Avoiding absurdity in preaching the Eucharest

[Aloysium]

I think you are incorrect here. When Christ rose from the dead he rose as a real, live, man. Remember that Mary mistook him for the gardner. This could hardly be " as a stone acts in a fog. " Then again his apostles took him for a real man on the road to Eammaus. Again, the Apostles took him for a real man in the Upper Room. And it was a real man that ascended into heaven. . . .

I don’t disagree with what you say.
I am trying to describe/understand the nature of a glorified body compared to our current bodies in this world.
I understand it to be of a greater reality, closer to the Ground of Being and thus behaving differently than our current “form”.
Being beyond and above what we are, He would be able to take on a different appearance to our senses.
He comes down to our level. As would have Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration.
I suppose it was a bad analogy; I was considering that although Jesus may have appeared to come and go, the reality of glorified body is actually “solid”, and comparatively, we are evanescent.
This said, clearly most nuances - whoosh - fly right over me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t disagree with what you say.
I am trying to describe/understand the nature of a glorified body compared to our current bodies in this world.
I understand it to be of a greater reality, closer to the Ground of Being and thus behaving differently than our current “form”.
Being beyond and above what we are, He would be able to take on a different appearance to our senses.
He comes down to our level. As would have Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration.
I suppose it was a bad analogy; I was considering that although Jesus may have appeared to come and go, the reality of glorified body is actually “solid”, and comparatively, we are evanescent.
This said, clearly most nuances - whoosh - fly right over me.

I don’t think we should regard ourselves as evanescent as compared to a glorified body. Christ’s Risen body was a glorified body. As such, we know that it had the powers or properties of immortality, impassibility, subtlety, agility, and clarity. Various Fathers of the Church have described Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist as palpable or corporeal. It is even described in the Catholic Encyclopedia as physical. And the Roman Catechism tells us that in this sacramenrt is present " …the same Body that was born of the Virgin Mary and is now seated at the right hand of the Father…" ( pg. 225,para 25 ).

So our bodies here on earth and Christ’s Glorified body are both corporeal. But Christ’s corporeal body is " spiritualized; " that is, it has special powers and properties that do not belong to our corporeal bodies. That does not mean we are less real or " evanescent, " it only means we have a corporeal body appropriate to bodies which have not tasted death, and Christ has a glorified body appropriate to those who have passed into heaven.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

I don’t think so if you are on a philosophy forum debating Aristotelian concepts and concomitance in the Eucharist .

Everybody who has done at least 3 years of secondary school knows that physics is all about observable matter and energy only. Its been that way since Descartes who overthrew the Aristotelian concept of matter and replaced it with the first accident of substance (extension) which is quantifiable and therefore measurable.

Mirriam Webster:
1a : of or relating to natural science
b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
2a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey>

Oxford:
1.1 Involving bodily contact or activity: ‘less physical sports such as bowls’ ‘a physical relationship’
2. Relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete: ‘the physical world’
3. Relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally: ‘physical laws’

The Latin word for “physical” used by the Pope in that Latin document is, in my opinion, not equivalent to what that word means in colloquial English language of the late 20th century.

Its absurd to preach such things without first training listeners in Aristotelian concepts.
That seems an unlikely Catechetical approach in the short term.

The result of identifying matter with quantity, if I’m not mistaken, was that it led Descartes to postulate that God creates a mental illusion of the bread and wine in everyone’s mind after the consecration at Mass. Whether or not you believe this, I don’t know. To me, its absurd.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, I never said that during his presence during the forty days after the Resurrection Christ was ever present but " intangible. "

Oh dear, I am not letting you off the hook so easily Linus.
If you talk of a glorified body you must be talking of Jesus between his Rising and his Ascension surely? How else would you or Aquinas pretend to know what a glorified body is capable of … without the disciples experiencing Jesus’s presence at those times?

Quote: Linus
Christ ( or any other glorified body ) could, by an act of his will, make his physical presence impervious to any human perception or any attempts by science to detect his presence

Quote: BH

BTW can you source exactly where you believe Aquinas clearly spoke of what you interpret as “invisible/imperceptible accidents” wrt his Glorified Body?

Linus …Aquinas definitely assumed it to be the case…

I and others humbly suggest you have interpreted Aquinas wrongly because it is more logical to say even the Risen Jesus is not present at all if he cannot be sensibly perceived . Isn’t that obvious to you?

At least in the Eucharist there is sensibly perceptible bread which delineates where Jesus may be said to be present.

Clearly there is a big difference between Jesus present in the Eucharist and Jesus allegedly “imperceptibly present” on Earth in his Risen glorified body.
The former is not absurd, the latter is.

I do not believe Aquinas actually said what you say in modern words.

What one must not do is to insist that Christ’s bodily presence in the Eucharist satisfy the categories of science. The mode of Christ’s presence, whether in the Eucharist or in heaven is a part of the Divine mystery and is supernatural. It is beyond the categories of science.

You do not understand the simple observation we are making at all Linus .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The result of identifying matter with quantity, if I’m not mistaken, was that it led Descartes to postulate that God creates a mental illusion of the bread and wine in everyone’s mind after the consecration at Mass. Whether or not you believe this, I don’t know. To me, its absurd.

