A Tale of Two Eucharists

[MaryJohnZ]

This was an explanation of substance and accidents in the Eucharist by Frank Sheed

ewtn.com/vlibrary/search2.asp

Frank J. Sheed - The Eucharist and the Mass
Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.

At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes—the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

In other words, whatever the senses perceive—even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses—is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality—for example, that which was wine and is now Christ’s blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.

The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ’s body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God’s will to maintain them.

What of Christ’s body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: <Christ’s body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves>. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ’s own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.

So, after all the long discussions of definitions. Senses cannot detect substances…The substance of Christ’s Body is present while the physical senses detect bread.

it should be noted that the Jewish view of senses is that there are five inner senses or spiritual senses. When Jesus talks about "those who hear and hear again but never understand’
he means those who have a failure in their spiritual sense of hearing to recognize the true meaning of things.

Artcile on the five senses from Jewish Encyclopedia:

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=479&letter=S&search=senses

MaryJohnZ

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

yes, Jesus is the Vine we are the branches and the life we receive from the side of Christ and the Church through the Sacraments, sacramentals, devotions, scripture is a Life of grace lived out through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Living Water can be given through anything belonging to God, and through which He has chosen to reveal Himself. So these ‘meeting places’ between heaven and earth contain the Presence of God through God’s Holy Spirit. Jesus gives us the miracle of His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity Present in the Eucharist by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Church.

So I hope this is not going toward an argument that the Eucharist is totally the spiritual nature of Christ.
…

I’m not trying to argue anything; just trying to see what you believe, Mary.



I think you are saying (and i hope it is OK if i paraphrase) that when Jesus said He was the vine, He did not mean that we should worship grape vines as God. What He really meant was that He is like a vine, and we are like branches, and the only way to receive eternal life from Him is to be in a relationship with Him, which is only possible by being in His true church.

I think you are also saying that when Jesus told the woman at the well that He would give her living water to drink, He did not mean that He had some magical water she could drink. What He really meant was that the Holy Spirit is like water, in that He brings eternal life to everyone who receives it, and quenches our desire to live the way God wants us to live.

Please let me know if i’m understanding you, correctly.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… What of Christ’s body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: Christ’s body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ’s own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.
…

I hate when that happens! I was saying, “Yes, yes, yes, i agree with what he is saying about accidents. Don’t leave me in suspense; tell me what substance is.”

Then he tells me this episode is to be continued!



http://www.heroestelevision.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/to-be-continued.JPG

 

[toaslan]

Soc:

I think i’m getting closer to wrapping my mind around the individual substance of water. I have you to thank for that!

Thanks, I hope! And I like the careful stepping–that way we may get somewhere together without pushing or pulling! :tiphat: to Socrates of the timeless Dialogues.
Soc:

It appears to me that we have established that an individual substance of some material thing is not an infinitely static thing, but a potentially dynamic thing. Are we on the same page, here?

yes and no–sorry!

I thought we had established that an individual substance itself is not an infinitely static thing, but a potentially dynamic thing.

I think, Soc, your preposition “of” takes us outside the idea that an individual substance is the **subject **of properties–and is not a property of anything else.

I’m bringing forward our working definitions:

“… Individual substances are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring.”

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.

So I’d say what is established is that:
water is potentially dynamic, because we agree that it can truly change to non-water.
Or more generally:
An individual substance is potentially dynamic, because we agree that it can truly change to a different individual substance.

Or do you think more than this is established?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Thanks, I hope! And I like the careful stepping–that way we may get somewhere together without pushing or pulling! :tiphat: to Socrates of the timeless Dialogues.
yes and no–sorry!

I thought we had established that an individual substance itself is not an infinitely static thing, but a potentially dynamic thing.

I think, Soc, your preposition “of” takes us outside the idea that an individual substance is the **subject **of properties–and is not a property of anything else.

I’m bringing forward our working definitions:

“… Individual substances are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring.”

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.

So I’d say what is established is that:
water is potentially dynamic, because we agree that it can truly change to non-water.
Or more generally:
An individual substance is potentially dynamic, because we agree that it can truly change to a different individual substance.

Or do you think more than this is established?

Sounds reasonable to me, ToAslan, unless i’m missing something. Thank you for your patient answers to my questions. I think we’re getting closer to the truth!



Would you agree, then, that the removal of hydrogen atoms is what makes the water one drinks into the air one breathes?

ForH2O - H2 = O
does it not?

 

[toaslan]

Thank you for your patient answers to my questions. I think we’re getting closer to the truth.

de nada, we’re on the scent anyway.
Soc:

Would you agree, then, that the removal of hydrogen atoms is what makes the water one drinks into the air one breaths?

