Is it even POSSIBLE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PJM

Guest
Is it even possible that Jesus [GOD] Really is in Catholic Holy Communion?

Why or Why Not?

GBY

Patrick
 
PJM said:
Is it even possible that Jesus [GOD] Really is in Catholic Holy Communion?

Why or Why Not?

GBY

Patrick
Click to expand...
In addition to Church teaching, John chap 6 leaves very little room for doubt.

Blessings,
Stephie
 
PJM said:
Is it even possible that Jesus [GOD] Really is in Catholic Holy Communion?

Why or Why Not?

GBY

Patrick
Click to expand...
Surely “is in” is problemmatic wording. “Is in” seems to imply that the presence of bread continues, which Jesus “is in.” That of course is not correct; the Real Presence replaces the substance of bread, and Jesus IS, and is not “in” the Host, where only the accidents of bread remain.
 
I do not believe it is possible, at least insofar as Catholic theology articulates it.

So, the trouble is that transubstantiation doesn’t make sense given the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident (which distinction we’ll shortly get into). Of course, Catholics aren’t bound to believe in this distinction as dogma, but they are – as everyone is – by reason.

Substances are by nature wholes made of parts, like animals and plants, which are by nature made of matter. Accidents, on the other hand, are by nature parts, and so must inhere within some substance in order to exist.

Now, in transubstantiation, we are told, the accidents of bread and wine remain while their underlying substance ceases to exist. But, then these accidents aren’t part of anything, and that’s simply a misunderstanding of what accidents are.

Thomas Aquinas and others have tried to wriggle out of this by suggesting that accidents are things which have a tendency to inhere in substances, not things that do so by nature. But, what is it that’s supposed to have a tendency to inhere in substances? It can’t be a substance. But, neither can it be an accident. So, in order to salvage transubstantiation, folks have had to posit a new kind of being, the likes of which they can’t describe, thus lending no coherence to the belief they’re trying to defend.
 
PJM said:
Is it even possible that Jesus [GOD] Really is in Catholic Holy Communion?

Why or Why Not?

GBY

Patrick
Click to expand...
The answer is the same to the question of whether God can be in the human form of Jesus.

A deeper question is ------ what is matter?

Another question is ------ what are the boundaries between what we call matter and spirit?

Yes it is possible and I trust it is as the church teaches.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Surely “is in” is problemmatic wording. “Is in” seems to imply that the presence of bread continues, which Jesus “is in.” That of course is not correct; the Real Presence replaces the substance of bread, and Jesus IS, and is not “in” the Host, where only the accidents of bread remain.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought

THANKS

GBY
 
PJM said:
AGREED, so WHY then are their so many unbelievers and so MUCH lack of Right understanding?

GBY
Click to expand...
It’s all about the individual’s disposition. They will look for evidence to support their disposition. The bible can be interpreted in many ways to suit your disposition.

For example:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” - John 6:63

Ah it’s the spirit that is profitable. The flesh counts for nothing. Jesus must have meant to eat his flesh metaphorically (of course I’m a Catholic, I don’t share this view!).
 
Perplexity said:
I do not believe it is possible, at least insofar as Catholic theology articulates it.

So, the trouble is that transubstantiation doesn’t make sense given the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident (which distinction we’ll shortly get into). Of course, Catholics aren’t bound to believe in this distinction as dogma, but they are – as everyone is – by reason.

Substances are by nature wholes made of parts, like animals and plants, which are by nature made of matter. Accidents, on the other hand, are by nature parts, and so must inhere within some substance in order to exist.

Now, in transubstantiation, we are told, the accidents of bread and wine remain while their underlying substance ceases to exist. But, then these accidents aren’t part of anything, and that’s simply a misunderstanding of what accidents are.

Thomas Aquinas and others have tried to wriggle out of this by suggesting that accidents are things which have a tendency to inhere in substances, not things that do so by nature. But, what is it that’s supposed to have a tendency to inhere in substances? It can’t be a substance. But, neither can it be an accident. So, in order to salvage transubstantiation, folks have had to posit a new kind of being, the likes of which they can’t describe, thus lending no coherence to the belief they’re trying to defend.
Click to expand...
Accidents that give an indicator of substance, but which adhere to a different substance, are quite common. If it weren’t so, there wouldn’t be seahorses that look like seaweed or moths that look exactly like thorns. And certainly, no gilly suit would be persuasive.
 
