Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[Catholicforlife]

What a thread! I have nothing to add that my Catholic brothers and sisters didn’t already say. I almost felt sorry for LOC since obviously all posts are directed at him. BUT you can’t come on a Catholic site and deny the existance of the Eucharist as Jesus and not have all the guns blazing. It doesn’t get any more personal than that! In 12 hours, I have the honor of going to recieve our Lord, body & blood, soul & divinity and I can’t wait!!! What a gift our Lord has given us!
I have been very impressed with the dialogue (loving your posts Kevin) and look forward to continued reading.
Blessings to all

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

ncgolf:

If it Christ’s flesh and blood, then it does. You do not take Christ’s words to its full conclusion. It is true that is belief in Christ, but so much more … it is belief that Christ is physically present.

I hope you are not saying it is not true or it cannot be because Christ cannot do it. Because nothing is impossible to God, you have to admit it is possible but you do not believe it.

Eating the “bread” of the Pharisees does not bring life because it is not “true food” or “true drink”. Only Jesus is “true food” and “true drink”.

I don’t question God’s ability to do anything He desires including giving everyone who ever lived the chance to ingest the flesh and blood Christ shed at Calvary. That miracle would be similar to feeding thousands with a few fish.

However if Christ meant eating literal flesh profits the spirit or quickens unto eternal life He would not have said:

DRA John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

And then insist His words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” ARE spirit and life if He meant them literally, that eating flesh profits the spirit unto eternal life.

Moreover we do not see in the NT any suggestion the Eucharist is (as some ECFs said) the “antidote for mortality.”

For example we don’t read:

(Acts 15:11) But we believe that through the Eucharist of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

(Acts 16:31) And they said, Eat the Eucharist of the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Rather than preach Christ it would make sense one preach the Eucharist as the antidote for mortality, merely instruct all these are the body and blood of Christ and then WHAMO, they are saved, have eternal life! Then later one might instruct them in other things of the faith, after they were saved from death.

However that is not seen in the NT at all, why?

 

[BobCatholic]

I have yet to see LOC address the Old Testament Typology issue. Everything in the Old Testament is a prefigurement (or type) of something in the New Testament which is real. In other words, the OT has a symbol of something in the NT which is real.

There are LOTS of them, but I’ll stick with these items.

OT: Passover Lamb.
NT: Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

OT: Manna in the Desert (ordinary Bread)
NT: Eucharist. (the Bread of Life, Jesus Christ, under the appearances of Bread & Wine)

OT: Bread of the Presence
NT: Bread which IS the Presence.

OT: Malachi’s prediction of a pure offering being offered DAILY by the Gentiles to God (Malachi 1:11)
NT: The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ - what more pure offering is there? It is offered each day at Mass, or Divine Liturgy. Protestantism has NOTHING like this. A symbol DOES NOT FULFILL THIS. Ordinary bread/wine/grape-juice/crackers DO NOT CUT IT.

Face it. LOC wants us to believe that out of all the OT typology out there which has a 100% correlation from OT item being a symbol or prefigurement of a NT reality, there is this ONE GAPING EXCEPTION of the Eucharist. In other words, the OT prefigurement (symbol) of something points to YET ANOTHER SYMBOL! (which he claims communion is)???

Sorry, I don’t buy that. His interpretation makes null Col 2:16-17. Period.

Jesus said “This is my body. This is my blood.” and I simply believe Him in faith. Faith. You remember this little seemingly unimportant thing? Peter believed in the same faith, and so did the other Apostles. When people taking Christ literally walked away because THEY DID NOT WANT TO BELIEVE THE LITERAL, Christ didn’t rebuke them saying that He was being symbolic, but He reiterated His position AGAIN. LOC wants us to believe Christ was just being symbolic, basically accusing Him of being a bad teacher, not willing to explain Himself.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

BobCatholic:

Unfortunately, in the GREATER context of Scripture (taking ALL of it into context, not just the convenient parts) your uninfallible interpretation falls apart.

You see, Christ was celebrating the Passover at the Last Supper. Communion is supposed to be Christ fulfilling the passover requirements. If Jews back in Egypt practiced the first passover by saying “OK, this piece of bread symbolizes the lamb, so I don’t have to eat the lamb” their first born child would be dead.

