MERGED: trying to understand the Eucharist/helpful example?

[SpeakKindly]

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around understanding what really goes on with the Eucharist.

Would it be correct to think about it like this:

While a lot of people say that the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus (which I believe, but I’m not sure how to understand it), it can also be said in this way:

That Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, with His resurrected human body, and during the Eucharist He takes on a different form than the human body we know Him by physically.

Therefore the bread and wine are not possessed by Jesus, as if He is contained or trapped in the materials, but that they are His physical form in which He appears in our time.

Just as Jesus appeared to one of the (I forget which one) Marys in a form that must have looked different from what she knew before His death, because the Scriptures say He was mistaken for the gardener.

So if Jesus can take on a different form, like a gardener, or have His body glow at the transfiguration, then surely He takes on the form of bread and wine, which may be for our own psychological benefits to eat and drink without being grossed out.

Or am I meant to view it as if my senses are lying and the appearance of bread and wine are an illusion or something?

 

[Vico]

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around understanding what really goes on with the Eucharist.

Would it be correct to think about it like this:

While a lot of people say that the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus (which I believe, but I’m not sure how to understand it), it can also be said in this way:

That Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, with His resurrected human body, and during the Eucharist He takes on a different form than the human body we know Him by physically.

Therefore the bread and wine are not possessed by Jesus, as if He is contained or trapped in the materials, but that they are His physical form in which He appears in our time.

Just as Jesus appeared to one of the (I forget which one) Marys in a form that must have looked different from what she knew before His death, because the Scriptures say He was mistaken for the gardener.

So if Jesus can take on a different form, like a gardener, or have His body glow at the transfiguration, then surely He takes on the form of bread and wine, which may be for our own psychological benefits to eat and drink without being grossed out.

Or am I meant to view it as if my senses are lying and the appearance of bread and wine are an illusion or something?

After transubstantiation, the bread and wine are not make-believe, but are sustained in existence by divine power, yet are really the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

The whole Christ is present under each of the two consecrated species and when divided the whole Christ is present in either.

 

[TimothyH]

Jesus’ physical form is his body - a 165lb Jewish man. Jesus is a human person, and his human body is his physical form. The Eucharist is not his physical form.

The Eucharist is Jesus’ real presence. The Eucharist is the entire substance of Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity, not his physical form.

-Tim-

 

[Vico]

It is the His glorified physical body.

 

[TimothyH]

It is the His glorified physical body.

If it were his physical body, glorified or otherwise, then there would be a 165lb Jewish man on the altar.

The Eucharist is the entire substance of Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity. It is real. It is substantial. It is present in the physical world. It is The Lord.

Theologians are very careful not to use the term physical presence but real presence. The Eucharist is not a physical 165lb Jewish man.

-Tim-

 

[SpeakKindly]

I’m a newly minted Catholic, I’ve received Eucharist, and I could tell afterwards that I was feeling much closer to Jesus than before, even closer than I did after my first reconciliation. I just want a better understanding of the Eucharist, in an example I can grasp though, because I struggle with understanding the philosophy of it without a comparison to base it off of.

I get that accidents would probably be “features” - things we sense, but substance confuses me. What is a substance?

Can you give me a easier explanation, easy enough for a child perhaps?

 

[SpeakKindly]

Jesus’ physical form is his body - a 165lb Jewish man. Jesus is a human person, and his human body is his physical form. The Eucharist is not his physical form.

The Eucharist is Jesus’ real presence. The Eucharist is the entire substance of Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity, not his physical form.

-Tim-

What is the substance of a person?

 

[YoungTradCath]

What is the substance of a person?

The substance of anything is that which is not the accidents.

These are scholastic terms.

Accidents means the outward, perceivable aspects of things, which we can interact with physically.

Substance means the inner “essence” of something sort of.

So the accidents of a potato are round, oblong, brown/red, white/yellow inside, moist/slick inside, faintly scented, etc. But these are not the substance of the potato. To risk being facetious, the substance of a potato is that which gives it “potatoness.” It is more and above the sum of its parts or the sum of its accidents. Because you can chop a potato up into tiny little bits and dye them green with food coloring and it is still potato. Now at some point we can destroy the substance of a particular potato perhaps. When we digest it, the acid and enzymes in our digestive tract, combined with the pummeling of our stomach, renders what was the potato into little more than water, some vitamins and a lot of carbohydrates. At this point, it is no longer a potato either in accidents or in substance. Also you can perhaps burn some potatoes in a pan to a blackened crisp and at this point, it is doubtful that this is potato any longer. In the same way, once our bodies digest the Eucharist physically and chemically, It is no longer the Eucharist, rather it is just some carbs and a little other stuff which our bodies will use nutritionally. Otherwise we would perpetually be in fear of profaning the Eucharist when we give blood, scrape our knee or swab our cheek at the doctor’s office! =p And that is silly to believe. (Side note: interesting that the Eucharist feeds us spiritually and physically, yes?)

