Avoiding absurdity in preaching the Eucharest

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Yes, I agree. Christ is present whole and entire in the Eucharist—body and blood, soul and divinity, in all his component parts. He is corporeally present, not just spiritually present. He is present under the appearances of bread and wine. To quote from Mysterium Fidei which you quoted in your earlier post, he is present whole and entire in his physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.”

“Not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.” Present under the appearances of bread and wine. That is just Eucharistic doctrine. I only quibbled with the idea of “touching” because one cannot touch something which is not present in the manner in which bodies are in a place, whose accidents are not perceptible to the senses. Touch is a sense perception. Accidents or appearances are sense perceptions.

The only reason I have refrained from using the word “physical” to describe Christ in the Eucharist is that the term “physical” in common usage means precisely that which is perceptible to the senses. And Christ in the Eucharist is not perceptible to the senses. Otherwise we would not be able to receive him.

Eucharistic doctrine usually speaks in terms of substance and accidents, of reality vs appearances, not in terms of the qualities of glorified bodies, which seems to be a tangent. Substance and accidents are sufficient for the discussion. As you said, material substance without extension is not perceptible to the senses; Christ is in the Eucharist whole and entire but without extension.
Click to expand...
“Not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.”

Well quoted. I had not come across this expression before.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Just because you can’t see something does not mean it is not physically present.

Richca the argument has gone further than this…

Linus believes something can be physically present even when that something cannot be perceived by any of the 5 senses or scientific instruments.

That to most English speakers is an absurdity as it contradicts the very definition of the English word “physical”. Such a something simply does not physically exist.

If air was not tangible how would you know it is there - why would you need to posit its physical existence at all?
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on what your definition of physical is. If a person understands physical to mean something that can be perceived by the senses or scientific instruments in the natural order of things, then this person would conclude that the body and blood of Christ present in the eucharist is not physical. However, I think we need to remember that the miracle of the eucharist is not in the natural order of things, but in the supernatural. The body and blood of Christ are really and substantially present in the eucharist but they are beyond sense experience by a divine miracle.

In my view, the physical is opposed to the spiritual; material substances composed out of matter as opposed to spiritual substances which are without matter. Spiritual substances being human souls, angels and God. In the miracle of the eucharistic consecration as we know, the material substances of the bread and wine are changed into the material substances of the body and blood of Christ.Form is converted into form and matter into matter. So, in my view, taking physical as applying to material substances, Christ is physically present in the eucharist and it doesn’t matter that he cannot be perceived by the senses or scientific instruments. The fact of the matter is that the substances of Christ’s body and blood, indeed the entire body and blood of Christ, is present under the accidents of the bread and wine. The sacramental mode of Christ’s body and blood present in the eucharist is in a sense spiritual or after the manner of a spirit (cf. ST, IIIa, q.75, art.1). But this presence of Christ’s body and blood is not spiritual in the sense that the body and blood of Christ are spiritual substances, because they aren’t, they are material substances composed of matter and form.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Your problem is that you have not bothered to read my references. The Roman Catechism states ( para. 26, pg 225) " …First, the one true Body of Christ, the same Body that was born of the Virgin Mary and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is acutally present in the sacarment…" In heaven we know that it is Christ’s Glorified Body. that is present. And since this is the same Body that is in the sacrament, it is his Glorified Body that is present in the sacrament. Not only this but the Church often uses the phrase " Glorified Body " to refer to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, I just don’t have a particular reference at the moment.

This sacrament has nothing to do with " time travel, " we are dealing with the mystery of the power of God, who is eternal and he is making present to us in time an eternal mystery.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
I read your reference, I read all the time, but I didn’t say in the Mass. I said in the Last Supper.

Are you saying that communion is no different from if a giant man picked up Jesus after the Resurrection and swallowed Him whole?
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Blue Horizon;12835418:
I think the word ’ virtually ’ is improper here. Concomitance here means actually present but according to the demands of the subject ( i.e., the bread and wine ). And Christ’s bodily accidents would be present according to the demands of his bodily substance or nature. Besides, the Catechism of the Council of Trent ( the Roman Catechism as Thinkandmull has kindly pointed out ) makes it perfectly clear that his accidents were indeed present in the Eucharist.

