A Tale of Two Eucharists

[davidv]

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.

What you propose above contains a subtle, but I believe significant difference that can lead to confusion. That subtlety is that addition of the word “primary”. This can imply there is such a thing as secondary substance which unacceptable in the philosophical treat of it. See again toaslan’s post summarizing “essence”, “accidents”, and causes.

Do you see the possibility of “secondary substances”? If so what part of toaslan’s post do you not agree with?

 

[jmcrae]

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.

This would be proof of her Perpetual Virginity, and I have privately thought that St. Luke, as her physician, would have known about this as a medical fact. (I have been told, though, that in their culture, Mary, a Jew, would not have been seen by St. Luke, a Gentile, nor that any male physician would have been permitted to give her a physical examination. Which makes me wonder how women received medical care, back in those days, since I am not aware of them encouraging higher education, and especially medical education, for women, back then.)

The only observable aspect of the Immaculate Conception (Mary’s complete and total sinlessness) would be things like her unique ability to refrain from gossip without seeming either shy or proud, the complete lack of any complaints about her childhood behaviour on the part of her parents or other caregivers, and the like. And if one were only casually acquainted with her, one might remark on her extraordinary kindness, without thinking her to be completely without sin.

 

[clmowry]

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

After consecrationEssence: That of JesusAccident: Those of unleavened bread

Referencing ToAslan’s summary, Does bread even have an essence?

Isn’t it an “articat” defined by various attributes and composed of other things that do have an essence that we have agreed to call bread? i.e. Wheat and Water have an essence, bread does not.

Banna Nut “Bread” always seemed like cake to me.

Chuck

 

[toaslan]

My temptation (if one can rightly call a powerful desire to know the truth a temptation) k

sorry, should have said inclination or tendency
Soc:

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?

Let me see, Soc, if I can sort this out according to classical philosophy: Since Jesus’ human soul was the “act” or actualization of His human body, when His soul departed, His body was left on the Cross without life/act. If it were your or my lifeless body, it would immediately begin to revert back into its elements–in other words, it would be only accidentally my or your body, it would be primarily rather an accidental collection of elements temporarily still retaining the appearance of my or your body, but really just carbon, water, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. For Jesus, His body would have been miraculously excepted from any natural dissolution upon the departure of the form of that Body. And for some great saints, a similar exemption from dissolution occurs (the Incorruptibles).

Jesus gave up His Spirit: His soul announced its departure from His body–a painful sundering of what is naturally an organic union.

How did I do, Soc?

 

[toaslan]

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.

thanks!
Soc:

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?

Well, as to the definitions. They are basically right, but for some reason they don’t fit altogether comfortably with my Aristotelian sensibilities.

Aristotle calls substance the “isness” of everything! Substance is. It stands alone, and is what all else depends upon for existence. Yes, substance is what a thing is–but, really, it is without respect to things also…Substance underlies all things.

I am sorry not to offer an actual modification to the definition of substance right now, but am already late out the door–this is so engrossing! Let me say I think it should be changed along the lines of: Substance is what underlies the being of any thing. Substance is, relying on nothing else. All things are said of it. Sorry, will try to catch up with you and everybody later…

 

[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
   

1. 
   Material: substance or matter of which anything is made ( This could include atoms but not soley)
   Immaterial: beonging to a category which is not composed of matter
   Space:a dimension that exists in, through and around matter
   Color: the appearance of things based on light reflected from them; (Color is partially dependant on the receiving eye since not all eyes see color the same way.)
   Eternity: That which exists outside of the dimension of Time but which has power over time and can co-exist and enter time.
   Thought: an immaterial response in a person’s mind which can be infused by God or which can come from an individual. Tthe thoughts of angels are forever fixed. The thoughts of man can be changed and reaccessed.
   God: He Who Is,Was And Always Will Be, Source of all material and immaterial creations, space, and time. God is Holy and One. There are Three persons in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All things existed in God as Divine Thoughts before being brought into existence as material or immaterial things.
   
   I am sorry I cannot be as simple as you. And I am not sure that these are perfect definitions either.
   
   And I am almost at the point of leaving forum because I think I am
   taking away from discussion.
   
   maryJohnZ

 

[jmcrae]

Mary John, I am finding your contributions valuable. I’m not commenting because I don’t have the ability to articulate what I’m thinking, right now.

 

[davidv]

Referencing ToAslan’s summary, Does bread even have an essence?

Isn’t it an “articat” defined by various attributes and composed of other things that do have an essence that we have agreed to call bread? i.e. Wheat and Water have an essence, bread does not.

Banna Nut “Bread” always seemed like cake to me.

Chuck

You are correct. As a man-made thing, it would not have a true essence. This betrays my lack of formal study in this amazing field.

 

[davidv]

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.

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 bread /-] Those of the naturally occuring substances that make up bread.Accident: Those of unleavened bread

After consecrationEssence: That of JesusAccident: Those of unleavened bread

Based on post #659, I have modified my prior post.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Mary John, I am finding your contributions valuable. I’m not commenting because I don’t have the ability to articulate what I’m thinking, right now.