If Jews back in Egypt practiced the first passover by saying “my belief in God will replace the lamb” their first born child would be dead.

Now, if Christ said “eat my flesh, drink my blood, you’ll have eternal life” how does a symbol fulfill this? If a symbol didn’t cut it in the old testament, how would it cut it in the new?

You really need to study up on Old Testament Typology. You got a lot of work to do

I can always learn more, so evidently can you.

They eat lamb at passover in symbol of God’s passing over their house and not slaying their firstborn.

The lamb is not God passing over their house, that cannot be eaten, it is an event in history that is remembered by eating the lamb.

The lamb redeemed their first born and is eaten in remembrance of that:

Exodus 12:3-14 3 "Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: 'On the tenth *day *of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of *his *father, a lamb for a household. 4 'And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take *it *according to the number of the persons; according to each man’s need you shall make your count for the lamb. 5 'Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take *it *from the sheep or from the goats. 6 'Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. 7 'And they shall take *some *of the blood and put *it *on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. 8 'Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread *and *with bitter *herbs *they shall eat it. 9 'Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire – its head with its legs and its entrails. 10 'You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. 11 'And thus you shall eat it: *with *a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It *is *the LORD’s Passover. 12 'For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I *am *the LORD. 13 'Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you *are. *And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy *you *when I strike the land of Egypt. 14 'So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

jpusateri:

Hm, now you are saying that the disciples “whose god is their belly” (to quote you from a previous post) understood him figuratively? He hadn’t said yet

that HE was the bread of life. The discourse up to that verse had ONLY to do with real bread. They had just spoken about manna from heaven. Manna is real, actual, physical bread which came down from heaven. He WAS speaking symbolically at that point, but his hearers certainly didn’t give evidence that they understood him symbolically!!! He was drawing the typology as himself as the new bread from heaven that must be eaten!

Symbolic, yet actual. He didn’t symbolically come down from heaven, he **really **did! Do you see?

John 6:31-34 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’" So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

Incorrect:

John 6:33-35 33 “For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”

For bread to = Jesus Christ, bread must be figurative, symbolic of Him.

They accepted this figurative use until they notice Christ demanded more than casual belief for His food. The cost was too high for them, they were not enabled by God to believe therefor they willfully choose to be scandalized by literally interpreting His words, that is inconsistent with how they first interpreted them.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

I conclusion. Jesus says this…

It is clear that the Metaphor here is “Bread from Heaven” and the explaination of the metaphor is “My Flesh”.

What “LetsObeyChrist” whats us to believe Jesus meant is this…

I will believe Jesus and take him at His word. Hermeneutics and exegisis is beyond my humble skills.

I hope one day you have the Hermeneutical and exegetical skills that enable you to propound an argument for or against what I actually said.

Until then I must move on.

May God grant peace to your house.
al

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

They eat lamb at passover in symbol of God’s passing over their house and not slaying their firstborn.

The lamb is not God passing over their house, that cannot be eaten, it is an event in history that is remembered by eating the lamb.

The lamb redeemed their first born and is eaten in remembrance of that:

(snip) You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance.

Now, we are to keep this FEAST by an everlasting ordinance, right? Christ fulfilled this ONCE AND FOR ALL with His Sacrifice. Now, this means HE is the substitution for the Passover Lamb, so therefore we must EAT HIS FLESH just as we are to EAT THE LAMB’S FLESH. So therefore, we use a symbolic piece of bread and cup of wine to do this?

Uh, no.

Now, if the bread and wine were changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, then we could KEEP THE FEAST, EAT THE LAMB OF GOD (who takes the place of the passover lamb) THEN we can follow this very nice fulfillment of the Old Testament Law Requirements that Christ Fulfilled.

Another interesting thing: If you ever ask an orthodox Jew about the Passover, they’ll tell you it is not just a mere “symbolic meal” but by doing this, YOU ARE PART of those who walked before them, and part of those who walked before those, and so on and so on until you go back to Moses and the others doing the original passover meal. In other words, you’re not re-creating or re-enacting the original passover, YOU ARE PART of the original Passover!

