms
   • Immaterial - that which is not made of atoms
   • Space - that which is neither material or immaterial
   • Time - that which is the duration between one moment and another
   • **Eternity - **that which exists in some way beyond, or outside of time
   • Thought - that which exists only in the mind of some being
   • God - the one who is self-existent
     From your statements, Davey, i gather that you believe that anyone who talks about material substance is talking nonsense. It appears to me that you are saying it is an absolute impossibility for any substance to be (1).

1. 
   Whether one is talking nonsense depends on whether we are having a scientific discussion or a philosophical one. In the scientific discussion definition 1 is the usual meaning and the phase ‘material substance” is not nonsense, although it may be redundant. However, in this discussion of the Eucharist definition 10 is more appropriate and makes the phrase nonsense.
   
   In regards to your suggested categories, you have proposed an invalid list of categories. Based on my training in statistics, there are two (at least) criteria for categorization that must be met before one can draw valid conclusions based on the analysis of the contents of the categories. These are:
   • The categories must be mutually exclusive. The things under study must belong to one and only one category.
   • There must be a category for all the things being considered.
     Given this, clearly the categories of “immaterial” and “thought” are not mutually exclusive, as thoughts are generally considered immaterial. Thus a modification of the list is required.
   I would offer that the appropriate categories for the discussion of the Eucharist are:
   
   A. Essence
   B. Accident
   What do you think?
   

   So, i’d like to ask you, this: Please tell me, in your view, to which of the remaining categories of existence (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), or (7) does primary substance rightly belong?

   Given my thoughts above, it is premature to do so.
   

   I should also like to ask you what Socrates asked another:
   … and do not say you cannot answer. Be brave, like a man, and if God is willing, you will be able to answer.
   (Theaetetus, 151)

   I welcome the questions, as they have caused me to investigate and learn.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Then, David, is the one primary substance of a human being material (that is, made of atoms) or immaterial (that is, not made of atoms)?

why do we have to think in tems of atoms for physical nature? Atoms are tangible and detectable but even they may be only an outward sign of an inner reality. In other words, all of physical nature came from nothing to begin with, including the unseen creations of heaven and angels.God is the Creator and beyond all of creation, both seen and unseen.

Everything, even in the physical world is in constant motion and change.Even rocks are made up of moving particles, correct? We just can observe that movment.
if you speed up that movement to the infinite formula of God-ness then perhaps the properties of Jesus’ physicality can be totally present but unseen and undetected by limited human senses in the present where we exist at a much more finite speed.

So miracles of Lanciani are brought about when God slows the Infinite to the finite and we see a tiny bit of the mystery revealed.

I can not put God in the box of science and prayerful philosophy
may contemplate Him but I am rather like Distracted…
I just believe it is a miracle and true that Jesus is totally present on our altars and in the tabernacles of the world. He said it was so and so I believe.

MaryJohnZ

 

[toaslan]

Dear Soc and all: I hope you all do not mind an additional voice at this late date on this most interesting (and polite) thread. I have read all up to page 38; but then skipped to this current page. I will view the intervening pages next, but I am moved to put this post in now in case it can help the discussion.

Is there still some confusion as to the terms of the discussion?

Caveat: I do not reference Aristotle below because he is an authority–nor would he want me to! He proposes and argues and works things out–and so must all humans. But it is his work we are benefitting from when we use the words substance, accident, etc. And we are using these words because they best describe the philosophical aspect of transubstantiation–and were therefore adopted organically by the Catholic Church in order to talk about It.

2nd Caveat: Human thought cannot comprehend God or the Eucharist, true. But we are meant to humanly think about Him and the Sacred Host as best we can. Which I see you all doing here. Just because we cannot plumb the depths while on earth does not mean we cannot do our best to plumb the depths! And then place our thought in the heart of faith. With that in mind:

Here are some concepts which I think true, which are Aristotelian, and which may help you all make some distinctions and connections in your discussion.