Ok, I’ll just hang in on fringe and see where everyone goes with the logical progression which yo are taking. I don’t want to muck it up.

mary

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

What you propose above contains a subtle, but I believe significant difference that can lead to confusion. That subtlety is that addition of the word “primary”. This can imply there is such a thing as secondary substance which unacceptable in the philosophical treat of it. See again toaslan’s post summarizing “essence”, “accidents”, and causes.

Do you see the possibility of “secondary substances”? If so what part of toaslan’s post do you not agree with?

I started using the term primary substance when someone in the discussion (i do not remember who) started confusing the term with secondary substance. The distinction is explained in this Stanford University article:

The individual substances are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring. There is an important distinction pointed out by Aristotle between individual objects and kinds of individual objects. Thus, for some purposes, discussion of substance is a discussion about individuals, and for other purposes it is a discussion about universal concepts that designate specific kinds of such individuals. In the Categories, this distinction is marked by the terms ‘primary substance’ and ‘secondary substance’. Thus Fido the dog is a primary substance — an individual — but dog or doghood is the secondary substance or substantial kind. Each arm of this distinction raises different issues. If one is concerned with kinds of substance, one obvious question that will arise is ‘what makes something a thing of that kind (for example, what is involved in being a dog)?’ This is the question of the essence of substantial kinds. But if one is concerned with individuals, the parallel question is ‘what makes something that particular individual of a given kind (for example, what is involved in a dog’s being and remaining Fido)?’ This is the question of individual essences and of identity over time.
You can read the entire article here:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

The person was saying, for example, that all trees shared one substance called treeness. I was saying that, while all trees shared the secondary substance called treeness, no trees shared the primary substance that made them trees. Each tree has its own primary substance.

When i use the word substance, i mean primary substance (e.g., i’m not talking about *doginess; *rather, i’m talking about the individual substance(s) of my my dog buttons).

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

thanks!

Well, as to the definitions. They are basically right, but for some reason they don’t fit altogether comfortably with my Aristotelian sensibilities.

Aristotle calls substance the “isness” of everything! Substance is. It stands alone, and is what all else depends upon for existence. Yes, substance is what a thing is–but, really, it is without respect to things also…Substance underlies all things.

I am sorry not to offer an actual modification to the definition of substance right now, but am already late out the door–this is so engrossing! Let me say I think it should be changed along the lines of: Substance is what underlies the being of any thing. Substance is, relying on nothing else. All things are said of it. Sorry, will try to catch up with you and everybody later…

I think, Aslan, you are confusing secondary substance with primary substance. That is, you are talking oranges and i am talking apples. You are concerned about universal substance; i’m concerned about the individual substances. This Stanford University article explains it better than i can:

The individual substances are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring. There is an important distinction pointed out by Aristotle between individual objects and kinds of individual objects. Thus, for some purposes, discussion of substance is a discussion about individuals, and for other purposes it is a discussion about universal concepts that designate specific kinds of such individuals. In the Categories, this distinction is marked by the terms ‘primary substance’ and ‘secondary substance’. Thus Fido the dog is a primary substance — an individual — but dog or doghood is the secondary substance or substantial kind. Each arm of this distinction raises different issues. If one is concerned with kinds of substance, one obvious question that will arise is ‘what makes something a thing of that kind (for example, what is involved in being a dog)?’ This is the question of the essence of substantial kinds. But if one is concerned with individuals, the parallel question is ‘what makes something that particular individual of a given kind (for example, what is involved in a dog’s being and remaining Fido)?’ This is the question of individual essences and of identity over time.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Ok, I’ll just hang in on fringe and see where everyone goes with the logical progression which yo are taking. I don’t want to muck it up.

mary

Well, Mary, i for one have enjoyed what you have contributed to the conversation.



Speaking of the immaculate conception, i think it is true that Jewish midwives (who were women) would have know that Mary was still a virgin. This reminds me of something Socrates said about himself. Did you know that his mother was a midwife, and that he was a midwife, too?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*… That being said, using the categories I proposed the following can be said about the host:

Prior to consecration Essence: That of bread Those of the naturally occuring substances that make up bread.Accident: Those of unleavened breadAfter consecration Essence: That of JesusAccident: Those of unleavened bread*

Yes, Davey, but what is the individual substance that makes up bread? What is the individual substance that makes up the body of Christ?

Perhaps it would help us both come to an understanding of what i am asking if i ask the question this way: **Why are atoms not the substance of that which is made of atoms? **

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Mary John, I am finding your contributions valuable. I’m not commenting because I don’t have the ability to articulate what I’m thinking, right now.

I think you have done an excellent job, thus far, of thinking this through with us, JM! I do appreciate your commitment and compassion shown to me.