I am not really interested in Descarte’s views on the Eucharist.
I am simply pointing out that Joe Bloggs Englishman calls “physical”, by definition, perceptible to the senses. As do our classic English Dictionaries whether we like it or not.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote: Linus
He also exercised it by consuming solid food which glorified bodies … cannot digest.

Why not? If the teeth can masticate, the throat can swallow, why not the gut digest?

Where do you get these strange statements from Linus?
To deny that the Risen Jesus cannot digest fish is to deny the fleshly (ie physical in this case) reality that we must hold to wrt the Resurrection.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Oh dear, I am not letting you off the hook so easily Linus.
If you talk of a glorified body you must be talking of Jesus between his Rising and his Ascension surely? How else would you or Aquinas pretend to know what a glorified body is capable of … without the disciples experiencing Jesus’s presence at those times?

I and others humbly suggest you have interpreted Aquinas wrongly because it is more logical to say even the Risen Jesus is not present at all if he cannot be sensibly perceived . Isn’t that obvious to you?

At least in the Eucharist there is sensibly perceptible bread which delineates where Jesus may be said to be present.

Clearly there is a big difference between Jesus present in the Eucharist and Jesus allegedly “imperceptibly present” on Earth in his Risen glorified body.
The former is not absurd, the latter is.

I do not believe Aquinas actually said what you say in modern words.

You do not understand the simple observation we are making at all Linus .

Really Blue! If you would just take the time to go back and read my posts you would find all your answers. But to be specific Thomas discusses Christ’s Glorified Body in the S.T., part 3, ques 53-49 ( the Resurrection ) and this is re-iterated in the various Catechisms and Papal documents, and many statements by the Fathers. I assume you accept that it is Christ’s Glorified Body in the Eucharist.

Again. I never said that Christ was ever " imperceptibly " present during the forty days after his Resurrection or that he made himself " intangible. " I merely said that he had the power to do so as is evidenced by the fact that he appeared suddenly in the locked Upper Room and that he ascended into heaven.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Where do you get these strange statements from Linus?
To deny that the Risen Jesus cannot digest fish is to deny the fleshly (ie physical in this case) reality that we must hold to wrt the Resurrection.

I was merely repeating comments by the Fathers. It is not to deny the fleshly, physical, or corporeal constitution of his Glorified Body. It is merely to say that his corporeality after his Resurrection was a glorified corporality. The distinction is between earthly corporality and heavenly corporality. This is supported by Scripture. See 1 Cor. 15: 42 and following.

" 42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. "

This quotation is not to be interpreted as saying that a resurrected body is a spirit but that it is no longer subject to the limitations and restrictions of earthly matter, but that now the body is under the total control and will of the soul.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was merely repeating comments by the Fathers.

Yes, that is yet another absurdity in both preaching and apologetics perhaps Linus.
We need more than unthinking parrots for good apologetics.

Mature apologetics requires critical thinking and application to contemp circumstances.

It is not to deny the fleshly, physical, or corporeal constitution of his Glorified Body.

Yet that is exactly what you did by uncritically saying “He also demonstrated subtility by consuming solid food which glorified bodies do not need and cannot digest.”

I suggest the problem is not the Fathers at all. Its more likely less than well thought out understandings of their words uncritically applied to topics that are actually different from what the Fathers were actually speaking about.

I admire your desire to defend the faith - but often you are only defending your particular take or an uncertain, minority speculation.

Often questions are in fact more open and less certain than you are prepared to admit. The Catholic Church doesn’t actually have cut and dried answers to every theological question and there is room for much debate and new insights.

Why do we have to pretend … even to the point of backing ancient answers that are clearly past their useby date .

Surely the need to have a clear answer, always, is what quickly leads to absurdity in these sorts of discussions.

That is a form of insecurity to me.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Really Blue! If you would just take the time to go back and read my posts you would find all your answers. But to be specific Thomas discusses Christ’s Glorified Body in the S.T., part 3, ques 53-49 ( the Resurrection ) and this is re-iterated in the various Catechisms and Papal documents, and many statements by the Fathers. I assume you accept that it is Christ’s Glorified Body in the Eucharist.

Again. I never said that Christ was ever " imperceptibly " present during the forty days after his Resurrection or that he made himself " intangible. " I merely said that he had the power to do so as is evidenced by the fact that he appeared suddenly in the locked Upper Room and that he ascended into heaven.

Linus2nd

Linus why don’t you go back and read your own posts…you always end up later saying “that isn’t what I meant”.

You clearly personally believe (and maintain Aquinas for your authority) that the Risen Jesus could be present with the disciples without being tangible to the senses.

Now I and others have ably demonstrated this is a logical contradiction and other explanations better explain any example you might care to offer in this regard.

I further suggest, as is usually the case, you have misunderstood Aquinas if you think such a thing is possible.

I don’t understand why you find it so difficult to admit when you are in fact mistaken.
It doesn’t make you any less an apologist to do so.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was informing you of my belief Linus as a first step in my argument.
That does not mean that I believe you must have the opposite belief does it?