No, I don’t think this presence would be present as a mature body is virtually present in an ovum. Christ was quite clear, he said, " This is my body,and this is my blood…" No loyal son of the Church has ever nuanced this clear meaning. The Church has always insisted we take them literally. All attempts at a nuanced meaning have been condemned. And while you are right in saying that the explanation of Thomas Aquinas on these things is speculative, still they are the best explanation we have and priests, bishops and Popes have been studying his reasoning here for 800 years, his teaching has never been condemned or seriously questioned.
.

I am not saying at all that a " little " Christ is present. I said that this understanding was condemned by the Church.

Because it contrary to the clear, direct meaning of Christ’s own words and the Church has always condemned any attempt to nuance Christ’s clear and direct words. You are trying to nuance Christ’s clear and direct meaning, therefore you are skating on very thin ice.

No, because there was no need to do so. Trent was not teaching philosophy or science, it simply took Christ at his word, just as the Apostles and Disciples did. When Christ said, " This is my body…and…this is my blood…" Trent took him at is word and simply said that Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament " Whole and entire. " ( Chapter III of Session 13 of the Council )

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read what I post. The Catechisms are Magisterial texts. If you are looking for these words " The answer is Jesus’ bodily attributes are actually, really present, not virtually and not by concomitance. " are to be found in the actual Dogma, the answer is no. The Catechisms simply say that Jesus’ bodily attributes are actually present. Now they do not give an exhaustive list of those attributes. The Roman Catechism simply says, " What must be explained at this point is that in this sacrament is contained not only the true Body of Christ - and that means everything that goes to make up a true body, such as bones, nerves, etc. - but Christ whole and entire. " ( Chapter 33, pg 229, 1985 edition. )

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
“Trent was not teaching philosophy” Substance vs accident has to do with philosophy. How we understand that is open to discussion. Its not true that Aquinas has not been seriously questioned. Not by Thomists, but other schools of thought sure (Rosmini, Catholic Cartesians, and others)
Click to expand...
 
Richca said:
The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are under the eucharistic species. Indeed, the entire Christ, body, soul, and divinity are under every part of the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine. The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are not perceived by the senses in the Eucharist because by a divine miracle they are present after the manner of substance. Material substance without extension is invisible and imperceptible to the senses.
Click to expand...
Suppose we are tiny people, and the host at our Mass is the smallest piece of bread possible. I suppose Jesus is present in the infinite parts of that “bread” by those infinite parts being in Heaven exactly where Jesus is and He has replaced its substance with Himself
 
Richca said:
I suppose it depends on what your definition of physical is. If a person understands physical to mean something that can be perceived by the senses or scientific instruments in the natural order of things, then this person would conclude that the body and blood of Christ present in the eucharist is not physical. However, I think we need to remember that the miracle of the eucharist is not in the natural order of things, but in the supernatural. The body and blood of Christ are really and substantially present in the eucharist but they are beyond sense experience by a divine miracle.

In my view, the physical is opposed to the spiritual; material substances composed out of matter as opposed to spiritual substances which are without matter. Spiritual substances being human souls, angels and God. In the miracle of the eucharistic consecration as we know, the material substances of the bread and wine are changed into the material substances of the body and blood of Christ.Form is converted into form and matter into matter. So, in my view, taking physical as applying to material substances, Christ is physically present in the eucharist and it doesn’t matter that he cannot be perceived by the senses or scientific instruments. The fact of the matter is that the substances of Christ’s body and blood, indeed the entire body and blood of Christ, is present under the accidents of the bread and wine. The sacramental mode of Christ’s body and blood present in the eucharist is in a sense spiritual or after the manner of a spirit (cf. ST, IIIa, q.75, art.1). But this presence of Christ’s body and blood is not spiritual in the sense that the body and blood of Christ are spiritual substances, because they aren’t, they are material substances composed of matter and form.
Click to expand...
What disappears during consecration which is Physical? That is part of this discussion and I don’t think anyone can prove one side rather than the other. Kant could talk but not prove on this issue
 
