Form of Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Faith1960

Guest
On a CA radio program that I heard online, the apologist said, about the Eucharist, that “Jesus could, if He willed, appear in any form He wishes”. Is it safe to say that Jesus takes on the FORM of (appearances) bread and wine when transubstantiation occurs?

And no, I don’t have the link.
 
Yes, that is the right way to say it.

I remember hearing once about a satire of scholasticism, I thought by Erasmus… a piece called, “Could Jesus have become a gourd?”

If God can become a man in fact, surely He can simply appear to be whatever He’d like.
 
e_c said:
Yes, that is the right way to say it.

I remember hearing once about a satire of scholasticism, I thought by Erasmus… a piece called, “Could Jesus have become a gourd?”

If God can become a man in fact, surely He can simply appear to be whatever He’d like.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Yes, it’s right.

But, Jesus prepared us to receive him in the form of bread so that he could be with us until the end of the age.

There is much to this.

When Jesus was resurrected, he would appear to people and instruct them how to know and recognize him in the breading of the bread.

We must also consider why Jesus would do this for himself, not just for us. What does Jesus get out of this relationship? For one, he becomes part of our body. So we become the body of Christ.

That would not happen with a gourd.
 
Faith1960 said:
On a CA radio program that I heard online, the apologist said, about the Eucharist, that “Jesus could, if He willed, appear in any form He wishes”. Is it safe to say that Jesus takes on the FORM of (appearances) bread and wine when transubstantiation occurs?

And no, I don’t have the link.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t explain it that way.

The bread that is used is really bread. After it has been changed into Jesus’s flesh, it still looks like bread, and what you see is bread, and that appearance of bread remains after the bread has been changed into his flesh. What you see is what is left of bread.

The reality or substance of bread is gone. It has been changed into the reality or substance of the flesh of Jesus. And what is seen is bread not Jesus because our eyes cannot see substance as such. But we know that tho we cannot see the image of Jesus there, it is his real flesh … in person.

Why does he look like bread? Because bread is our natural food which we can consume easily. If he had changed the look of it into the look of real flesh we would repulsed by it. So the bread we eat remains looking like bread when in reality it is the flesh of Jesus we receive.

Since the food he gives us is for human beings, then it only makes sense that we receive something that we can consume into ourselves naturally. As he said, “I am the bread of life.” So it would only make sense that he would not give it any other form.
 
fred_conty said:
I wouldn’t explain it that way.

The bread that is used is really bread. After it has been changed into Jesus’s flesh, it still looks like bread, and what you see is bread, and that appearance of bread remains after the bread has been changed into his flesh. What you see is what is left of bread.

The reality or substance of bread is gone. It has been changed into the reality or substance of the flesh of Jesus. And what is seen is bread not Jesus because our eyes cannot see substance as such. But we know that tho we cannot see the image of Jesus there, it is his real flesh … in person.

Why does he look like bread? Because bread is our natural food which we can consume easily. If he had changed the look of it into the look of real flesh we would repulsed by it. So the bread we eat remains looking like bread when in reality it is the flesh of Jesus we receive.

Since the food he gives us is for human beings, then it only makes sense that we receive something that we can consume into ourselves naturally. As he said, “I am the bread of life.” So it would only make sense that he would not give it any other form.
Click to expand...
I know it’s his flesh and blood but I think the apologist was right, He takes on the form appearances) of bread and wine, while changing into His actual body and blood, thus leaving the appearance of bread and wine.
 
Faith1960 said:
I know it’s his flesh and blood but I think the apologist was right, He takes on the form appearances) of bread and wine, while changing into His actual body and blood, thus leaving the appearance of bread and wine.
Click to expand...
St Thomas has said that the accidents(look) of bread are supported by God. He did not say “He takes on …” The same accidents of bread are there before and after. There is no take on.
 
fred_conty said:
St Thomas has said that the accidents(look) of bread are supported by God. He did not say “He takes on …” The same accidents of bread are there before and after. There is no take on.
Click to expand...
I still think the apologist was right.
 
Faith1960 said:
I can’t access either of them for some reason. Can you give me a brief explanation on what he said or can it be found in written form?
Click to expand...
I think it was Tim Staples who said Jesus can take any form He chooses, which is what started this thread.
 
The confusion here comes from a conflation of uses of the word “form.”

It would be correct to say that Jesus is in the form of bread and wine, inasmuch as form means shape, color, quality, etc. We call these “accidents.”

It would be incorrect to say this inasmuch as form means essence, or “what is really there.” There is no longer bread and wine, just the shape, color, etc.

The better word is “species,” because it makes it clear what we are talking about. But “form” is fine.
 
e_c said:
The confusion here comes from a conflation of uses of the word “form.”

It would be correct to say that Jesus is in the form of bread and wine, inasmuch as form means shape, color, quality, etc. We call these “accidents.”

It would be incorrect to say this inasmuch as form means essence, or “what is really there.” There is no longer bread and wine, just the shape, color, etc.

The better word is “species,” because it makes it clear what we are talking about. But “form” is fine.
Click to expand...
Yes, when the apologist and I use the word “form” we mean the accidents.
He takes on the form, or accidents of bread and wine, but IS the body and blood of Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top