Even though you’re not 4,000 + years old. Even though you’re living in Egypt right now. Even if you don’t know who the Pharoah is. Even though you’re not eating the exact same lamb as back then.

It is not just a mere symbol. You’re live on the scene, and you’re not even Kent Brockman of Channel 6 news!.

The same thing with the Eucharist. At Mass, or Divine Liturgy, you’re there at the Upper Room, at the Garden of Gethsamane, at the Foot of the Cross. Even though you never leave the first floor. Even though you never literally get in the garden. Even though you don’t get any blood splattered on you from the cross, or splashed with water from Christ’s side.

The Eucharist is live. Not Memorex.

 

[twf]

LOC: You misunderstand the Catholic understanding of salvation. I don’t have time at the moment, but after I respond to your responses to my posts, I’ll try to go into this a bit. (In regards to your point on how the Eucharist is never named as the way to be saved). For now, however, I will just say that Christ has given us seven sacraments, and it is the sacrament of baptism that begins our salvation journey…and for baptism we need faith, so that is why faith and baptism are preached, not the Eucharist. The Eucharist nourishes us along our journey, and sustains us throughout our pilgrimage towards perfection. To simply partake of the Eucharist without faith or without having received the regenerative work of baptism by the Spirit is of no use…you are better not to take it in such a case. The Eucharist is food for the Christian, not the means of becoming a Christian.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

ncgolf:

How can you say “only eat and drink”. I do not think you understand what you are saying. To be able to eat and drink our Lord in Holy Communion should be the absolute highlight of any Christian. That He humbles himself to be eaten and drunk in such ordinary substances is truly humbling for most Catholics. We realize what a gift He has given us.

I also find it disingenous that you say we do not experience His substance. Give some reasons why say Catholics do not experience substance. What does that mean?

Until the Second Coming the only physical presence of Jesus on Earth is in the Eucharist. The only place that can be found is in the Catholic Chuch.

It is a matter of definition, the personal presence of Christ is His “real presence” infinitely more so than a mental decision that what looks like bread and wine is somehow transubstantiated Christ.

I’ll take the personal touch of Christ any day over a rite.

We who experience Christ always (He dwells in us) and in our assemblies (He walks among us) know His real presence and do not need to “remember it.”

Rather we remember by the Eucharist the body and blood He gave at Calvary, His Person and Work saving us, those facts are proclaimed and recalled by our observance of the Eucharist rite.

But He never leaves us or forsakes us so we enjoy His real presence always.

 

[kevinfraser]

The Holy Spirit is leading you friend, but here’s some signs on the path:

tmore35:

I take the approach advanced by Karl Rahner

Take caution about his approach: ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/FR91302.HTM
Remember that no theologian ever died for you on the cross, so careful who you choose to believe. I choose to believe the Magisterium of the Catholic Church for faith and morals. It’s already figured out by the creators of the Bible, the Catholic Church.

tmore35:

concerning symbolic reality.

Reality or not. Symbol or not. What does symbolic reality impart to me?

tmore35:

according to Rahner the symbol assumes the reality of a thing when the symbolizer intends it to do so.

So I can decide I can fly? Symbolically or really?

tmore35:

In the case of the Eucharist, Jesus, the symbolizer, used the symbols of bread and wine to perpetuate His presence. He said, “This IS my body” “This IS my blood”. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine, when consecrated according to His instructions, are in fact His body and blood. We believe it simply because He said so.

Amen Brother.

tmore35:

And now, to quote the man who made transubstantiation a household word in Catholic homes:

“What God’s Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth Himself speaks truly, or there’s nothing true.”

Adoro Te (a prayer before the Blessed Sacrament)
by St.Thomas Aquinas

More reading for you:
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm - Real Presence
cmns.mnegri.it/miracolo/tableofcontents.html - Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - Accidents changed to Substance & exists to this day! Praise be to God.

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

I hope one day you have the Hermeneutical and exegetical skills

Unfortunately such skills of yours don’t grant you personal infallibility I know you’re not claiming infallibility in your interpretation here, right?

that enable you to propound an argument for or against what I actually said.