On the material level, yes: the removal of hydrogen atoms is what makes the water one drinks into the air one breaths.

On the essential level, no: the form of “water” has given way to the form of “air”. The change from the essence “waterness” to the essence “hydrogenuity” is what makes the water one drinks into the air one breaths.

Contrary to appearances, the latter change has governed the former–the nature of water dictates such and so atoms, and the atoms conform to that design yielding the water we drink; the nature of air dictates atoms in this but not that kind and arrangement, and the atoms, fitting that design, become the air we breath. Not the other way around.

Is Soc his atoms? Is Soc what he eats? yes and no! right? He is not his macaroni and cheese in any deep way, but as to bodily flesh–as to material cause–yes.

For

H2O - H2 = O

does it not?

Materially, it does. (This does not touch what is going on at the level of nature/essence/form however.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… On the material level, yes: the removal of hydrogen atoms is what makes the water one drinks into the air one breaths.

On the essential level, no: the form of “water” has given way to the form of “air”. The change from the essence “waterness” to the essence “hydrogenuity” is what makes the water one drinks into the air one breaths.
…

By essential level, i’m assuming you are talking about what is essential for water to be, or become, water. Do you think, ToAslan, that hydrogen is essential, or nonessential, for water to be, or become, water?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You don’t have to write a long answer just yet, ToAslan. One word will do. When it comes to the existence of water, please tell me if hydrogen is

• essential
  or
• nonessential

 

[toaslan]

By essential level, i’m assuming you are talking about what is essential for water to be, or become, water.

Yes, we’re interested in what is essential for water to be water.

What’s essential is the nature or form of water first of all. That’s the secret idea of “water” known only to the WaterInventor. I mean that He dreamed up water and all which underlies, compounds and results from water. He dreamed up its elements including their properties and interactions. We could be talking about compounds of flerwatxerwilles and ztlponies instead of hydrogen and oxygen if the Primo Chemist had thought them instead.

Secondly, the essence of “water” requires certain matter potential to it.
Soc:

Do you think, ToAslan, that hydrogen is essential, or nonessential, for water to be, or become, water?

Soc, that’s a good question!

I think “waterness”, is designed to actualize matter potential to “waterness.” Matter is that which is potential to some form. Each form actualizes matter disposed/designed/fit for it.

And the matter potential to “waterness” is hydrogen and oxygen. (please notice they are actually hydrogen and actually oxygen already–but they are both potential to water. they are not potential to, say, oil, if my chemistry is right.)

Hydrogen & oxygen are essential to water in the sense that they, rather than sulphur and copper or such, are fit matter to be actualized into the individual substance by the particular essence “water.”

Their own essences and the essence of water govern the fact (subject to the Governor of all) that hydrogen & oxygen are essential components of water.

So, yes, I can agree that, in this way, hydrogen is essential for water to be water.

 

[toaslan]

You don’t have to write a long answer just yet, ToAslan. One word will do. When it comes to the existence of water, please tell me if hydrogen is

• essential
  or
• nonessential

sorry, didn’t see your prior post so cross-posted.

my answer is essential in the sense explained.

 

[toaslan]

my answer is essential in the sense explained.

One last thought before I sign off:

Every natural thing has four causes, not one, two or three.

These are Material Cause, Agent (or Effective) Cause, Formal Cause and Final Cause.

I am caused materially by my atoms.

I am caused effectively by my parents.

I am caused formally by Rational Animal.

I am caused finally by God who is my purpose, final end, and reason for being.

Each of these causes are essential to me–without even one of them, I would not be.

The Formal Cause is most at issue when one deals with the idea of the “whatness” of something–what it IS at the deepest level–what it is substantially.

Hope to check in tomorrow night to see what you all have been up to.

God night Soc and all!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

sorry, didn’t see your prior post so cross-posted.

my answer is essential in the sense explained.

Thank you, ToAslan.

Would you say the primary (or individual) substance of water is essential to its existence or nonessential?

Would you say the accidents of water are essential to its existence or nonessential?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

One last thought before I sign off:

Every natural thing has four causes, not one, two or three.

These are Material Cause, Agent (or Effective) Cause, Formal Cause and Final Cause.

I am caused materially by my atoms.

I am caused effectively by my parents.

I am caused formally by Rational Animal.

I am caused finally by God who is my purpose, final end, and reason for being.

Each of these causes are essential to me–without even one of them, I would not be.

The Formal Cause is most at issue when one deals with the idea of the “whatness” of something–what it IS at the deepest level–what it is substantially.