They give the impression that they are incarnate but that is the result of the power they exercise over matter.

Given that you agree that angels only give the impressiojn of having bodies then you must agree that they are not locally present.

If they are not locally present, how are they present?

In which case it is not unreasonable to hold that they only give the impression of local movement.

As long as they occupy a material form and move as a material form why can’t we say that, in these instances, they move locally because the will to do so.

Can you find a Magisterial statement or a well regarded theologian from a Pontifical University in the last 100 years who would hold the above as a primary explanation?

Even so its just pure speculation isn’t it?

Yes, it is just speculation.

Why is that relevant Linus.
I don’t believe Lazarus’s soul was in the top level of Dante’s purgatory beneath a volcano somewhere under my feet. Do you? How can a soul which does not inform a body have dimension and be positioned under the same earth we inhabit?

Can souls be in the same place at the same time? Does our faith here have to teach us this incomprehensible sort of “science” as well as the deeper religious truth we all understand and accept?

We cerrtainly have to believe in some sort of purgatory, a state or condition of purifying.

The problem is yours not mine Linus. How can something you accept is immaterial be in a material place?

We don’t know whether it is a material place or not.

Regardless, you are trying to force a physicalist meaning on expressions of faith that are clearly analogical. “Descend” surely does not have to mean literally beneath the ground we stand on?

Again, I never said it was a " physical " place, nor that it was beneath the ground we stand on. The creed is describing an event in a way that could be comprehended by uneducated people. It is not addressing philosophers or scientists, who may be expected to recognize the difference…

When the Bible says the sun darkened…does that have to mean it was literally extinguished at source for a period of time.Of course not.

And why not? Don’t you think nature revolted at the death of its creator? The Tradition of the Church is that the sun was darkened for three hours, there were earth quakes, the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom, and many dead rose from their graves and entered the city. This Tradition is based on the witness given by tha Apostles and Disciples.

Other understandings are acceptable.

Skeptics can always dream up something. Credible? Hardly.

Its unreasonable to hold to a single traditional Greek/Jewish/medieval understanding of demonic experiences from 1000-3000 years ago when other models are acceptable and perhaps more consistent with Christian theology.

The entire body of the Church’s belief and teaching is based on the witness of the Apostles and Disciples and the Fathers and has been so from the beginning. It is not based on Greek, Jewish, or medieval understanding. You are the one confusing the issues. No truth can substitute for Catholic Truth.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus why don’t you go back and read your own posts…you always end up later saying “that isn’t what I meant”.

You clearly personally believe (and maintain Aquinas for your authority) that the Risen Jesus could be present with the disciples without being tangible to the senses.

I said he could have, I didn’t say that he did. He definitely had and has the power. He is certainly invisible in the Eucharist.

Now I and others have ably demonstrated this is a logical contradiction and other explanations better explain any example you might care to offer in this regard.

Not in my opinion.

I further suggest, as is usually the case, you have misunderstood Aquinas if you think such a thing is possible.

I have not misunderstood him. Neither have the Church Councils, the Catechisms. the Popes, the Catholic Encyclopedia and a seven hundred year long ling of Catholic theologians and philosophers.

I don’t understand why you find it so difficult to admit when you are in fact mistaken.It doesn’t make you any less an apologist to do so.

Because it would be a lie to admit to a falsehood.

Linus2nd

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread Warning:

Discuss the topic, not each other.

 

[opusAquinas]

St Teresa discusses prayer of union.

Receiving the eucharist your soul is receiving Jesus Christ.

So it is prayer of union without “feeling it.”

Though some experience the prayer of union -that is the euphoria of love or whatever- when they receive the eucharist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fr. Victor Feltes, Diocese of La Cross, Wisconsin, has recently given an explanation of the special powers Christ possessed in his resurrected body. These powers which he explains we will also possess in our resurrected bodies, are those of levity, agility, impassability, and clarity which I explained were supported by the Cathechism of the Council of Trent. I also explained that these special powers of Christ’s resurrected body explain his invisibility in the Eucharistic species, at least in part. Fr. Feltes does not go into the Eucharistic Presence.

parishableitems.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/our-glorified-bodies-shall-be-like-his/

Fr. Feltes is a regular blogger and well worth following.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Fr. Victor Feltes, Diocese of La Cross, Wisconsin, has recently given an explanation of the special powers Christ possessed in his resurrected body. These powers which he explains we will also possess in our resurrected bodies, are those of levity, agility, impassability, and clarity which I explained were supported by the Cathechism of the Council of Trent. I also explained that these special powers of Christ’s resurrected body explain his invisibility in the Eucharistic species, at least in part. Fr. Feltes does not go into the Eucharistic Presence.

parishableitems.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/our-glorified-bodies-shall-be-like-his/

Fr. Feltes is a regular blogger and well worth following.

Linus2nd

your link didn’t work

 

[Linusthe2nd]

your link didn’t work

I just tried it and it worked for me. Something is wrong with your computer.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is good discussion by Msgr. Charles Pope on the bodily resurrection of Jesus and our own.

blog.adw.org/2015/04/what-will-our-resurrected-bodies-be-like-3/

Linus2nd