Even if he did have such skills that YOU WOULD ACCEPT, (1) there’s a big thing:

One’s defense of the Truth does not equal to the Truth. An uneducated simpleton can unsuccessfully defend the Truth while a PhD in Biblical Studies can easily whip your apologetical butt while preaching heresy. The hard part is distinguishing the defender from the defended, and to judge what is being defended as being the Truth or being a heresy. That’s a challenge. It is easy to judge the skill of the defender. That’s not the same as judging what is being defended.

(1) I’m not saying he doesn’t have these skills, don’t get me wrong. But you have to recognize them

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

BobCatholic:

Unfortunately such skills of yours don’t grant you personal infallibility I know you’re not claiming infallibility in your interpretation here, right?

Even if he did have such skills that YOU WOULD ACCEPT, (1) there’s a big thing:

One’s defense of the Truth does not equal to the Truth. An uneducated simpleton can unsuccessfully defend the Truth while a PhD in Biblical Studies can easily whip your apologetical butt while preaching heresy. The hard part is distinguishing the defender from the defended, and to judge what is being defended as being the Truth or being a heresy. That’s a challenge. It is easy to judge the skill of the defender. That’s not the same as judging what is being defended.

(1) I’m not saying he doesn’t have these skills, don’t get me wrong. But you have to recognize them

The hope I expressed in that post is genuine.

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

It is a matter of definition

Translation: “This is my definition of God and that’s yours.” This is relativism.

LetsObeyChrist:

the personal presence of Christ is His “real presence” infinitely more so than a mental decision…

A Miracle Gift to us is transubstantiation, the most stupefying thing in all creation: An objective Truth instituted by Truth Himself at the Last Supper. A miracle by definition is something we cannot understand. Objective means I’m not in this equation, only Jesus is. Nothing depends on me – everything depends on Him.

LetsObeyChrist:

I’ll take the personal touch of Christ any day over a rite.

He deigns to become my real food and drink as He promised and remains so until the accidents are dissolved into my body–plus, His substance feeds my eternal soul. How can any touch of Christ get more personal than that?

LetsObeyChrist:

We who experience Christ

Christ is no roller coaster ride to ‘experience’ as you say. Since the Holy Eucharist is an objective reality instituted by Jesus Christ himself, it is separate and distinct from any Human sensory or mental experience.

LetsObeyChrist:

always (He dwells in us) and in our assemblies (He walks among us) know His real presence

Praise be to God, Amen. But you are equating His modes of presence and they aren’t equal. You’re saying God is equally present in dirt as in Jesus. Sorry, wrong again. That leans into Pantheism.

[we]
do not need to “remember it.”

This is flat unbiblical. I thought you said you were a “Sola Scripturist.” Jesus commanded this obedience explicitly at the Last Supper. You and your assemblies don’t need to remember it? Neither do non-Christians.

Besides, obeying Christ by receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is no memorial meal, no matter what you say.

We GENUFLECT before Him in His Real and Substantial presence in the Eucharist. Do you genuflect before Jesus Christ? Where? I do it lots of times every time I walk near or past this Human and Divine Person inside any Catholic Church out of simple respect and humility. I kneel and pray before His Divine Presence BECAUSE HE’S AS THERE AS I AM, only more so!

I don’t tell Jesus “I don’t need your RITE” and “I don’t need to REMEMBER your sacrifice.” Look back at your post. That’s what you wrote, man.

I can’t get behind that! We Catholics buy ALL of Him - scripture and magisterium, not just the parts we and our friends vote on and like the best.

LetsObeyChrist:

Rather we remember by the Eucharist

You JUST finished saying:

[We]
… do not need to “remember it.” [the Eucharist]

I’ve never seen anyone contradict themselves so directly back to back like that. This is like witnessing a car crash. The double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Jesus in the Eucharist is Getting To You, MAN! You are TRULY BLESSED to be tripping over His Truth this way.

Brothers and sisters pray for LOC.

LetsObeyChrist:

the body and blood He gave at Calvary, His Person and Work saving us, those facts are proclaimed and recalled by our observance of the Eucharist rite.