So the accidents and substance are connected, very much so. But they are not the same thing.

Substance can’t be perceived directly by us; we only really perceive accidents. So we can’t define what the substance of Jesus is because we don’t know in any scientific sense. But that’s not the point. Just know that Jesus is real and that the Eucharist, properly consecrated, is really Him in every way. Whether He is “contained” in the Eucharist, meh, I don’t want to get into that conversation because that’s something else completely I think, besides which it is not intrinsically connected to the question of accidents/substance.

 

[YoungTradCath]

What is the substance of a person?

Human-ness.

 

[FrStevenJones]

What is it? The body and blood of Jesus. The substance is the answer to the question “What is this?”. It is Jesus. Therefore the substance is Jesus!

 

[SpeakKindly]

What is it? The body and blood of Jesus. The substance is the answer to the question “What is this?”. It is Jesus. Therefore the substance is Jesus!

Then is it correct to say that I like the taste of the consecrated wine, or should I say that I like the taste of the body and blood of Jesus when it appears as wine after it is consecrated?

 

[FrStevenJones]

Then is it correct to say that I like the taste of the consecrated wine, or should I say that I like the taste of the body and blood of Jesus when it appears as wine after it is consecrated?

The latter is correct. However, I prefer the word " transubstantiated" rather than “consecrated”, since the substance has indeed been changed .

 

[SpeakKindly]

The substance of anything is that which is not the accidents.

These are scholastic terms.

Accidents means the outward, perceivable aspects of things, which we can interact with physically.

Substance means the inner “essence” of something sort of.

So the accidents of a potato are round, oblong, brown/red, white/yellow inside, moist/slick inside, faintly scented, etc. But these are not the substance of the potato. To risk being facetious, the substance of a potato is that which gives it “potatoness.” It is more and above the sum of its parts or the sum of its accidents. Because you can chop a potato up into tiny little bits and dye them green with food coloring and it is still potato. Now at some point we can destroy the substance of a particular potato perhaps. When we digest it, the acid and enzymes in our digestive tract, combined with the pummeling of our stomach, renders what was the potato into little more than water, some vitamins and a lot of carbohydrates. At this point, it is no longer a potato either in accidents or in substance. Also you can perhaps burn some potatoes in a pan to a blackened crisp and at this point, it is doubtful that this is potato any longer. In the same way, once our bodies digest the Eucharist physically and chemically, It is no longer the Eucharist, rather it is just some carbs and a little other stuff which our bodies will use nutritionally. Otherwise we would perpetually be in fear of profaning the Eucharist when we give blood, scrape our knee or swab our cheek at the doctor’s office! =p And that is silly to believe. (Side note: interesting that the Eucharist feeds us spiritually and physically, yes?)

So the accidents and substance are connected, very much so. But they are not the same thing.

Substance can’t be perceived directly by us; we only really perceive accidents. So we can’t define what the substance of Jesus is because we don’t know in any scientific sense. But that’s not the point. Just know that Jesus is real and that the Eucharist, properly consecrated, is really Him in every way. Whether He is “contained” in the Eucharist, meh, I don’t want to get into that conversation because that’s something else completely I think, besides which it is not intrinsically connected to the question of accidents/substance.

I keep thinking about an example of something, does all of this relate in some way to this scenario?

If you take four wooden legs and a flat surface, you could say that this creates a table, but it could also be a chair.

Similarly a child at a very young age may mistake a cat for a small dog simply because it has four legs, a tail, and fur.

What we typically identify a chair, table, or dog by are its traits, but the sum of traits don’t necessarily mean that is what makes something fit in that category - like how some animals are related to other animals that don’t even look like the same thing (for example, a whale is a mammal, even though it looks like a fish, so it might be more closely related to humans than a fish, idk).

 

[YoungTradCath]

I keep thinking about an example of something, does all of this relate in some way to this scenario?

If you take four wooden legs and a flat surface, you could say that this creates a table, but it could also be a chair.

Similarly a child at a very young age may mistake a cat for a small dog simply because it has four legs, a tail, and fur.

What we typically identify a chair, table, or dog by are its traits, but the sum of traits don’t necessarily mean that is what makes something fit in that category - like how some animals are related to other animals that don’t even look like the same thing (for example, a whale is a mammal, even though it looks like a fish, so it might be more closely related to humans than a fish, idk).

Yes, this is related. Substance is absolute. “Catness” is “catness,” not “dogness.” But a cat may be confused for a dog perhaps, just because they both have fur, four legs and a tail.

 

[chefmomster2]

I’m a newly minted Catholic, I’ve received Eucharist, and I could tell afterwards that I was feeling much closer to Jesus than before, even closer than I did after my first reconciliation. I just want a better understanding of the Eucharist, in an example I can grasp though, because I struggle with understanding the philosophy of it without a comparison to base it off of.

I get that accidents would probably be “features” - things we sense, but substance confuses me. What is a substance?