When we are talking about God, Who can, and did, create ex nihilo, it is indeed possible.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Accidents that give an indicator of substance, but which adhere to a different substance, are quite common. If it weren’t so, there wouldn’t be seahorses that look like seaweed or moths that look exactly like thorns. And certainly, no gilly suit would be persuasive.
Click to expand...
In transubstantiation, there is no underlying substance for the accidents of bread and wine to inhere within: the substance of Christ replaces the substance of bread and wine, and their accidents just free-float, so to speak.
 
Perplexity said:
I do not believe it is possible, at least insofar as Catholic theology articulates it.

So, the trouble is that transubstantiation doesn’t make sense given the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident (which distinction we’ll shortly get into). Of course, Catholics aren’t bound to believe in this distinction as dogma, but they are – as everyone is – by reason.

Substances are by nature wholes made of parts, like animals and plants, which are by nature made of matter. Accidents, on the other hand, are by nature parts, and so must inhere within some substance in order to exist.

Now, in transubstantiation, we are told, the accidents of bread and wine remain while their underlying substance ceases to exist. But, then these accidents aren’t part of anything, and that’s simply a misunderstanding of what accidents are.

Thomas Aquinas and others have tried to wriggle out of this by suggesting that accidents are things which have a tendency to inhere in substances, not things that do so by nature. But, what is it that’s supposed to have a tendency to inhere in substances? It can’t be a substance. But, neither can it be an accident. So, in order to salvage transubstantiation, folks have had to posit a new kind of being, the likes of which they can’t describe, thus lending no coherence to the belief they’re trying to defend.
Click to expand...
OK:) THANKS

REPLY to your post #4Patrick

So help me out here my friend *

Do you believe in God? I need a starting point to answer your reply

And Please explain why or why not you hold such a view

Blessings,

Patrick*
 
Augustine3 said:
It’s all about the individual’s disposition. They will look for evidence to support their disposition. The bible can be interpreted in many ways to suit your disposition.

For example:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” - John 6:63

Ah it’s the spirit that is profitable. The flesh counts for nothing. Jesus must have meant to eat his flesh metaphorically (of course I’m a Catholic, I don’t share this view!).
Click to expand...
That passage does seem to be the KEY that so many unbelievers hang onto:thumbsup:

THANKS

GBY
 
I suppose it’s possible. More specifically, it’s possible that my understanding of God is wrong.
 
drac16 said:
I suppose it’s possible. More specifically, it’s possible that my understanding of God is wrong.
Click to expand...
It is not only possible; it is in reality FACT:)

And your ARE growing slowly in right understanding.

God Bless you!

Patrick
 
PJM said:
AGREED, so WHY then are their so many unbelievers and so MUCH lack of Right understanding?

GBY
Click to expand...
This is just my opinion; since the Reformation and the wedge that was driven between Christians due to man’s weakness and folly, I believe that it is Satan sowing the seeds of doubt and disorder and we fall prey to that, some more than others. If it was not true then he could care less, however since it is true he has to attack Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist and His truth within the Church.
 
wmscott said:
This is just my opinion; since the Reformation and the wedge that was driven between Christians due to man’s weakness and folly, I believe that it is Satan sowing the seeds of doubt and disorder and we fall prey to that, some more than others. If it was not true then he could care less, however since it is true he has to attack Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist and His truth within the Church.
Click to expand...
AGREED!

Thanks and GBY

Patrick
 
I am subscribing to this thread, because I’m curious how many of my Protestant friends (and acquaintances and enemies, etc) will respond to a “Is it even possible” thread.
 
Perplexity;14477498]I do not believe it is possible, at least insofar as Catholic theology articulates it.
Click to expand...
The Church uses the term Transubstantiation as an avenue to assist the doubting intellect to have hope.

The Church simply defines through Transubstantiation that a ‘Change’ has taken place.
When you add to the Church’s understanding of divine revelation, you fail to understand the definition of Transubstantiation the Church uses to give hope to the failing intellect of science, that holds to that which is only visible, in time and space.

When you try and fit an Aristotle secular definition of substance and accidents to the Transubstantiation definition of the Church, that a change in substance has taken place by the divine Word of God. The secular definition fails at faith, while the Church’s definition of Transubstantiation points to a substantial change occurs, and calls us to faith which opens our souls, minds, intellect to divine revelation of God’s True and Substantial Presence which cannot be quantified.

Peace be with you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top