But you don’t like rites:

LetsObeyChrist:

I’ll take the personal touch of Christ any day over a rite.

You prefer to sense his “personal touch” to following His command at the last supper? Where did He command that in the Bible? He demands obedience only, not faith. Faith is a gift.

LetsObeyChrist:

But He never leaves us or forsakes us

Amen.

LetsObeyChrist:

So we enjoy His real presence always.

In all creation, of course: God said ‘It is good’

The sublime mode of presence He reserved exclusively for Himself in the Holy Eucharist is the most present He can possibly be to us in this world until He comes again.

Why don’t you love Him THAT much, LetsObeyChrist?

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

I hope one day you have the Hermeneutical and exegetical skills that enable you to propound an argument for or against what I actually said.

Until then I must move on.

May God grant peace to your house.
al

Way to pat yourself on the back. Is that what Jesus told Nicodemus he needed? Hermeneutical and exegetical skills?

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

The hope I expressed in that post is genuine.

I didn’t say it was not genuine. And actually it is irrelevant anyway. Such skills don’t guarantee personal infallibility

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

Again you but words in His mouth. YOUR words. He did NOT say “eating My Flesh profits nothing” That is YOUR interpretation.

As Christ is responding to their being scandalized by His words (Jn 6:53) “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (nkjv) He wouldn’t be talking about someone else’s flesh or the flesh of mankind in general:

DRA 6:61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

In the Gospel record Christ repeatedly proves He is a master Teacher (Mt 12:28) answering the question posed Him with precision.

Are we to believe Christ behaves differently here, to what scandalized them He answers with a discourse about carnal nature or the flesh of other men or beasts?

If that is your argument you must produce examples of similar incoherence elsewhere, where Christ answered the pressing concerns of disciples with irrelevant babble, to prove you are not special pleading when you suppose He did that here.

Either Christ is addressing what scandalized them (“Doth this scandalize you”) or He behaved incoherently. It is my interpretation (as well as that of millions of others who study this) the former is true.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Poisson:

Let me try asking one more time…

How does this verse (52)make sense in your context of eating his flesh and drinking his blood?

Is this Jew also taking him out of context the way you accuse us of doing?

Did everyone who left also take him out of context?

Yes they certainly did.

John 6:33 “For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”

Here Bread = Jesus Christ, therefore bread is figurative, symbolic of Him, and in vs 34 they accepted this figurative use thinking it means free food.

Then Christ corrects their misunderstanding, He is not saying He will always mirculously feed the crowds whenever they are hungry, He is saying He Himself must be ingested for life.

That is when they realize Christ demanded more than casual belief for His food. The cost was too high for them, they were not enabled by God to believe therefor they willfully choose to be scandalized by literally interpreting His words, that is purposely inconsistent their first accepting His words as figurative:

John 6:62-65 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Christ carefully refuted their precise objection “eating my flesh” literally results in profit or life to the eater, saying:

DRA John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

ncgolf:

In a sense, the accidents remain but the substance is transformed. Here is a portion from Catholicenclyopedia.com.

The principal aim of speculative theology with regard to the Eucharist, should be to discuss philosophically, and seek a logical solution of, three apparent contradictions, namely:

(a) the continued existence of the Eucharistic Species, or the outward appearances of bread and wine, without their natural underlying subject (accidentia sine subjecto); …(removed other objections)

(a) The study of the first problem, viz. whether or not the accidents of bread and wine continue their existence without their proper substance, must be based upon the clearly established truth of Transubstantiation, in consequence of which the entire substance of the bread and the entire substance of the wine are converted respectively into the Body and Blood of Christ in such a way that “only the appearances of bread and wine remain” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii: manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini).

They are saying it is converted but we see only the accidents. It is a mystery, I grant you, but not impossible.

Not a mystery, irrational as no parallels to this exist in reality.

But that fact alone would not prevent its acceptance if it were not for the fact the idea is contradicted in the Bible.

While folks are reading it into “eat my flesh” to mean it is literal flesh, the context shows considering Christ’s words as symbols meaning something other than literal flesh, parsimonous.

