I
inocente
Guest
I just looked through your “What is a substance?” thread, and different people there have made very similar critiques of your views to what has been said here.
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
. . . bringing to mind the old adage, great minds think alike, fools seldom differ.. . . different people there have made very similar critiques of your views to what has been said here.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
:extrahappy: Sometimes I think our forum just brings out all the skeptics while most of the faithful stay at home. Anyway that was a clever retort. We could also say that sanity avoids the madening crowds.. . . bringing to mind the old adage, great minds think alike, fools seldom differ.
Linus2nd
B
blase6
Guest
Oh, so I am not “faithful”. Even though I hold to the teachings of the Church, even if I correctly say that I don’t know if they are true certainly.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
If I recall correctly you said that Christ was not physically present in the Sacrament. What I said is that he is present in the totality of his human and Divine natures but that his body was a glorified physical body. To which you responded that his glorified body was not physical. However there are only two kinds of substances that exist. Those composed of matter and form, material bodies, and those that are immaterial or spiritual substances, having only forms that exist. Those composed of matter and from we call physical. