B
brb3
Guest
VC … you are amazing !! You posted/‘hosted’ a wonderful thread. Thanks for ‘moderating’ this thread.
- Status
VC … you are amazing !! You posted/‘hosted’ a wonderful thread. Thanks for ‘moderating’ this thread.
B
brb3
Guest
1.-- The Church is guided by Christ. If they performed testing, they were led to do so by H.S. The fact that Christ allowed the Flesh & Blood SUBSTANCE of the Eucharist to be seen … is proof that He desired/consented to testing by Church-approved scientists, in this RARE, extrodinary instance [as a visible miracle to us who were not privy to the hundreds of miracles in the first century]. Ordinarily, we are EXPECTED to accept his Real Presence by faith, while he remains ‘invisible’, cloaked under the visible properties of bread/wine.
2.— you are suggesting the Church does not believe atoms/molecules constitute the ‘physical’ SUBSTANCE of an entity [neither of Christ, nor bread/wine]. Where did you obtain this Catholic teaching on what constitutes the SUBSTANCE ?
What do you [and the Church] believe is the true SUBSTANCE of ‘consecrated’ bread/wined that has been Transubstantiated [or Consubstantiated]… if not atoms/molecules ? What is the true SUBSTANCE of Christ, in the Eucharist ? Only metaphysical S/D … w/o a ‘true food’ B/B substance ? Is Christ no longer very God & very Man ? Did He lose his humanity in the Resurrection, and remain only GOD [without flesh/blood] ?
P
Philthy
Guest
B
brb3
Guest
You summed the matter up very well here Philthy ! A very good answer …
I’ve consistently said all along that Christ’s humanity must of necessity be molecular/atomic in Substance, like our own. But, because of his Divinity, his resurrected Body/Blood is normally undetectible to us …via our 5 senses & lab instruments. His supernatural flesh/blood is cloaked under the ‘detectible’ properties of bread/wine that remain. Only on rare occasions, like Corpus Christi, Lanciano, & perhaps the Shroud, … has Christ allowed his humanity to be ‘uncloaked’ and seen as literal flesh / blood by us.
Trent said : ‘the God-man is “truly, really, & substantially” present under the appearances of Bread/Wine … and, this has EVERBEEN & IS NOW the UNWAVERING position of he Whole Cath. Christendom.’
Augustine said: "attached to CARO [Flesh of Christ] is a separate, individual value [physical substance ?] independent of that of ‘Spiritus’. " He additionally said that the communion of [for ?] children was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to Salvation.
Martin Luther said: “those who opposed the Real Presence were [metaphysical ?] Sacramentarians”. This he said, in reference to those Protestants who rejected the LITERAL B/B/S/D understanding of the Eucharist. He also said that prior to his time, the WHOLE of the religious world had consistently accepted the LITERAL meaning of Christ in the Eucharist, as taught thruout Scripture. Nevertheless, ML’s analogy ----- “the iron put into the fire whereby BOTH fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet EACH CONTINUES UNCHANGED” provoked Trent to define the Catholic dogma as they did.
We know heat [fire] is the rapid, often explosive motion of molecules … which results in the change of physical STATES [solid, liquid, gas]. At the max extreme, it can yield Atomic/Nuclear energy, when radioactive isotopes’ atomic nuclei are split. Fire often changes the SUBSTANCE of matter … purifying Substances, and even fusing atomic nuclei to create NEW SUBSTANCES [Elements, etc].
One could even conceive of the Supernatural Fire of Christ, able to fuse Bread/Wine into a new ‘supernatural substance’ … the B/B/S/D of the Resurrected Lord.
P
Philthy
Guest
thank you!You summed the matter up very well here Philthy ! A very good answer …
I wouldn’t agree with this…hear me out. Christ’s humanity during his earthly life was unequivocally “like our own”, but it no longer is. His flesh is now resurrected, glorified flesh. To what scientific manual do we turn to understand the observable, measurable properties of such flesh? There is no such thing and we have to be careful about the assumptions that we make regarding what we expect to “see” - whether by the naked eye or with scientific tools - in the Eucharist. I believe Aquinas would tell us we would see no difference between the consecrated and uncreated host, and the Church teachings are aligned with his.
S
sweetpetunia
Guest
Hi guys!
I read through all 23 (whew!) pages and I just wanted to add something for brb3. Good on you for trying to understand the faith more fully and increase your belief. But if I may, I’d like to clarify something. A few others have alluded to it, but I’d like to be a little more explicit.