1. Prime matter and substance exist at the level underneath matter. They underlie and make possible material things.
2. Matter individuates substance in natural things.
3. The soul is the substantial form of the body.
4. An angel is an immaterial substance
5. A dog is a material substance
6. There are four causes of each natural thing: Material, Agent, Formal and Final
   a. The material cause of a thing is its matter–what it is made of, as particular atoms in particular modes make up particular molecules: and down the line, as the wood is the cause of the cross or the boat.
   b. The agent cause of a thing is the trigger or operator whose action brought about the thing: as a father is the cause of his son, and the boatwright the cause of the boat.
   c. The formal cause is its definition–the essence or nature of a thing: as Rational Animal causes me to be human as opposed to a member of the fish kingdom
   d. The final cause is its purpose–the end for which it exists: so, because this poster is meant for heaven, I am designed/composed such that I have the appetite, skills and potential to go there.
7. Accidents inhere in substances.
8. Substance inheres in nothing, but underlies every accident.
9. God is pure substance–being–actuality. There is no potency in God.
10. Substantial change is going from potency to act–what is already present and real though only potential becomes unpacked, unfolded, worked-out–actual. An example is the change from zygote to elderly man named Joe–thoughout his lifetime from womb to deathbed, Joe is the same, one unique individual known fully only to God. A sign of this sameness is Joe’s DNA–which remains identical throughout. A sign of the reality of the change is that the zygote looks nothing like the old man.
11. Substantial change was the great puzzle of the pre-Aristotelians. To preserve the self-evident truth that the baby Joe IS the man Joe, given the continuum inbetween, some thinkers decided that all the apparent changes are nothing but accidental–so that change itself is an illusion, and that the reality is that all actually remains the same.

The other side of the controversy decided, in order to preserve the self-evident radicalness of such change as that from embryo to man, that everything changes, nothing remains the same, and that all attempt to identify anything *as itself *is futile–thus nothing has any definition or any nature; all things are each other, all differences are illusion, and that thus in reality all is in random flux.

Aristotle separated out the notion of Substantial Change–which preserves BOTH the underlying sameness of the substance through all its changes AND the concrete reality of the changes. He discovered that there must be an unchanging essence or substrate underlying all the apparent/observable/measurable changes which changes he then called accidental (as opposed to substantial).

1. The nature of a thing is its essence–its definition–its Formal Cause.
2. No artificial thing has a nature–only accidentally. The “nature” of an artificial thing is usually only that by courtesy, and is really rather its function or outward shape.

14 Only natural, non-manmade things have true natures. An atom would have a nature, recipe known only to God ( but having something to do with being a building block of matter) which we can just designate “atomness”. That we don’t know the secret recipe does not mean there isn’t one–there MUST be one in order to preserve Substantial Change.

15 Non-living natural things have natures but no souls.

1. The soul is the inbuilt source of motion or rest in a natural living thing. (“motion” here includes locomotion, generation, nutrition, corruption…)
2. For only one natural thing do we have the actual definition–the statement of its essence/nature: MAN IS A RATIONAL ANIMAL. That’s it. And we only know that because we are that. For dog, the best we can do is state that dogness has something to do with predator/companion to man…we can only call it dogness, but we know that God knows the definition, because dogs are definitely dogs and not cats. So the recipe is in safe hands.

So my answer to Soc’s question about the picture of the burning ship, “What is this a picture of?” is “a burning ship.” What is a ship? An artifact, primary purpose to transport on water. It may be set on fire for a Viking Funeral upon occasion. What is the nature of a ship? Being an artifact, it has no actual nature.

So my humble suggestion is: Try confining your examples of essence to dogness, treeness, etc., you won’t get into detours about burning ships and crosses which though wooden are really trellises.

Soc is right that, in the sense of material cause, the snowball is its atoms–but not in the higher senses of cause. But snowball doesn’t really work for very long because it is an artifact without a true nature–as others noted, because it can be made of other things…

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I’d say that i’m unaware of any physical evidence that the bread on the alter has the same material substance as the body of Jesus. So, i’m trying to understand how the physical body of Jesus, with all of its atoms, can possibly be understood to be present.

Not to distract you, Distracted, but can you think of even one bona fide miracle in the Old or New Testaments that did had absolutely no physical evidence to back it up?

• Parting the Red Sea
• Causing the blind to see
• Walls of Jericho falling down
• The crippled dancing around
• Christ risen from the dead, eating fish and breaking bread
  Miracles like these point out, that physical evidence removed all doubt.

How about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception?

MaryJohnZ

Since the conversation has been about the essence or substance of God I am posting this message wgich came from a marian Apparition site about God’s nature:

*St. Thomas Aquinas comes. He says: “Praise be to Jesus.”