Hope to check in tomorrow night to see what you all have been up to.

God night Soc and all!

Hold on, ToAslan! Let’s not rush this, please.

We are dealing with a serious crime, here. There has been a murder. The truth is dead, the Protestant police claim, and the Catholic church is their perp.

I’m the CSI, and my job is to do an unbiased, careful and thorough investigation of the evidence, one exhibit at a time. Before we turn our investigation to causes, i’d like to complete the examination of evidence of substance and accidents.

As the defense attourney for church, i understand your eagerness to make your case. But as for me, i’m neither an advocate nor an opponent of the accused. I’m simply an investigator looking to see where the evidence leads me.

So, let’s please stick to the individual substance of material things before we focus the investigation elsewhere:

• Would you say the primary (or individual) substance of water is essential to its existence or nonessential?
• Would you say the accidents of water are essential to its existence or nonessential?

http://magazine.fandm.edu/autumn05/images/csi.jpg

 

[clmowry]

Just remember your CSI unit is only interested in the physical evidence, because they are trying to figure out what happened, who did it and why.

I think you’ll also find the scientific discipline they employ is of no value what so ever in explaining the miraculous.

They may be able to explain away the seemingly miraculous, but they are at a loss when it comes to the really miraculous.

Simply left shaking their heads and announcing that they can’t explain it.

Then its time to call in the priests and philosophers.

Investigating the Eucharist the CSI unit will tell you all they found is “bread” and “wine”.

The problem is that the Church will tell you, of course, that’s all we would expect them to find.

The Substance we would like to test for is the Body of Christ.
Unfortunately even the best CSI unit doesn’t have a Christometer handy.

Chuck

 

[davidv]

Hold on, ToAslan! Let’s not rush this, please.

We are dealing with a serious crime, here. There has been a murder. The truth is dead, the Protestant police claim, and the Catholic church is their perp.

I’m the CSI, and my job is to do an unbiased, careful and thorough investigation of the evidence, one exhibit at a time. Before we turn our investigation to causes, i’d like to complete the examination of evidence of substance and accidents.

As the defense attourney for church, i understand your eagerness to make your case. But as for me, i’m neither an advocate nor an opponent of the accused. I’m simply an investigator looking to see where the evidence leads me.

So, let’s please stick to the individual substance of material things before we focus the investigation elsewhere:

• Would you say the primary (or individual) substance of water is essential to its existence or nonessential?
• Would you say the accidents of water are essential to its existence or nonessential?

I believe the re-introduction of “causes” is highly critical at this point. Your line of questions is leading us down a purely material trail. This will not lead us to the truth about the substance of the Eucharist. It also leads us to define “substance” in an incorrect way as it applies to the Eucharist.
To your questions:
The “substance” of water is essential to its existance.
The “accidents” are necessary to it physical existance.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Just remember your CSI unit is only interested in the physical evidence, because they are trying to figure out what happened, who did it and why.

I think you’ll also find the scientific discipline they employ is of no value what so ever in explaining the miraculous.

They may be able to explain away the seemingly miraculous, but they are at a loss when it comes to the really miraculous.

Simply left shaking their heads and announcing that they can’t explain it.

Then its time to call in the priests and philosophers.

Investigating the Eucharist the CSI unit will tell you all they found is “bread” and “wine”.

The problem is that the Church will tell you, of course, that’s all we would expect them to find.

The Substance we would like to test for is the Body of Christ.
Unfortunately even the best CSI unit doesn’t have a Christometer handy.

Chuck

CSI is just a metaphor, Chuck. I’m considering all evidence–rational, historical, scientific, and otherwise.

Regarding scientific evidence, you say there is none to support the teaching of the Roman Catholic church about the Eucharist. You might be right, but can you think of any other miracle in the Bible that would produce absolutely no scientific evidence? I mean, if we could send a team of scientists back in time, is there any miracle Jesus did that they could not not possibly confirm using the scientific method? If there is, please tell me what that miracle is.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I believe the re-introduction of “causes” is highly critical at this point. Your line of questions is leading us down a purely material trail. This will not lead us to the truth about the substance of the Eucharist. It also leads us to define “substance” in an incorrect way as it applies to the Eucharist.
To your questions:
The “substance” of water is essential to its existance.
The “accidents” are necessary to it physical existance.

Perhaps, David, but i’d like to exhaust the investigation of what individual substance is before i consider something else. I do not think this is an unreasonable request, as we’ve devoted so much time to the subject thus far. To drop it now would be unwise and a waste of all that time.

 

[clmowry]

The best you can hope for from scientific evidence is to see that the science does not disprove the miraculous.