When you are using “substance” in a physical/chemical/molecular sense to describe transubstantiation, you are erring by equivocation. You are erroniously substituting one meaning of a term for another, thus rendering your entire proposition invalid. I don’t fault you for this, as much of theology is expounded through the use of philosophy/philosophical terms. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, was highly Aristotelian, and a basic grounding in philosophy is necessary to make sense of much of his teaching. Ha, I remember my first class in Thomistic thinking. The prof assigned us a section of the Summa to read in preparation for class. In it, St. Thomas kept referring to an “end”. After much discussion, our little study group finally decided that the “end” must refer to an object’s physical demise, (and in the case of man, the hereafter) but it still really didn’t make sense to us. As it turned out, in philosophy, an object’s “end” is its purpose, haha, but we would never have been able to make sense of it, if we did not undertake a basic philosophy course first or simultaneously.
As others have mentioned, properties such as molecular structure would be considered “accidents”. In this case, “substance” is used in a more metaphysical sense, like the Aristotelian “Forms”! So if you wanted to include a scientist’s definition of a physical “substance”, we would have to talk about the “substance” of a substance, which would lead to numerous misunderstandings, as you can see!
In regards to the question, St. Thomas says that ALL the accidents of the bread and wine remain after consecration, so that would include the accidents at the molecular level. I’ll give you the quote:
It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord’s body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
So there you have it
Love, love, love St. Thomas. Anyways, best of luck to you, and great job guys!
I read through all 23 (whew!) pages and I just wanted to add something for brb3. Good on you for trying to understand the faith more fully and increase your belief. But if I may, I’d like to clarify something. A few others have alluded to it, but I’d like to be a little more explicit.
When you are using “substance” in a physical/chemical/molecular sense to describe transubstantiation, you are erring by equivocation. You are erroniously substituting one meaning of a term for another, thus rendering your entire proposition invalid. I don’t fault you for this, as much of theology is expounded through the use of philosophy/philosophical terms. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, was highly Aristotelian, and a basic grounding in philosophy is necessary to make sense of much of his teaching. Ha, I remember my first class in Thomistic thinking. The prof assigned us a section of the Summa to read in preparation for class. In it, St. Thomas kept referring to an “end”. After much discussion, our little study group finally decided that the “end” must refer to an object’s physical demise, (and in the case of man, the hereafter) but it still really didn’t make sense to us. As it turned out, in philosophy, an object’s “end” is its purpose, haha, but we would never have been able to make sense of it, if we did not undertake a basic philosophy course first or simultaneously.
As others have mentioned, properties such as molecular structure would be considered “accidents”. In this case, “substance” is used in a more metaphysical sense, like the Aristotelian “Forms”! So if you wanted to include a scientist’s definition of a physical “substance”, we would have to talk about the “substance” of a substance, which would lead to numerous misunderstandings, as you can see!
In regards to the question, St. Thomas says that ALL the accidents of the bread and wine remain after consecration, so that would include the accidents at the molecular level. I’ll give you the quote:
It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord’s body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
So there you have it
Love, love, love St. Thomas. Anyways, best of luck to you, and great job guys!
B
brb3
Guest
So … the Substance [whatever that is ?? — a metaphysical one ?] of Bread/Wine are LOST, while their Properties their molecules/atoms] remain.
Meanwhile … Accidents of Christ molecular/atomic B/B] are cloaked from view/lab testing, ---- while His Substance [S/D …metaphysical ?] consumes the ‘metaphysical’ Substance [whatever that might be … ? ] of Bread/Wine.
Is this what you think Aquinas is teaching ? And, you agree that Substance is metaphysical, while Properties are the visble/detectible ‘physical’ atoms/molecules … of METAPHYSICAL souls/divinity, and also, ---- whatever metaphysical qualities bread/wine might have ?
Do I have you right ?
B
brb3
Guest
Yes, but our Church teaches we receive the Crucified & Resurrected Christ in the Eucharist. So, we receive both his sacrificed ‘natural’ body/blood & his ‘supernatural’ ‘glorified’ body/blood.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
-]/-]
It is the same body that was crucified, but insofar as we now receive it now, it is (now) a glorified body. Just the same way that it is the same body that was born of the Virgin Mary, but we don’t receive an infant’s body, because Christ (right now) is not an infant.
VC
Not quite. We receive Christ as He really is, and His body is a glorified body.Yes, but our Church teaches we receive the Crucified & Resurrected Christ in the Eucharist. So, we receive both his sacrificed ‘natural’ body/blood & his ‘supernatural’ ‘glorified’ body/blood.