“I have come to help you understand the title God the Father desires His children know Him as–Father of Unitive Love.”

“First of all, Unitive Love is the Heart of the Father. This title describes His character–His makeup–the essence of His Being.”

“Second, the Father, in His Paternal role, extends Unitive Love to all His children. In this role, He extends a foretaste of Unitive Love through each Chamber. The deeper the soul travels through the Chambers, the more he is drawn to the goal of Unitive Love, and the greater the foretaste of Unitive Love.”

“I hope His title, Father of Unitive Love, will be better appreciated now, as it is so poignant for this generation.”*

I know maruan Apparitions can be controversial and this one is not
recognized by the church yet but I offer the message for contemplation purposes. The Pope has written that the eucharist is about the union of the mystical body of believers as well, and the source of unity is God because as much as we separate ourselves individually from God we cannnot be in true union. I believe there is something to be concidered in that. I know it is another tangent…so i apologixze. I feel Like I am swimming upstream in this conversation.

maryJohnZ.

 

[davidv]

Dear Soc and all: I hope you all do not mind an additional voice at this late date on this most interesting (and polite) thread. I have read all up to page 38; but then skipped to this current page. I will view the intervening pages next, but I am moved to put this post in now in case it can help the discussion.

Is there still some confusion as to the terms of the discussion?

Caveat: I do not reference Aristotle below because he is an authority–nor would he want me to! He proposes and argues and works things out–and so must all humans. But it is his work we are benefitting from when we use the words substance, accident, etc. And we are using these words because they best describe the philosophical aspect of transubstantiation–and were therefore adopted organically by the Catholic Church in order to talk about It.

2nd Caveat: Human thought cannot comprehend God or the Eucharist, true. But we are meant to humanly think about Him and the Sacred Host as best we can. Which I see you all doing here. Just because we cannot plumb the depths while on earth does not mean we cannot do our best to plumb the depths! And then place our thought in the heart of faith. With that in mind:

Here are some concepts which I think true, which are Aristotelian, and which may help you all make some distinctions and connections in your discussion.

1. Prime matter and substance exist at the level underneath matter. They underlie and make possible material things.
2. Matter individuates substance in natural things.
3. The soul is the substantial form of the body.
4. An angel is an immaterial substance
5. A dog is a material substance
6. There are four causes of each natural thing: Material, Agent, Formal and Final
   a. The material cause of a thing is its matter–what it is made of, as particular atoms in particular modes make up particular molecules: and down the line, as the wood is the cause of the cross or the boat.
   b. The agent cause of a thing is the trigger or operator whose action brought about the thing: as a father is the cause of his son, and the boatwright the cause of the boat.
   c. The formal cause is its definition–the essence or nature of a thing: as Rational Animal causes me to be human as opposed to a member of the fish kingdom
   d. The final cause is its purpose–the end for which it exists: so, because this poster is meant for heaven, I am designed/composed such that I have the appetite, skills and potential to go there.
7. Accidents inhere in substances.
8. Substance inheres in nothing, but underlies every accident.
9. God is pure substance–being–actuality. There is no potency in God.
10. Substantial change is going from potency to act–what is already present and real though only potential becomes unpacked, unfolded, worked-out–actual. An example is the change from zygote to elderly man named Joe–thoughout his lifetime from womb to deathbed, Joe is the same, one unique individual known fully only to God. A sign of this sameness is Joe’s DNA–which remains identical throughout. A sign of the reality of the change is that the zygote looks nothing like the old man.
11. Substantial change was the great puzzle of the pre-Aristotelians. To preserve the self-evident truth that the baby Joe IS the man Joe, given the continuum inbetween, some thinkers decided that all the apparent changes are nothing but accidental–so that change itself is an illusion, and that the reality is that all actually remains the same.

The other side of the controversy decided, in order to preserve the self-evident radicalness of such change as that from embryo to man, that everything changes, nothing remains the same, and that all attempt to identify anything *as itself *is futile–thus nothing has any definition or any nature; all things are each other, all differences are illusion, and that thus in reality all is in random flux.

Aristotle separated out the notion of Substantial Change–which preserves BOTH the underlying sameness of the substance through all its changes AND the concrete reality of the changes. He discovered that there must be an unchanging essence or substrate underlying all the apparent/observable/measurable changes which changes he then called accidental (as opposed to substantial).