Christ is directly answering what scandalized them “eat my flesh”

John 6:62-64 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

If Christ wanted to leave this meaning literal flesh then nothing more was required, they already believed He taught that.

Instead we see verse 64 with His express denial one cannot eat literal flesh for profit or life and then He describes His words as spirit and life (=not literal flesh).

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

ncgolf:

In a sense, the accidents remain but the substance is transformed. Here is a portion from Catholicenclyopedia.com.

The principal aim of speculative theology with regard to the Eucharist, should be to discuss philosophically, and seek a logical solution of, three apparent contradictions, namely:

(a) the continued existence of the Eucharistic Species, or the outward appearances of bread and wine, without their natural underlying subject (accidentia sine subjecto); …(removed other objections)

(a) The study of the first problem, viz. whether or not the accidents of bread and wine continue their existence without their proper substance, must be based upon the clearly established truth of Transubstantiation, in consequence of which the entire substance of the bread and the entire substance of the wine are converted respectively into the Body and Blood of Christ in such a way that “only the appearances of bread and wine remain” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii: manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini).

They are saying it is converted but we see only the accidents. It is a mystery, I grant you, but not impossible.

It is irrational, no parallels to this exist in reality: the proposition substance can infinitely change without a corresponding change in accidents is refuted in reality.

For example, in post #151 we see the philosophy of accidents and substance adduced from the following:

“Accidents” of any object are not symbolic of the “Substance” of that object.

“Accidents” are the properties of an object.

“Substance” is what that object is.

I have a wooden chair.

The chair is a chair. (“Substance”)

The properties “accidents” are: 4 24-inch wooden legs, a wooden back, a wooden seat.

Remove one of the accidents (cut the legs down to 23 inches).
The object remains what it is: a chair.

Replace an accident. (Exchange the 4 wooden legs with plastic legs). The object remains what it is: a chair.

Replace the SUBSTANCE of the object, then the object is not what it was.

I dismantle the various parts of the chair, and nail the parts together in an odd way: the four 24 inch wooden beams are placed on top of the thing. These beams are no longer legs because they are no longer supporting the thing.
The thing is no longer a chair, because I have nailed the parts together in a manner that the object may not be sat upon.

The object is no longer a chair. The SUBSTANCE has changed.

Observe this opened with definition that proposes the accidents are the property of its substance, in practical terms this means the detachment of a substance from its extension and accidents. Accidents can change without changing the substance and vice versa.

However the examples of detachment upon which Aristotle’s’ theory rests aren’t analogous to the change that is supposed to occur in Transubstantiation where finite bread becomes infinite God.

To be a similar event the ‘chair illustration" should be about a chair whose accidents are completely changed just as is said to be true of the substance of the Eucharist.

I have a wooden chair.

The chair is a chair. (“Substance”)

The properties “accidents” are: 4 24-inch wooden legs, a wooden back, a wooden seat.

Burn up all of the accidents (the entire become ashes).
The object is no longer a chair, it is now ashes.

Moreover the alleged “detachment” between substance and accidents proposed by this theory does render the accidents only symbols of the substance, clearly defeating what it was meant to accomplish.

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

It is irrational, no parallels to this exist in reality: the proposition substance can infinitely change without a corresponding change in accidents is refuted in reality.

With God all things are possible, my friend. Have faith, my friend.

It is irrational for the God of the Universe to become a human being.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to become a little baby.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to have His diaper changed by a teenage girl married to an older man.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to obey this teenage girl.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to obey this older human.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to forgive sinners who offend Him.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to suffer rejection by His Creatures.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to submit to human authorities.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to suffer scourging.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to get crucified.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to die for an ungrateful world.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to rise again and conquer death.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to LOVE SO MUCH!

Just so,
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to give His body and blood to eat and drink.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to feed us with Himself.
It is irrational for the God of the Universe to let us join in Calvary by this very deed.

But guess what?

That’s what Christianity is all about. It is irrational by this world’s standards. God is perfectly rational and loving (but not according to this world’s standards!) Praise His Holy Name!.

Come to Calvary. Come to the Eucharist. It is Live, not Memorex.