Can you give me a easier explanation, easy enough for a child perhaps?

Things are described in many ways. First, we describe their appearance, the things we can learn through our senses. So, we might say that an animal is furry, brown, large, smelly, and soft.

But there is a whole other level to a description. We call this the “substance” of the thing, the answer to “What is it?” Think about our animal. The description is helpful, but I don’t know what it is! It could be a bear, a beaver, a goat or a dog. That is the substance of the thing.

The host we receive at communion can be described by its appearance: white, round, flat, bland, hard. Its substance is bread.

After the consecration the appearance remains absolutely unchanged. It is still white, round, flat, bland, and hard. It looks the same, smells the same, tastes the same, feels the same, sounds the same if we tap it against something. If I showed you a consecrated host and an unconsecrated host they would have the identical appearance. However, its substance is now totally changed! It is body of Christ.

Mark 14 from the New American Bible, Revised

The Lord’s Supper.

22 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed* for many.
25 Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
26 Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

 

[Robyn_p]

One way of explaining it that I find helpful is this:

In Mk 16:12, when Mark recounts the appearance of Jesus to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, he says this, “He appeared to two of them in another form”. The form of Jesus as he appeared to them was different than what they were used to, but it was still the same Jesus. It didn’t look like him, maybe didn’t sound like him, all his physical properties (or accidents) were different, but it was him.

It’s the same with the Eucharist, he’s coming to us “in another form” just like he did to the disciples, but under the form of bread and wine. And just like the disciples, even though we don’t recognize him, it’s still the same Jesus. The physical properties might be different, but it is him.

Not sure if that’s helpful to you but this is the way I think of it when trying to wrap my head around it. Of course, it is a mystery, so we can never fully comprehend it, but I find thinking of it like this helps me a little.

 

[SpeakKindly]

Things are described in many ways. First, we describe their appearance, the things we can learn through our senses. So, we might say that an animal is furry, brown, large, smelly, and soft.

But there is a whole other level to a description. We call this the “substance” of the thing, the answer to “What is it?” Think about our animal. The description is helpful, but I don’t know what it is! It could be a bear, a beaver, a goat or a dog. That is the substance of the thing.

The host we receive at communion can be described by its appearance: white, round, flat, bland, hard. Its substance is bread.

After the consecration the appearance remains absolutely unchanged. It is still white, round, flat, bland, and hard. It looks the same, smells the same, tastes the same, feels the same, sounds the same if we tap it against something. If I showed you a consecrated host and an unconsecrated host they would have the identical appearance. However, its substance is now totally changed! It is body of Christ.

Mark 14 from the New American Bible, Revised

The Lord’s Supper.

22 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed* for many.
25 Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
26 Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Interesting note here: does the fact that Jesus gave them the wine before saying it was His blood have any significance in why Jesus is fully present in both the consecrated bread and wine, instead of separated into body and blood?

 

[Techno2000]

I’m a newly minted Catholic, I’ve received Eucharist, and I could tell afterwards that I was feeling much closer to Jesus than before, even closer than I did after my first reconciliation. I just want a better understanding of the Eucharist, in an example I can grasp though, because I struggle with understanding the philosophy of it without a comparison to base it off of.

I get that accidents would probably be “features” - things we sense, but substance confuses me. What is a substance?

Can you give me a easier explanation, easy enough for a child perhaps?

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[Vico]

I’m a newly minted Catholic, I’ve received Eucharist, and I could tell afterwards that I was feeling much closer to Jesus than before, even closer than I did after my first reconciliation. I just want a better understanding of the Eucharist, in an example I can grasp though, because I struggle with understanding the philosophy of it without a comparison to base it off of.

I get that accidents would probably be “features” - things we sense, but substance confuses me. What is a substance?

Can you give me a easier explanation, easy enough for a child perhaps?

Substance is what it really is and accident it what it appears to be.

substance: 1 the real or essential part or element of anything; essence, reality, or basic matter (Collins Dictionary)

accident: 4 an attribute or quality that is not essential (Collins Dictionary)

 

[chefmomster2]

Interesting note here: does the fact that Jesus gave them the wine before saying it was His blood have any significance in why Jesus is fully present in both the consecrated bread and wine, instead of separated into body and blood?

No, I don’t believe so. For the bread to be fully Christ’s body, life-filled and life-giving, it must be whole- flesh, organs, bone, blood, etc. It wouldn’t be His full body otherwise. Likewise, the blood to be the full whole spirit and divinity of Christ cannot be separated from the body.

The source of confusion, having bot bread and wine present in the Eucharist with each becoming fully the body and blood of Christ, can be understood by these means:

We celebrate with the two forms, bread and wine as a reminder of previous events in the Scriptures. In the OT, bread and wine was offered in a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Bread in the form of manna was sent by God to His Chosen People. There are others.

In the Last Supper, Christ was celebrating Passover, which used both bread and wine in its celebration. It was a fulfillment of the Old Covenant and perfected in the New Covenant.