Avoiding absurdity in preaching the Eucharest

[Blue_Horizon]

Remember that though Christ’s presence is indeed physical, it is a Glorified or spiritualised body that is present.
Linus2nd

This is somewhat esoteric nonsense.
Christ’s presence is not “physical” in the sense that ordinary english people use that word.

If “preachers” attempt to teach ordinary people with ordinary words that have meanings completely different from what can be expected…then it seems avoiding absurdity has not yet been avoided.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is somewhat esoteric nonsense.
Christ’s presence is not “physical” in the sense that ordinary english people use that word.

If “preachers” attempt to teach ordinary people with ordinary words that have meanings completely different from what can be expected…then it seems avoiding absurdity has not yet been avoided.

Just a couple of thoughts before I go out to clean the snow off the car .

The idea of a spiritualized physical body is hard to understand because we still live in a world subserviant to the limites of finite matter.

When Christ’s physical body lay dead in the tomb it was still subjuct to the limits of finite, earthly matter. But when his soul was reunited to his body, it became a glorified physical body no longer subject to the laws of earthly physical matter.

What about the " New Heaven and the New Earth " that book of Revelation speaks of?

What does that mean? In some way the " New Heaven and the New Earth " will be a form of physical substance that transcends the physical material laws ot this earth, a form suitable to our newly constituted glorified, spiritualized material, physical bodies.

Linus2nd .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is somewhat esoteric nonsense.
Christ’s presence is not “physical” in the sense that ordinary english people use that word.

If “preachers” attempt to teach ordinary people with ordinary words that have meanings completely different from what can be expected…then it seems avoiding absurdity has not yet been avoided.

You should read S.T., part 3, Ques 54, ans 1 and following. Thomas explains that Christ’s Resurrected Body is a real physical body, just as I said, and physical just as I said, but that it is a glorified body no longer restricted by the limitations imposed on worldly matter.
newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm#article1

One quote used by St. Thomas is especially enlightening. " As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said to rise, which fell. But Christ’s body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in order for it to be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the same body of Christ to be once more united with the same soul. And since the truth of the body’s nature is from its form it follows that Christ’s body after His Resurrection was a true body, and of the same nature as it was before…"

The Blackfriars edition translates " true body" or " body " as a physical body.

The Blackfriars edition of the Summa has an explanatary footnote that reads:

" The four endowments of a glorified body according to the Scholastic theologians are impassibilitas, as immunity from suffering or hurt; *subtilitas, * an absence of lumpish density; agilitas, a swiftness of response to spirit; and clrirtas, or lightness. Then it refers the reader to the Supplemtum of the Summa Ques 83 - 85. These explain subtlety, agility, clarity as regards resurrected bodies.
newadvent.org/summa/5.htm

To sum up, God created two orders of creatures, the material and the spiritual ( i.e. composed of no matter or immaterial, God, angels, and the human soul ). There is no third substance. So Christ’s resurrected body, which is what we receive in Communion, is either material ( physical ) or spiritual, there is no third option. And since no body is spiritual, it must be, as the Fathers say, that Christ’s resurrected body is material or physical, but a physical body which transcends the limitations of earthly bodies.

And I agree these things have not been taught to ordinary Catholics sufficiently. It is possible, probable that most Catholics accept it in that same simple faith possessed by the Apostles. " …where shall we go, we believe you are the Son of the living God and you have the words of life…? "

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You should read S.T., part 3, Ques 54, ans 1 and following. Thomas explains that Christ’s Resurrected Body is a real physical body, just as I said, and physical just as I said, but that it is a glorified body no longer restricted by the limitations imposed on worldly matter.
newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm#article1

One quote used by St. Thomas is especially enlightening. " As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said to rise, which fell. But Christ’s body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in order for it to be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the same body of Christ to be once more united with the same soul. And since the truth of the body’s nature is from its form it follows that Christ’s body after His Resurrection was a true body, and of the same nature as it was before…"

The Blackfriars edition translates " true body" or " body " as a physical body.

The Blackfriars edition of the Summa has an explanatary footnote that reads:

" The four endowments of a glorified body according to the Scholastic theologians are impassibilitas, as immunity from suffering or hurt; *subtilitas, * an absence of lumpish density; agilitas, a swiftness of response to spirit; and clrirtas, or lightness. Then it refers the reader to the Supplemtum of the Summa Ques 83 - 85. These explain subtlety, agility, clarity as regards resurrected bodies.
newadvent.org/summa/5.htm

To sum up, God created two orders of creatures, the material and the spiritual ( i.e. composed of no matter or immaterial, God, angels, and the human soul ). There is no third substance. So Christ’s resurrected body, which is what we receive in Communion, is either material ( physical ) or spiritual, there is no third option. And since no body is spiritual, it must be, as the Fathers say, that Christ’s resurrected body is material or physical, but a physical body which transcends the limitations of earthly bodies.