1. The nature of a thing is its essence–its definition–its Formal Cause.
2. No artificial thing has a nature–only accidentally. The “nature” of an artificial thing is usually only that by courtesy, and is really rather its function or outward shape.

14 Only natural, non-manmade things have true natures. An atom would have a nature, recipe known only to God ( but having something to do with being a building block of matter) which we can just designate “atomness”. That we don’t know the secret recipe does not mean there isn’t one–there MUST be one in order to preserve Substantial Change.

15 Non-living natural things have natures but no souls.

1. The soul is the inbuilt source of motion or rest in a natural living thing. (“motion” here includes locomotion, generation, nutrition, corruption…)
2. For only one natural thing do we have the actual definition–the statement of its essence/nature: MAN IS A RATIONAL ANIMAL. That’s it. And we only know that because we are that. For dog, the best we can do is state that dogness has something to do with predator/companion to man…we can only call it dogness, but we know that God knows the definition, because dogs are definitely dogs and not cats. So the recipe is in safe hands.

So my answer to Soc’s question about the picture of the burning ship, “What is this a picture of?” is “a burning ship.” What is a ship? An artifact, primary purpose to transport on water. It may be set on fire for a Viking Funeral upon occasion. What is the nature of a ship? Being an artifact, it has no actual nature.

So my humble suggestion is: Try confining your examples of essence to dogness, treeness, etc., you won’t get into detours about burning ships and crosses which though wooden are really trellises.

Soc is right that, in the sense of material cause, the snowball is its atoms–but not in the higher senses of cause. But snowball doesn’t really work for very long because it is an artifact without a true nature–as others noted, because it can be made of other things…

Thank you very much for this synopsis. There is much here to ponder.

 

[toaslan]

Thank you very much for this synopsis. There is much here to ponder.

Oh, good david, thanks.

 

[toaslan]

Well, I caught up with you all to this page, so have some hope I am not halting or derailing the unfolding of this Socratic dialogue .

What i am thinking, David, is that you are correct. The physical body and the non-physical soul are, indeed, different from one another. Since they are different, they cannot be the same. Since they are not the same, than they cannot possibly be the same substance.

If David will let me chime in: I would want to stop your reasoning at the bolded step above, Soc. Agreed, the body and the soul are not the same thing BUT nor they do share co-equal roles in the “production” of the human being.

If we say that the soul is the form or act of the body, does this shift anyone’s perspective?

What if we say the soul is the Substantial Form of the Body?

This language, which is classical, hints that the body is potential with respect to the soul. The soul “activates” the body. The soul comes first in a sense–the sense in which definition precedes that defined.

If we accept this relationship between soul and body, where then is the temptation to think they are each substances distinct from each other?

Because a human being is one individual substance–he is the substance rational animal individuated though this particular Form/Act/Soul actualizing certain matter as this man, Joe.
Soc:

Therefore, you and i are not one substance, but two. We are a composite of substances who coexist with one another, but who are not one another.

Rather, you are one substance. It is that of an enmattered/individuated Form or Soul. This Substance is Rational Animal, a hybrid Essence sharing essence/definition with both animal and angel.

This hybrid Essence applied through the particular created soul to its disposed potential (to the prime matter disposed to receive just this particular soul and no other) actualizes as the hybrid entity Soc. He is a complicated being, essentially both material and immaterial–but he is one substance!

He is one substance because his substance is one thing: it is his Formal Cause, his hybrid definition/nature/essence. (A thing is such because it has integrity, is one thing and not two somethings.)

Does seeing the human soul as the act of the human body, what brings that body from potential to actual, does that help eliminate any need to see as separate substances the human soul and the human body?

Also, this helps with death: when the soul separates from the body, the body loses that which defines it, that which gives it its integrity, order and existence AS the-body-of-Joe. So the un-souled body immediately begins to dissolve back into its constituent elements, having lost that which made it body.

This background also helps flesh out why we are saying that we won’t “be ourselves” until we get our bodies back in heaven at the general resurrection. The righteous souls will be with God; that means righteous Joe’s intellect and will is there, and all the definition which make him human, male, and Joe. However, absent is all that which correspondes to and fulfills what in that definition relates to Joe’s animal essence. So we are not fully human again until we are reintegrated with our bodies–and not with just any bodies, but with each his own, uniquely befitted to his soul.

