Avoiding absurdity in preaching the Eucharest

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thinkandmull said:
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
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here either. Why would Christ be fully in the top part and not in the bottom? The only thing I can make out is that maybe you are assuming that the Eucharist being the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ means that the bodily accidents from 2,000 years ago are somehow in the accidents of bread. But it is transubstantiation that is happening, which is not, and does not entail, transaccidentalization (yes I made that word up). The bodily and bread-like accidents are not what is important, otherwise the consecration of bread and wine would make no sense, which would make nonsense of the Last Supper.
 
thinkandmull said:
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
Click to expand...
Read it again, you missed everything. Here is what you must believe. The substance of the bread has changed into Christ’s body and the substance of the wine has changed into the blood of Christ and by concomitance the Whole Christ is present. And the Whole Christ is present in each partical of each species, each molecule. The matter and the form of each species, their substance is gone because it has been changed into the Whole substance of Jesus Christ. The species stand alone by a miracle of God. Christ is physically in the species but not a part of them, not attached to them and they are not attached to him either. Let us use the analogy of a vehicle, they are the vehicle which carries Christ to us. Now while the word " under " has been used to describe the mode of Christ’s presence, so has the word " veil. " been used of the species in relation to Christ’s Presence.

As far as the species alone are concerned, they are accidents, pure and simple. But they are real accidents, because they are real physical matter. But they are the accidents of the substances which are gone. they are particular forms of matter demanded by the underlying substance ( the matter and form of each ) which no longer exists. Particular matter is what Thomas Aquinas calls designate matter, it is dimensive matter of a particular type ( whatever the material and chemical structure proper to bread and wine may be ), but it is an accident. We call it physical because we can touch it, test it. But science does not recognize this fine distinction, that is why Catholics and non-Catholics today get confused, they have not studied Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy and neither have the scientists. But Catholic theologians have! And the Bishops and Pope who articulated the Dogmas of Trent did too.

Linus2nd

And Christ is Wholely and Entirely Present, with all his physical accidents, arms, legs, hair, teeth, skin, just like he was Present after his Resurrection, except his makes his Glorified, Physical Presence invisible - for our sake, not his and also because of the demands of the species.

Linus2nd
 
davidv said:
What bread? The consecrated host is no longer bread. It is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Correct, because the substance of each is no longer there, each has been changed into the Whole Christ. The baker would call it bread because he has not studied philosophy and the vintner would call the contents of the chalice wine because he has not studied philosophy either. But common sense should have told each that they are no longer bread and wine because Christ told us they were his body and blood. But it was not until theologians began to study philosophy that the Church was able to explain, in precise terms, what was really taking place in Transubstantiation. And we find out that the species aren’t Christ either. Rather they act as a vehicle by which he comes to us. He is in them or " under " them, but he is not a part of them and they are not a part of him. Rather, he attaches himself to them, and to each molecule of them. Yes, he is Wholely and Entirely attached to each molecule, such that if we were to break off a molecule of the " bread " or were to extract a drop of the " wine, " we would have the Whold Christ in each detached molecule…

Linus2nd
 
Substance vs accidents as relating to the Eucharest first come to us through philosophy, but they are speculations of philosophy and cannot be proven, yet we accept them through supernatural faith and even by natural faith.

Where is the evidence that the substance which leaves the accidents at consecration is physical? I’ve been arguing with something non-physical that is attached to the matter (that is, the accidents).

Let’s say we are shrunk into tiny people, and we celebrate a mass with a priest, and he raises the host after consecration. Let’s say this host is the smallest particle that bread can be. To divide it further would result in two things that are not bread. Can we say that **all **of Jesus’s body is in the right part of the host as the priest holds it up? If Aquinas would say yes, than he would believe in infinite bi-locations.
 
thinkandmull said:
Substance vs accidents as relating to the Eucharest first come to us through philosophy, but they are speculations of philosophy and cannot be proven, yet we accept them through supernatural faith and even by natural faith.

Where is the evidence that the substance which leaves the accidents at consecration is physical? I’ve been arguing with something non-physical that is attached to the matter (that is, the accidents).

Let’s say we are shrunk into tiny people, and we celebrate a mass with a priest, and he raises the host after consecration. Let’s say this host is the smallest particle that bread can be. To divide it further would result in two things that are not bread. Can we say that **all **of Jesus’s body is in the right part of the host as the priest holds it up? If Aquinas would say yes, than he would believe in infinite bi-locations.
Click to expand...
Yes Jesus is wholly present. Why is bi-location a problem? Jesus is God, is He not?
 