And I agree these things have not been taught to ordinary Catholics sufficiently. It is possible, probable that most Catholics accept it in that same simple faith possessed by the Apostles. " …where shall we go, we believe you are the Son of the living God and you have the words of life…? "

Linus2nd

Linus you are over-thinking the issue.

You must be the only person on Catholic.com, perhaps the whole english speaking world, who first goes to a Latin Aquinas or a German writer of Theological Manuals to define the english word “physical” as used by your average Englishman in the pews.

This is exactly the cause of the absurdities the OP speaks of but you seem unable to see this.

If we cannot see Jesus’s body then he is not physically present.
Trust me on this, don’t overthink it.
I don’t care how Aquinas (or rather somebody’s translation of Aquinas) or any theologian might define “physical” for you. They aren’t infallible on 21stC colloquial understandings of such words.

The colloquial word “physical” is not hard to understand - the Church does not have monopoly rights on its definition. THAT is the absurdity.

You need to put the books down on this one.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus you are over-thinking the issue.

You must be the only person on Catholic.com, perhaps the whole english speaking world, who first goes to a Latin Aquinas or a German writer of Theological Manuals to define the english word “physical” as used by your average Englishman in the pews.

This is exactly the cause of the absurdities the OP speaks of but you seem unable to see this.

If we cannot see Jesus’s body then he is not physically present.
Trust me on this, don’t overthink it.
I don’t care how Aquinas (or rather somebody’s translation of Aquinas) or any theologian might define “physical” for you. They aren’t infallible on 21stC colloquial understandings of such words.

The colloquial word “physical” is not hard to understand - the Church does not have monopoly rights on its definition. THAT is the absurdity.

You need to put the books down on this one.

There are two types of beings in the universe of God’s creation, material ( the physical ) and the spiritual ( immaterial ). So when Trent says that we receive the Whole Christ, you think we receive his spirit only? Do you think then that his body has become a spirit? I ask you what are you receiving my friend? Yes, I think most Catholics are clueless and that is a shame. But is even more of a shame that others would have them remain ignorant and even mock those who would like them to understand better…

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There are two types of beings in the universe of God’s creation, material ( the physical ) and the spiritual ( immaterial ). So when Trent says that we receive the Whole Christ, you think we receive his spirit only? Do you think then that his body has become a spirit? I ask you what are you receiving my friend? Yes, I think most Catholics are clueless and that is a shame. But is even more of a shame that others would have them remain ignorant and even mock those who would like them to understand better…

Linus2nd

Linus this isn’t a theology problem its just the meaning of words.

When ordinary Joe Blow in the pew says “Jesus isn’t physically present” he means his body is not aprehended by the senses.

We all know that is true.

Anything else is absurdity - let it go and try not to over-think the issue.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus this isn’t a theology problem its just the meaning of words.

When ordinary Joe Blow in the pew says “Jesus isn’t physically present” he means his body is not aprehended by the senses.

We all know that is true.

Anything else is absurdity - let it go and try not to over-think the issue.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent

1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his Church:197 in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"199 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."200

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

As I said there are two modes of existence, material ( physical ) or spiritual. But that which is material/physical can be either glorified or earthly. Christ’s body is present in glorified form, that is why it is unseen. It cannot be " touched, " not because it is not physical but because as a glorified body it can be either seen or unseen; and in the
Sacrament, Christ willed to remain unseen.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent

1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his Church:197 in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"199 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."200

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

As I said there are two modes of existence, material ( physical ) or spiritual. But that which is material/physical can be either glorified or earthly. Christ’s body is present in glorified form, that is why it is unseen. It cannot be " touched, " not because it is not physical but because as a glorified body it can be either seen or unseen; and in the
Sacrament, Christ willed to remain unseen.

Linus2nd

Linus this isn’t a theology problem, its just about what the word “physical” colloquially means.

Everyone here knows that when ordinary Joe Blow in the pew says “Jesus isn’t physically present” he means his body is not aprehended by the senses.

We all know that is true except perhaps yourself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus this isn’t a theology problem, its just about what the word “physical” colloquially means.

Everyone here knows that when ordinary Joe Blow in the pew says “Jesus isn’t physically present” he means his body is not aprehended by the senses.

We all know that is true except perhaps yourself.