thinkandmull said:
Suppose we are tiny people, and the host at our Mass is the smallest piece of bread possible. I suppose Jesus is present in the infinite parts of that “bread” by those infinite parts being in Heaven exactly where Jesus is and He has replaced its substance with Himself
Click to expand...
If you had the smallest piece of consecrated host possible which still had the appearance of bread, you wouldn’t have infinite parts of that piece in which would be infinite Jesus’. For if you divided that piece, it would no longer have the appearance of bread nor would the body of Christ be present.
 
thinkandmull said:
What disappears during consecration which is Physical? That is part of this discussion and I don’t think anyone can prove one side rather than the other. Kant could talk but not prove on this issue
Click to expand...
Aquinas nor I am trying to prove transubstantiantion. Transubstantiation cannot be proven by scientific means. Aquinas offers a sound philosophic explanation of what happens in transubstantiation according to catholic faith and the divine words of Jesus. The miracle of the eucharist is just that, namely, a miracle. It is outside the order of the natural order of things but not beyond the almighty power of God. Aquinas does not try to diminish the supernatural miracle of the eucharist but to bring it out in full force. We should be in awe at what Jesus does at every Mass with the bread and wine and what God can do with His creation which is beyond all we naturally experience.
 
Richca said:
If you had the smallest piece of consecrated host possible which still had the appearance of bread, you wouldn’t have infinite parts of that piece in which would be infinite Jesus’. For if you divided that piece, it would no longer have the appearance of bread nor would the body of Christ be present.
Click to expand...
Its not infinite Jesus; infinite parts are wear Jesus is in Heaven and have the substance of Jesus for a substance. Otherwise you would have to say Jesus’s arm is this part of the bread, this part his leg ect. Do you see my syllogism?
 
thinkandmull said:
Its not infinite Jesus; infinite parts are wear Jesus is in Heaven and have the substance of Jesus for a substance. Otherwise you would have to say Jesus’s arm is this part of the bread, this part his leg ect. Do you see my syllogism?
Click to expand...
No, I do not understand what you are saying.
 
thinkandmull said:
Linusthe2nd;12835763:
“Trent was not teaching philosophy” Substance vs accident has to do with philosophy. How we understand that is open to discussion. Its not true that Aquinas has not been seriously questioned. Not by Thomists, but other schools of thought sure (Rosmini, Catholic Cartesians, and others)
Click to expand...
Rene Descartes strayed from philosophic truth. Some of his ideas, if not many, bear no relation to the real world as we experience it, they are far-out and far-fetched. He was no metaphysician. However, in other areas of study, I suppose he was pretty brilliant. Did he not found analytic geometry or something of that nature?
Click to expand...
 
thinkandmull said:
If you say that the smallest host possible, a piece of bread, was permeated by all the parts of Jesus, without being of place as Paul VI says, then we have the infinite parts of the piece bread with a substance of Jesus.

Descartes just get s a bad rap from, he’s fine. You could just as well say that Aquinas was far out there: academia.edu/6543036/Descartes_Dismissal_of_scholastic_intentional_forms_What_Would_Thomas_Aquinas_Say
Click to expand...
Neither the Church nor any poster here has said that Jesus permeates the host or wine. Why do you think this is what was said?
 
thinkandmull said:
Nevermind (but lots of times)
Click to expand...
I think it is a false accusation. I re-read several of Linus… posts on the first page of this thread. He actually stated some things that are in direct contradiction to what you claim.
 
Send him a message and ask if he believes Jesus is permeated throughout the accidents.
 
thinkandmull said:
Send him a message and ask if he believes Jesus is permeated throughout the accidents.
Click to expand...
I don’t have to. I have read his posts and have not read anything that approaches the meaning you have claimed. Please defend your claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top