I find it difficult, myself, to articulate my thoughts on this. I’ve tried many times to ask my questions, yet have failed to really communicate the difficulty i’m having. Maybe the following illustration will help explain my frustration.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Everyone:

Listening to some of your answers to my questions is like listening to the story of Hercules and the god Atlas. The story briefly goes something like this:

Hercules meets the god Atlas, who is holding up the earth. The god cons Hercules into holing up the earth for him for awhile, but then jeers, after Hercules has the world held over his head, saying he will never take it back from poor Hercules. Hercules, however, comes up with a clever ruse, and tricks Atlas in to holding the world for him and then gets the last laugh as he refuses to take it back.

The thing that i could never fathom is how Greeks, who prided themselves on their intelligence and philosophy, could believe such a myth. It seemed obvious to me that what Hercules was holding over his head could not possibly be, at the same time, under his feet.

I experience the same disbelief when i think of what some say about the substance of the Eucharist. For, the word substance means to stand on. It is that on which the accidental (or changeable) qualities of a thing stands. However, the protagonists of the Eucharist tell me that not just the color of the bread, nor the shape of the bread, nor the other alterable qualities of the bread are accidents. But, the very atoms of which the bread is composed are accidents, too!

I wonder, like i wondered about Atlas and Hercules: How can it be, that even the atoms that make bread are accidents held above the head? For if bread does not stand on its atoms, then on what can it possibly stand?



http://www.bo.infn.it/atlas_rpc/images/atlas2.jpg

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Well, Mary, i for one have enjoyed what you have contributed to the conversation.



Speaking of the immaculate conception, i think it is true that Jewish midwives (who were women) would have know that Mary was still a virgin. This reminds me of something Socrates said about himself. Did you know that his mother was a midwife, and that he was a midwife, too?

EHHH…wait a minute, misunderstanding seems apparent aou what the Immaculate Conception was. The Immaculate Conception was Mary’s conception in Anna’s womb which was a miracle because Mary was sanctified at the very moment her soul entered her body at moment of conception. I also think there was a miracle in that Anna and Joachim, probably had a miracle ‘union’ as man and wife with God at the time of the procreative act. And I doubt that was detectable to others, although they probably realized it.

The virginal birth is another issue and you are right they probably
recognized that.

Perhaps midwives attending Anna knew something different was happening with Mary’s birth as well.

off topic… continue…

Mary

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Question 15.

If bread cannot stand on its atoms, then on what can it possibly stand?

** **

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

EHHH…wait a minute, misunderstanding seems apparent aou what the Immaculate Conception was. The Immaculate Conception was Mary’s conception in Anna’s womb which was a miracle because Mary was sanctified at the very moment her soul entered her body at moment of conception. I also think there was a miracle in that Anna and Joachim, probably had a miracle ‘union’ as man and wife with God at the time of the procreative act. And I doubt that was detectable to others, although they probably realized it.

The virginal birth is another issue and you are right they probably
recognized that.

Perhaps midwives attending Anna knew something different was happening with Mary’s birth as well.

off topic… continue…

Mary

I see, Mary, thank you. It is the conception of Mary, not the conception in Mary! I learn something new every day.

 

[toaslan]

I think, Aslan, you are confusing secondary substance with primary substance. That is, you are talking oranges and i am talking apples. You are concerned about universal substance; i’m concerned about the individual substances. This Stanford University article explains it better than i can:]

Soc, I read the article twice, but found I needed to refer to the source. Grazing through Aristotle’s Metaphysics Ch 5-8, I pulled out just a few bits to help with “substance”, and at the bottom I give proposed changes to our definition:

The study of being is primarily the study of substance. I include this sentence because it justifies spending so much time on this particular definition…

We call ‘substance’

1. all bodies, because they are not predicated of a subject but everything else is predicated of them
2. that which, being present in such things as are not predicated of a subject, is the cause of their being, as the soul is of the being of an animal ….
   4) the essence, the formula of which is a definition, is also called the substance of each thing.

It follows then, that ‘substance’ has two senses, (A) the ultimate substratum, which is no longer predicated of anything else, and (B) …the shape or form of each thing.

Substance is the cause or form which puts matter into a determinate state; it is that in a thing which is distinct from its material elements.

…Substance is a principle and a cause……Therefore what we seek is the cause, i.e. the form, by reason of which the matter is some definite thing; this is the substance of the thing.

The substance is the indwelling form, from which and the matter, the so-called concrete substance is derived, for example, concavity is a form of this sort, for from this and the nose arise ‘snub nose’ and ‘snubness’…

The soul is the primary substance and the body is matter, and animal is the compound of both. I threw this in because it shows the emphasis on soul/essence/definition in the meaning of substance.

Given these exerpts, I propose the following modified definitions of Substance and Primary Substance:

Substance is being as in the “whatness” underlying/causing all things; it is the form/definition/essence/nature of things. Accidents inhere in it; it inheres in nothing.

A Primary Substance is an individual body.

And given this from the Categories Ch 5:

But in a secondary sense those things are called substances within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is included in the species ‘man’, and the genus to which the species belongs is ‘animal; these, therefore–that is to say, the species man and the genus animal–are termed secondary substances.

I would propose that:

Secondary Substances are species and genera.

Do these definitions help make more distinct some of the variables which have arisen as we talk about substance?