I hope you are right about that. But comments I have been reading on these forums for the past two years makes me wonder.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

“impassibilitas, subtilitas, an absence of lumpish density; agilitas, a swiftness of response to spirit, lightness” know of these explain how Jesus could be in the spot where the accidents of bread lie without taking into consideration the relativity of space

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“impassibilitas, subtilitas, an absence of lumpish density; agilitas, a swiftness of response to spirit, lightness” know of these explain how Jesus could be in the spot where the accidents of bread lie without taking into consideration the relativity of space

Reread my posts 40-44. Post 40 addresses this question particularly.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

**Trent didn’t say you had to read Aristotle in order to understand its teaching. I don’t believe “matter - form” is the substance, because the matter clearly remains the same. I’ve looked the host with all the clarity and awake fullness I had, and my senses say there is bread. Substance is nothing in the “other world”, otherwise you are saying that the matter is an illusion **

Man did I misright in that hurried post (is was leaving to go someone). The form-matter would be the substance, while after consecration we have he same matter with a new form, although not the as it was before especially since Jesus has a body, which indicates to me that perhaps the original form wasn’t anything physical at all.

Hey Linus, I read post 40 and it didnt address what I was talking about

Suppose we had the smallest particle of bread possible, and the priest consecrates it. If you say that Jesus’s is fully in the top part, and on the bottom part, then the He would be “under” a component of bread instead of bread. So when looking at this particle, this tiny bread, we would have to say one part has his arm, another his back, ect. This is a very clear insight, and shows that space must to relative someone in order for Jesus to be present. I don’t know what physics or how it could explain this a little clearer

 

[davidv]

Man did I misright in that hurried post (is was leaving to go someone). The form-matter would be the substance, while after consecration we have he same matter with a new form, although not the as it was before especially since Jesus has a body, which indicates to me that perhaps the original form wasn’t anything physical at all.

Hey Linus, I read post 40 and it didnt address what I was talking about

Suppose we had the smallest particle of bread possible, and the priest consecrates it. If you say that Jesus’s is fully in the top part, and on the bottom part, then the He would be “under” a component of bread instead of bread. So when looking at this particle, this tiny bread, we would have to say one part has his arm, another his back, ect.

This is not consistent with Church teaching. No matter how small the piece of the host becomes, Jesus is wholly present in each of them.

This is a very clear insight, and shows that space must to relative someone in order for Jesus to be present. I don’t know what physics or how it could explain this a little clearer

Not clear - contradictory.

 

[thinkandmull]

Hmmm. If the tiniest of bread has two components (to simply it) united, one part would be A, the other B. If Jesus is in every part of B, then Jesus would be “under” part of a component of bread. But you are saying it is united to A to form bread. Ok, maybe I can accept that. But if matter is infinitely divisible as Aristotle and Aquinas thought, than there are infinite Jesus’s bilocated. And yet Aquinas has an article Whether there can be an infinite multitude, and argues that there cannot. I disagree with him but if you accept his argument in that article you have a contradiction here. Aquinas also says in that article (or is it in Whether there can be an infinite magnitude?) that division of matters “approaches prime matter”. If you accept that, would you have to say the prime matter of the “species of bread” is Jesus and the species of bread is an illusion?

I dont see where in Trent my last post is condemned however.

 

[davidv]

Hmmm. If the tiniest of bread has two components (to simply it) united, one part would be A, the other B.

This seems to be the source of you misunderstanding. In the Eucharist the substance (Jesus) and the accidents (the appearance of bread, or wine) are no longer united.

If Jesus is in every part of B, then Jesus would be “under” part of a component of bread. But you are saying it is united to A to form bread. Ok, maybe I can accept that. But if matter is infinitely divisible as Aristotle and Aquinas thought, than there are infinite Jesus’s bilocated. And yet Aquinas has an article Whether there can be an infinite multitude, and argues that there cannot. I disagree with him but if you accept his argument in that article you have a contradiction here. Aquinas also says in that article (or is it in Whether there can be an infinite magnitude?) that division of matters “approaches prime matter”. If you accept that, would you have to say the prime matter of the “species of bread” is Jesus and the species of bread is an illusion?

I dont see where in Trent my last post is condemned however.

 

[thinkandmull]

The unification of the components of bread, not Jesus to the accidents, was what I wrote about

 

[davidv]

The unification of the components of bread, not Jesus to the accidents, was what I wrote about

What bread? The consecrated host is no longer bread. It is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

 

[thinkandmull]

Its not longer bread matter united to bread substance. Its still physically bread, unless you are Cartesian and think the accidents are an illuion

 

[davidv]

Its not longer bread matter united to bread substance. Its still physically bread, unless you are Cartesian and think the accidents are an illuion

How did you get this from what I wrote? By “physically bread”, what do you mean?

Seems to me you are attempting to you physics and chemistry to explain the mystery of the Eucharist. This is fools errand.

 

[thinkandmull]

You need to read all the posts on this thread