**Inifiite **bi-locations is the problem. It should be for you too if you follow Aquinas, since he has an article Whether there can be an infinite multitude, and his answer is no. I don’t really agree with him, but infinite Jesus(es) under the bread? No, not in my opinion
 
thinkandmull said:
Substance vs accidents as relating to the Eucharest first come to us through philosophy, but they are speculations of philosophy and cannot be proven, yet we accept them through supernatural faith and even by natural faith.
Click to expand...
That is correct. Though the " speculations " are closely reasoned and seem impossible to deny - if you have studied the philosophy.
Where is the evidence that the substance which leaves the accidents at consecration is physical? I’ve been arguing with something non-physical that is attached to the matter (that is, the accidents).
Click to expand...
Since you are having trouble accepting the philosophical explanation ,the best evidence would be that it is changed into the body and blood of Christ, which are substances. It would hardly be fitting for a mere accident to be changed into Christ. Also, if the substance is not physical, how could the bread have been physical before its substance was changed into the physical body of Christ?

In the matter- form structure of a substance, the substance is physical. You can’t separate the matter from the substance and still have a substance. Remember there are two levels of substance, the underlying matter-form structure ( the underlying substance ), and the substance with its accidents. Viewed the second way we have extended matter, dimensional matter. Viewed the first way we do not have extended matter, we have undifferentiated matter… We are talking about the same substance from two different angles, the inner reality and the sensible reality.
Let’s say we are shrunk into tiny people, and we celebrate a mass with a priest, and he raises the host after consecration. Let’s say this host is the smallest particle that bread can be. To divide it further would result in two things that are not bread. Can we say that **all **of Jesus’s body is in the right part of the host as the priest holds it up? If Aquinas would say yes, than he would believe in infinite bi-locations.
Click to expand...
If the priest had divided the host into a single atom ( an actual impossibility ) and then divided this one atom, Christ would not be in either piece. Remember the teaching, Christ is present only as long as the true elements remain. And since the host is not potentially divisible infinitely, but only so long as the natural substance remains, an actual infinity of divisions is impossible. Theoretically, we reach the absolute limit of the last atom of bread. If we divide that, Christ departs.

On the other hand if the priest had only one host to consecrate but ten people waiting to receive, he could divide the host ten ways and Christ would be Wholely in each piece. Christ’s body is present in the species just as though it were the underlying substance or nature of a thing. Thus, a substance is " this thing " even if we start dividing it. It is fully under every part of " this thing, " just as the soul is fully in every part of man. Now this is a part of the miracle. Thomas explains this in S.T, part 3, q 76, a 1 and a 2. It is deep reading.

According to Thomas this is not bi-location but I can’t point you to a reference. Let’s just say Christ is in heaven as being in a " place, " and he is in the Sacrament, sacramentally - yet actually and physically. I don’t understand it either, I just accept it.

Linus2nd
 
thinkandmull said:
**Inifiite **bi-locations is the problem. It should be for you too if you follow Aquinas, since he has an article Whether there can be an infinite multitude, and his answer is no. I don’t really agree with him, but infinite Jesus(es) under the bread? No, not in my opinion
Click to expand...
Why should we expect to know how Jesus’ Eucharistic presence works? Isn’t it enough to know that what we are touching, receiving, and consuming is the Lord despite all appearances?
 
thinkandmull, I admit that I cannot follow all of your posts on this topic. I have not studied Aquinas and I do not know what prime matter, designate matter, and the like are. So if you consider me unqualified to participate in this discussion, please ignore me and continue with Linus and the rest as you have been.

However, I do notice one repeated concern in your posts that seems to misapprehend Catholic teaching on the topic of the Eucharist, at least as I understand it. You repeatedly speak of the absurdity of trying to locate Jesus’ arms and legs and other body parts within the Host. That is indeed absurd, and you were right to tell your sister that her tongue is not touching Jesus in the sense of his bottom sitting on her tongue.

To my understanding, the whole point of the teaching that Jesus is fully present in each particle of the Host is to indicate that His Eucharistic Presence is not somehow divided up into parts. To be a bit flip, you can’t call dibs on a Jesus-drumstick at Communion time, because His Presence isn’t arranged that way and we don’t interact with it on that level. We believe that His Body is involved because of His words at the Last Supper, but however that happens it is not in the crudely physical way that would have us biting off His fingers and toes. To receive the tiniest fragment of the broken Host is to receive all of Jesus. Likewise, we never actually come into physical contact with Jesus in the Host, because “physical contact” entirely involves the accidents of bread and wine that remain. We receive Jesus by the act of eating, just as we receive our justification by the act of being washed in water at baptism, but just as the physical water cannot literally cleanse our souls, our physical mouths and stomach acids and such cannot penetrate the accidents to affect the substance of Christ.

When I think about transubstantiation, I have to separate the philosophical idea of substance from all scientific ideas of matter and its composition. Substance is bread-ness or Jesus-ness, not the material of which bread or Jesus is formed. All of that still exists on the accidental level. Just as we see and smell and taste the accidents of bread, we also touch them. We know that placing a consecrated Host in an electron microscope would show only molecules of bread, but that does not contradict the doctrine because the microscope is merely an extension of our senses and, like us, stops at the perceivable accidents of bread without being able to penetrate to the substance that is Christ.