It is the same body that was crucified, but insofar as we now receive it now, it is (now) a glorified body. Just the same way that it is the same body that was born of the Virgin Mary, but we don’t receive an infant’s body, because Christ (right now) is not an infant.
VC
B
brb3
Guest
:nope:
A ‘glorified’ body — yes, But, one that still had nailprints, and a wound in his side. Not a ‘solely’ supernatural, metaphysical body … that could not be touched, eat, or walk & talk with the 12. We are Baptized into Christ’s DEATH, and raised by His resurrected, supernatural CARO & SPIRITUS to New Life ----- while still living in mortal bodies. But, on the Last Day, …we too will be resurrected with supernatural, immortal bodies.
Christ commanded us to hold/receive the Eucharist IN MEMORIAL of his DEATH. Thus, we can be sure we receive His ‘son of David’ B/B given up for us !!! And, yes, we also receive His eternal ‘SON OF GOD’ IMMORTAL B/B/S/D … since He taught, “except you EAT my Flesh and DRINK my Blood, you have no life in you.”
The same PLUR-POTENT STEM CELLS in the infant Jesus … were alive & well in the adult, Baptized Christ.
S
sweetpetunia
Guest
Oh boy, this is going to take more time then I intended to devote
I am pretty rusty on my (admittedly few) courses in philosophy/Catholic doctrine, so keep that in mind while I give it a shot Substance is a somewhat confusing concept. Here’s a basic definition: “Substance, the first of Aristotle’s categories, signifies being as existing in and by itself, and serving as a subject or basis for accidents and accidental changes.” The substance is the subject, or being in which accidents exist. Philosophers talk about substance in two ways, sometimes referring to the individual thing in existence, and other times to the genus/species in which that individual thing shares. Substances usually have a physical/material element to them, but not always, such as in the case of angels. Angels are a spiritual “substance”–they have an essence and are in existence. (An annecdotal tidbit that I find really cool is that each angel is it’s own species!) Anyways, that’s the basis of it.
Accidents, according to the more narrow view of Aristotle, would be the things that are not necessary to the essence of a substance. They may be physical attributes, but from what I understand of Aristotle, they are not necessesarily so. And contrariwise, physical attributes are not necessarily accidents, according to Aristotle. (Some later philosophers developed divergent views, some saying that all properties are accidents, while others say that no properties are!) The best definition I read of accidents describes them as modifications of the substance. Basically, they are like variations or potential variations that can only exist in a substance, but do not change the essence of the substance. For esample, red hair is an accident to the substance man, because it is not necessary that a man have red hair in order for him to be a man. He may dye his hair black, or he may shave his head, but he will still be a man, and a man in both senses of the word substance. He is the same subject he originally was, and he still shares in the species homo sapiens.
As to the rest, to “have me right”, see what St. Thomas says. I am going to defer to him
When a substance undergoes change, it can be modified, or it can be “lost”, as you say. In other words, a substance can either undergo non-essential change, or essential change. For example, if I stain a piece of birchwood cherry red, I have modified it. It’s color is an accident. If I burn it, it is annihilated, as it no longer is the substance of wood, but the substance of ash. St. Thomas says that the “substance” of bread does not remain AT ALL, so in that sense, it is “lost”, but he is quick to note that the substance" of bread is not “dissolved into its original elements” or “annihilated”, only changed, transmutated completely. Transubstantiation is rather unique that way!
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
That is exactly what Christ’s glorified body is. It has nailprints and a wound in his side. Just as scripture attests. No need to put quotes around glorified. So, Christ has a glorified body, not a non-glorified one (which is what I take you mean by “natural” body).
So, sure, we receive Christ’s body which HAD been crucified and is NOW glorified. So we receive one body, the glorified one. We don’t receive two kinds of body in the Eucharist.
Who said anything about a solely supernatural metaphysical body that could not be touched, etc? You keep importing your misunderstanding of transubstantiation into every aspect of Eucharistic doctrine. This is why is important to uproot any misunderstanding on fundamentals . . . one misunderstanding can lead to other secondary misconceptions.
This is a non sequitur. (To put it kindly). You said that “our Church teaches we receive the Crucified & Resurrected Christ in the Eucharist. So, we receive both his sacrificed ‘natural’ body/blood & his ‘supernatural’ ‘glorified’ body/blood.” We aren’t talking about what cells may or may not have identity in the child, adult, dead, and resurrected body of Christ. After all, most of His cells were the same cells before his death and after his resurrection. But, before his death his body was non-glorified (passible) and after his resurrection His body was glorified (impassible).