Let’s put our CSI unit on the scene of the resurrection. We give them all of their modern equipment and free access to Christ before and after the resurrection.

They could confirm that Christ was alive. They could confirm that he died on the cross. They could confirm that 3 days later a man with the same DNA was alive.

What they could not tell us is how or why.

Our CSI unit could not “prove” it was a miracle they could only confess that they have no scientific explanation for the facts at hand. (Granted this would “prove it” for me, but I’m easy.)

Even if they were actually in the tomb and witnessed the resurrection itself there are those who would submit to you that they must have been tricked somehow.

In fact I’ve posed precisely this question to some of the atheists on the site before, “If you witnessed the resurrection, then would you believe?”

“No, at that point I would have to question my sanity……”

“Perhaps he had an identical twin that took his place….”

“Perhaps he took a drug that made it appear he was dead….”

Etc. etc.

Closer to the subject at hand would be something like this http://www.zenit.org/article-12933?l=english.

Let us assume we put our CSI unit on site. They inspect the bread and wine, take samples, witness the monks actions and take samples of the flesh and blood.

Now our Atheist friend chimes in again.

“What about slight of hand. The monk obviously inserted the heart tissue without the observers noticing.”

Etc. Etc.

The CSI observer could testify to what they witnessed, but they could not “prove” the miracle.

The miraculous is scientifically “impossible” after all. Isn’t it?

Unfortunately, the Miracle-meter is still waiting in line to be invented with the Christ-meter so the we can validate the presence of the true Substance of the Eucharist.

Chuck

CSI is just a metaphor, Chuck. I’m considering all evidence–rational, historical, scientific, and otherwise.

Regarding scientific evidence, you say there is none to support the teaching of the Roman Catholic church about the Eucharist. You might be right, but can you think of any other miracle in the Bible that would produce absolutely no scientific evidence? I mean, if we could send a team of scientists back in time, is there any miracle Jesus did that they could not not possibly confirm using the scientific method? If there is, please tell me what that miracle is.

 

[steve_b]

By primary source documents, do you mean the original autographs? We do not even have the original gospels and epistles of the New Testament. Are you saying we do, however, have the original writings that these early church fathers penned with their own hands?

• Primary resources provide firsthand evidence of historical events whether in the original hand or direct translations of the originals.
• Secondary materials,are NOT the originals or translations of the originals they are interpretations of primary materials.
  Therefore
  1. the Gospels and epistles are firsthand evidence of events because we have translations from the original documents, NOT interpretations of them.
  2. The letters I posted of the ECF’s are firsthand evidence of events…because they are translations from the original documents NOT interpretations of them.
     Even without the originals you believe the first point is true…correct? The very same authority (the Catholic Church) that gave us the first point, and that you believe is true, also gave us the second.
  To doubt the second is to also doubt the first.
  Soc:
  

  The question i’m considering is not one of content, but one of reliability, SteveB. When it comes to the New Testament, the question is this: Since we do not have the original autographs, how trustworthy are the ancient copies?

  You need validations from other contemporaries, correct? The ECF’s quote from sacred writings. What you’re REALLY saying is, if you trust the scriptures, then you trust the Catholic Church who identified and give us the NT correctly and reliably in the first place. It would then be inconsistent to NOT trust the same Church to give us the ECF’s writings correctly.
  Soc:
  

  Any change in a few of them, that is not found in the rest of them, is not included in the good translations of the Bible you and i read today. This is why the consensus among the majority of biblical scholars is that the New Testament you and i have today is at least 95% the same as the original autographs.

  If I put on YOUR hat now, since we don’t have the originals, how is 95% accuracy even validated?
  
  Bottomline, they’re trusting in someone’s authority to tell them that.
  Soc:
  

  The same cannot be said of the writings of the philosopher Plato (for only 7 ancient manuscript copies of his work survived), or of the Roman Emperor Julius Caesar (for only 10 ancient manuscript copies of his work survived) or of the Roman historian Tacitus (for only 20 ancient manuscript copies of his work survived).
  
  I’m asking, then, how many ancient manuscript copies of the early church fathers that you quoted have survived? I think it is a fair question to ask. The answer you give will tell me how much stock i should put in the quotes said to be attributed to these ancient witnesses.
  
  

  The number of copies that have survived of anything, is NOT the measure of truth. It’s only a measure that THOSE copies survived.
  
  The one who validates truth and passes on scripture faithfully, is the one who also validates and passes on the ECF’s. You can’t trust one and doubt the second without introducing doubt to both.

 

[JustaServant]

After 750 replies, I’m sure this thread will end someday.
I’m just sick of the e-mail notifications.
j/k