And all this relates to the Eucharist because, as I understand the thread so far, we are trying to see what philosophy can say about this miraculous change from substance A to Substance B which leaves accidents A intact but inhering in nothing (contrary to the nature of an accident according to the given definition); also while bringing along the accidents belonging to Substance B but in a non-accidental mode–that is, inhering in Substance B but not available to the senses, not available to any emperical apprehension.

Sorry to be so verbose.

 

[toaslan]

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?

To maybe beat a dead horse, and if I may: I would say that David’s immaterial soul is *other than *his material body. I would say further that his immaterial soul CAUSES his material body. OK?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I am beginning to think that I don’t know what it means either, particularly with the regards to this thread. So, I went back to the dictionary. Dictionary.com lists 13 definitions for the word substance. There are at least two of these definitions which are very different with each other.

1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: form and substance.
   and
2. Philosophy.a. something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b. the essential part of a thing; essence. c. a thing considered as a continuing whole. …

Excellent!

Yes, the dictionary is a good place to start. I tried to propose the very same definition earlier in this dialog, but my suggestion fell on deaf ears. Do you think, Dave, that my recommended definition of substance is pretty close to the one from Dictionary.com, or should we modify it?

Primary 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.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… In regards to your suggested categories, you have proposed an invalid list of categories. Based on my training in statistics, there are two (at least) criteria for categorization that must be met before one can draw valid conclusions based on the analysis of the contents of the categories. These are:

• The categories must be mutually exclusive. The things under study must belong to one and only one category.
• There must be a category for all the things being considered.
  Given this, clearly the categories of “immaterial” and “thought” are not mutually exclusive, as thoughts are generally considered immaterial. Thus a modification of the list is required.

I would offer that the appropriate categories for the discussion of the Eucharist are:

A. Essence
B. Accident
What do you think?
…

I think i admire those who understand the science of statistical probability! My faith in Jesus Christ has been greatly enhanced by the results of such statistical analyses. Statistics, for example, have shown that it is statistically impossible for one man to accidentally have fulfilled even a dozen of the many more predictions of the Messiah that Jesus fulfilled. The Christian faith, and i personally, owe much to people of your scientific discipline.



Regarding what you said about something not belonging to two categories at the same time, i know i do not doubt that you sincerely believe this, but is it not possible that you are sincerely mistaken?

Jesus, for example, belongs to at least two categories–God and man. My dog Buttons belongs to at least two categories–animal, and female. You belong to two categories, too–human and statistician. I might be showing my ignorance of statistics, but i do not understand why it is mathematically impossible for one thing or being to belong to two or more categories. Your example of essence, for instance, belongs to both angels (who are immaterial) and rocks (which are material), for both have essence. The same thing can belong to two different categories, as the following geometric representation suggests. Does this make sense?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

why do we have to think in tems of atoms for physical nature? Atoms are tangible and detectable but even they may be only an outward sign of an inner reality. In other words, all of physical nature came from nothing to begin with, including the unseen creations of heaven and angels.God is the Creator and beyond all of creation, both seen and unseen.

Everything, even in the physical world is in constant motion and change.Even rocks are made up of moving particles, correct? We just can observe that movment.
if you speed up that movement to the infinite formula of God-ness then perhaps the properties of Jesus’ physicality can be totally present but unseen and undetected by limited human senses in the present where we exist at a much more finite speed.

So miracles of Lanciani are brought about when God slows the Infinite to the finite and we see a tiny bit of the mystery revealed.

I can not put God in the box of science and prayerful philosophy
may contemplate Him but I am rather like Distracted…
I just believe it is a miracle and true that Jesus is totally present on our altars and in the tabernacles of the world. He said it was so and so I believe.

MaryJohnZ

If atoms are not material, then what are they, Mary?

1. 
   *]Material - that which is made of atoms
   *]Immaterial - that which is not made of atoms
   *]Space - that which is neither material or immaterial
   *]Time - that which is the duration between one moment and another
   *]**Eternity - **that which exists in some way beyond, or outside of time
   *]Thought - that which exists only in the mind of some being
   *]God - the one who is self-existent
   

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc and all: I hope you all do not mind an additional voice at this late date on this most interesting (and polite) thread. I have read all up to page 38; but then skipped to this current page. I will view the intervening pages next, but I am moved to put this post in now in case it can help the discussion.