Your statement that “we receive both his sacrificed ‘natural’ body/blood & his ‘supernatural’ ‘glorified’ body/blood.” in the Eucharist is in error, unless you wish to qualify it and explain it more.
The teaching of the Church is that we receive, now, only Christ’s real, substantial, actual glorified body in the Eucharist.
VC
B
brb3
Guest
Not Most, but ALL. Those initial Stem Cells of infancy … are with Christ TODAY !! That’s my point, in ‘correcting’ you on just saying we get ONLY his Glorified, Risen Body.
The Church teaches Christ is NOT Divided, not a bone broken, and a body that DIDN’T SEE CORRUPTION. We receive ALL of Christ today, [his Real Presence]. Christ on Resurrection Day, had the same body [cells] that He had received at the moment He was conceived in Eve. Christ can ‘bodily’ share himself with us, over the eons, and yet be UNDIVIDED.
I suppose we, in contrast, [our bodies seeing corruption after death], could be recovered long after death, from the dust of the Earth, from whereever the winds of time has/will blow that dust -------- but, Christ probably only needs recover a single PLURI POTENTIAL STEM CELL, retained from our first creation, … to recover us IN TOTO, in CARO, on the Last Day.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
I wasnt talking about stem cells. Please. Stop this stem cell silliness. The notion that some or all of Christ cells or stem cells are the same in Christ from infancy to ressurection is entirely immaterial to your notion that we receive an unglorified and a glorified body.
Yes that is what im saying. Thts what the Church says. We receive Christ. One Christ. His glorified body.
You are wrong when you say we receive both a nonglorified anid a glorified body.
You can just make up your own religion as you go brb3. Well, I suppose you can. . . But you really shouldnt.
VC
H
highrigger1
Guest
SPH1,
I dont know about your physics theories about transubstantiation but your vision of the whole church sitting together at the Lords table is a good one. My church holds this vision also. All christians are invited to the Lords Table in my church at communion. We do not distinguish between denominations and consider all christians to be of the catholic church.
Maybe that will be a reality someday.
Peace, JohnR
P
Philthy
Guest
This makes no sense to me. Christ has but one body and it is in a glorified state. That means we receive his crucified, resurrected body in it’s glorified state.Yes, but our Church teaches we receive the Crucified & Resurrected Christ in the Eucharist. So, we receive both his sacrificed ‘natural’ body/blood & his ‘supernatural’ ‘glorified’ body/blood.
P
Philthy
Guest
B
brb3
Guest
Why does this sound so strange ? This is exactly what the 10 experienced, when Christ appeared to them in the room on Easter Sunday, … and again, the next Sunday, when Thomas was present. A body marked by scars … yet able to move thru walls, having been glorified via the resurrection.
P
Philthy
Guest
And what is your point? Christ was not yet in his glorified state, was He? His appearances certainly don’t sound like those from the Transfiguration In addition, assuming that you feel he was, why do you assume that he did not “cloak” himself under the appearance of his pre-resurrected state in order to provide them with just the same faith and courage that you believe the miracle at Luciano was meant to provide??
We really have no idea, but we have clues. It’s best to follow the Church’s revelation in this regard to what substance (theological) is present in the Eucharist and not to import a fleshly, scientific concept of what substances (scientific) we might expect to find in a scientific investigation of the Eucharist. Remember - it is a mystery that has some limits on how we may understand it, just like the Trinity.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Just to clarify, for my own sake (and possibly others?). . .
BRB3 says
"brb3:
The first part of brb3’s statement, “our Chruch teaches we receive the Crucified and Resurrected Christ in the Eucharist” is absolutely correct and incontrovertible. This is because we receive Christ as He really is.
The second part brb3’s statement “we receive both his sacrificed ‘natural’ body/blood & his ‘supernatural’ ‘glorified’ body/blood.” is the portion that is incorrect if it posits that we receive Christ both glorified and unglorified, i.e. in the resurrected and non-resurrected state.
VC
BRB3 says
"brb3:
And PHILTHY says
These two statements are opposed to one another. Philthy’s is correct, and brb3’s is erroneous (or at the very least, expressed inaccurately).
The first part of brb3’s statement, “our Chruch teaches we receive the Crucified and Resurrected Christ in the Eucharist” is absolutely correct and incontrovertible. This is because we receive Christ as He really is.
The second part brb3’s statement “we receive both his sacrificed ‘natural’ body/blood & his ‘supernatural’ ‘glorified’ body/blood.” is the portion that is incorrect if it posits that we receive Christ both glorified and unglorified, i.e. in the resurrected and non-resurrected state.
VC
- Status