Eucharist Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miles_Mariae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Miles_Mariae

Guest
I know, and believe, that Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament. I have a question, however:

Is the spiritual soul an extended or unextended substance? If extended, then there must be some way to locate it within the human body. Since there is not, then it must be unextended. But is not location a property of extension? What does it mean, then, to say that the Soul of Christ is in the Consecrated Host?
 
The soul is not substance. It is pure spirit, i.e., without substance.
When we say that Jesus is in the Eucharist, we mean that the bread has been changed into the real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Just as we cannot find the human soul in our body, so too, we cannot find the human soul of Jesus in the Eucharist. But that does not mean it is not there. Can you show me your soul?. If you cannot, does it mean that you do not have one?. The same logic applies to the soul of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Deacon Ed B
 
Miles_Mariae said:
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the soul is indeed substance, though not complete substance.

newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm
Click to expand...
I read the article which you referenced. I would point out that scripture says we were created in the image and likeness of God, whom the article says has no substance. The soul, being pure spirit, is not substance as we commonly understand it. The article references it being substance in that it is created. It had to be brought into being. I agree with this. And again say, show me your soul.
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I read the article which you referenced. I would point out that scripture says we were created in the image and likeness of God, whom the article says has no substance. The soul, being pure spirit, is not substance as we commonly understand it. The article references it being substance in that it is created. It had to be brought into being. I agree with this. And again say, show me your soul.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
By referencing the article, I had hoped to make clear that I use the word “substance” as it is used philosophically, which may differ from the way we “commonly understand” it.

The soul, being spirit, can still be substance. It exists, and serves as a basis for accidents and accidental changes. Nowhere in the definition of substance is found the requirement that it must be tangible. Thus, the fact that it cannot be shown to you in a way that your senses perceive it does not preclude it from being substance.
 
If in a philosophical sense, you are saying that created things have substance, are you saying that angels also have substance? Because we also teach that they are pure spirit.
Deacon Ed B
 
Miles_Mariae said:
The soul, being spirit, can still be substance. It exists, and serves as a basis for accidents and accidental changes. substance.
Click to expand...
An accident as used in metaphysics is descriptive of the object, but accidents can be lost and do not change the essence of the thing. for example, as man, I have two arms, two legs, etc. I can lose them and that does not change my essence as a man. The soul has no accidents that it can lose. If you are referring to grace, grace is not an accident, but a participation in the Divinity of God himself and is no accident.
Deacon Ed B
 
If in a philosophical sense, you are saying that created things have substance, are you saying that angels also have substance? Because we also teach that they are pure spirit.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Again from the same source.
The principal division; however, is that between material substance (all corporeal things) and spiritual substance, i.e. **the soul **and the angelic spirits. The latter are often called substantiœ separatœ, to signify that they are separate from matter, i.e. neither actually conjoined with a material organism nor requiring such union as the natural complement of their being (St. Thomas, “Contra Gentes”, II, 91 sqq.).
Click to expand...
 
If in a philosophical sense, you are saying that created things have substance, are you saying that angels also have substance? Because we also teach that they are pure spirit.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is merely a slip due to carelessness, but I cannot help but notice that you are using the phrase “…have substance”. Substance as meant in the Scholastic (and Aristotelian) tradition is not something an object possesses. An object, like a pen, does not “have substance”. It is substance.

Like I said, maybe you just slipped, or perhaps you have an incorrect conception of substance. I will leave you to discern that - certainly I do not presume to judge.
 
So what they are saying then is that the soul is pure spirit. This is in effect calling a pure spirit a “different kind of substance” as opposed to physical substance as we know substance to be. So again, the soul has no accidents that it can lose because it has no accidents in its being as soul. From the beginning of its existence, the soul does require a body for its existence as it does not exist free of the body until after death because it is the principal of life for the body. Take away the soul and the body dies. Take away the body and the soul continues to live its immortal existence. Are we going in circles here?
Deacon Ed B
 
I never intended to use “substance” as anything other than the philosophical definition, and so it seemed apparent to me from the beginning that the soul would be a substance, albeit different from a physical substance.

From studying philosophy, I never assumed that substances must be physical, so clearly you and I came into this with different assumptions. This is why I found it alarming (and somewhat humorous) when you attempted to demonstrate to me that the soul is not substance by asking me to show it to you. Happily, we are now clear that being spirit does not preclude the soul from being substance as defined in the Scholastic tradition.

As for my original question, I think I more or less have arrived at a satisfactory answer.

On an academic point, would you be so kind as to show me a source that says souls cannot have accidents?
 
I am going from memories in the recesses of my mind, having had philosophy why way back starting in 1960, as a junior in College. The lectures, textbooks, exams were all in Latin yet. What I put out, I “think” I remember from the metaphysics course. I say this one, as metaphysics is the "science (study of) being as being. I no longer (thanks be to God) have these books as ready reference I have given these books to a seminary library long ago The only thing I remember about them is that they were printed in Spain. If I were to seriously look for material such as this again, (which I have no intention of doing due to tome constrains) I would go to a major seminary where Thomistic Philosophy is being taught.That is about as close as I can come to helping you. Possible an older priest, one in his 50’s ,60’s or even 70,s may still have these books.
Deacon Ed B
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top