For this reason I agree with you that “physical” is a poor word to use for the Real Presence (and one the Church rarely uses). We reject the “merely spiritual presence” believed by some Protestants because Jesus clearly indicates that His Body and Blood are present, but we must be careful (which I think is your overall point, just couched in more complex language than I can follow right now) not to move all the way to a crudely physical or cannibalistic understanding. I just think that your worry about locating Jesus’ body parts within the Host is a symptom of that same misunderstanding.

If I have made any sense at all, I would love to read your comments.

Usagi
 
CrossofChrist said:
Why should we expect to know how Jesus’ Eucharistic presence works? Isn’t it enough to know that what we are touching, receiving, and consuming is the Lord despite all appearances?
Click to expand...
Again someone telling me that Jesus’s body lays on my tongue. Please stop it with the sacrilegious nonesense
 
The Mass brings us into Heaven, so Jesus is not bilocating on earch, but he must be in Heaven is He is in both Sally and Joe.
 
thinkandmull said:
The Mass brings us into Heaven, so Jesus is not bilocating on earch, but he must be in Heaven is He is in both Sally and Joe.
Click to expand...
Location is an accident, like size, color, texture, and anything that is perceptible to the senses. We do not perceive Jesus’ accidents in the Eucharist, but he is wholly present–all of him.

He is not “contained” in the accidents of bread and wine, nor does he “take on” the accidents of bread and wine. Jesus does not assume the form of a small white host–he does not take on those accidents. But it is under the appearances of bread and wine that he is wholly present.

Each person receiving communion receives Jesus–not a different Jesus but the same one. That doesn’t mean he is bilocated, or that he is multiplied. He is one. And each person receives the one Jesus. In receiving the one Jesus we also become one with each other as well as with Him. Jesus is not “spread out” in the accidents of bread or wine, but is present in his totality under the appearances of any part of the consecrated species.
 
JimG said:
Location is an accident, like size, color, texture, and anything that is perceptible to the senses. We do not perceive Jesus’ accidents in the Eucharist, but he is wholly present–all of him.

He is not “contained” in the accidents of bread and wine, nor does he “take on” the accidents of bread and wine. Jesus does not assume the form of a small white host–he does not take on those accidents. But it is under the appearances of bread and wine that he is wholly present.

Each person receiving communion receives Jesus–not a different Jesus but the same one. That doesn’t mean he is bilocated, or that he is multiplied. He is one. And each person receives the one Jesus. In receiving the one Jesus we also become one with each other as well as with Him. Jesus is not “spread out” in the accidents of bread or wine, but is present in his totality under the appearances of any part of the consecrated species.
Click to expand...
Well that takes the relativity of space even further
 
thinkandmull said:
Well that takes the relativity of space even further
Click to expand...
And time. Because everyone who has ever received Jesus at any time, past, present or future, receives the same one Jesus, not a Jesus then and now, just the one. It is rather nice to consider that through the Eucharist, we are thereby united in a way that could not otherwise occur with the whole Church, past, present, and future.
 
JimG said:
Location is an accident, like size, color, texture, and anything that is perceptible to the senses. We do not perceive Jesus’ accidents in the Eucharist, but he is wholly present–all of him.

He is not “contained” in the accidents of bread and wine, nor does he “take on” the accidents of bread and wine. Jesus does not assume the form of a small white host–he does not take on those accidents. But it is under the appearances of bread and wine that he is wholly present.

Each person receiving communion receives Jesus–not a different Jesus but the same one. That doesn’t mean he is bilocated, or that he is multiplied. He is one. And each person receives the one Jesus. In receiving the one Jesus we also become one with each other as well as with Him. Jesus is not “spread out” in the accidents of bread or wine, but is present in his totality under the appearances of any part of the consecrated species.
Click to expand...
The word ’ under ’ is a preposition showing Christ’s relationship to the species. All it means is that Christ is present in the species but is not a part of them, nor are they a part of him. The Catholic Encyclopedia also says that Christ is " contained " by the quantitive dimensions of each species. The species are also often described as a " veil " for his presence.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd
 
thinkandmull said:
No, its substance is now Jesus, but His body isn’t rubbing against our insides. We touch the accidents
Click to expand...
It is true that if we hold the host in our hands, we do not actually touch Christ, we touch the accidents. But when we receive the host or the wine, we consume them. And then we touch Christ and he touches us, we eat his flesh and drink his blood just as he said. He didn’t mince words if you remember. But this is a sacramental consumption, it is not the kind of consumption we would engage in at dinner. By sacramental I mean we receive the real body of Christ, whole and entire, in his sacramental form, the invisible, glorified form of his human and Divine natures.

Linus2nd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top