Is there still some confusion as to the terms of the discussion?

Caveat: I do not reference Aristotle below because he is an authority–nor would he want me to! He proposes and argues and works things out–and so must all humans. But it is his work we are benefitting from when we use the words substance, accident, etc. And we are using these words because they best describe the philosophical aspect of transubstantiation–and were therefore adopted organically by the Catholic Church in order to talk about It.

2nd Caveat: Human thought cannot comprehend God or the Eucharist, true. But we are meant to humanly think about Him and the Sacred Host as best we can. Which I see you all doing here. Just because we cannot plumb the depths while on earth does not mean we cannot do our best to plumb the depths! And then place our thought in the heart of faith. With that in mind:
…

Thank you my good LionSeeker! I, for one, am extremely grateful to have you join the conversation. The more minds that meet on this important topic, the better.



We are currently trying to wrap our minds around these two concepts–primary substance and accidents. For the sake of discussion, we are considering whether these two definitions are adequate:
Primary 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.Accidents are the qualities or properties 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.
What is your advice? Are they a good starting place for this journey to Truth, or are they pointing us in the wrong direction?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

How about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception?

MaryJohnZ
…

I’m sure that the good doctor Luke, who wrote the gospel that bears his name, could have examined Mary, prior to her giving birth, to prove that she had not had intercourse. The midwife who assisted her with the birth would also have recognized this. The physical evidence of the miracle of the virgin being pregnant was there to be observed.

Can you think of any other miracle (besides the Eucharist) that has absolutely no physical evidence, Mary? I cannot, but perhaps the Holy Spirit will point one out to you that you may reveal to me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… If David will let me chime in: I would want to stop your reasoning at the bolded step above, Soc. Agreed, the body and the soul are not the same thing BUT nor they do share co-equal roles in the “production” of the human being.

If we say that the soul is the form or act of the body, does this shift anyone’s perspective?

What if we say the soul is the Substantial Form of the Body?

This language, which is classical, hints that the body is potential with respect to the soul. The soul “activates” the body. The soul comes first in a sense–the sense in which definition precedes that defined.

If we accept this relationship between soul and body, where then is the temptation to think they are each substances distinct from each other?
…

My temptation (if one can rightly call a powerful desire to know the truth a temptation) comes, in part, from one of Jesus’ disciples:

45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.” 48Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” 50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. *(Matthew 27)*What do you think, AslanSeeker? When Jesus’ spirit (or non-physical soul) left His physical body, did it not take it’s substance with it? If it did, then how could the lifeless body on the cross still exist, unless it had a separate substance of its own?

 

[davidv]

{snip}
Regarding what you said about something not belonging to two categories at the same time, i know i do not doubt that you sincerely believe this, but is it not possible that you are sincerely mistaken?{snip}

I could be. However it would only be so if I were apply the criteria offered to all categories, everywhere, which I did not propose to do. As your vern diagrams shows we are quite capable of defining categories that have common members. Since categories are human constructions we are pretty free in defining them anyway we want. I believe that for discussion on the Eucharist, at least in the area we have been exploring, using non-exclusive categories is more confusing than useful.

Jesus, for example, belongs to at least two categories–God and man. My dog Buttons belongs to at least two categories–animal, and female. You belong to two categories, too–human and statistician. I might be showing my ignorance of statistics, but i do not understand why it is mathematically impossible for one thing or being to belong to two or more categories. Your example of essence, for instance, belongs to both angels (who are immaterial) and rocks (which are material), for both have essence. The same thing can belong to two different categories, as the following geometric representation suggests. Does this make sense?

Makes sense, but defining our categories this way doesn’t help us understand the circumstance posed in the OP. By the way, the criteria has nothing to do with mathematical impossiblility. It is about defining things clearly, so there we can minimize confusion. One significant example of this criteria at work is the taxonomy of biology. Every living creature belongs to one and only one category in this taxonomy.

That being said, using the categories I proposed the following can be said about the host:

Prior to consecrationEssence: That of breadAccident: Those of unleavened bread

After consecrationEssence: That of JesusAccident: Those of unleavened bread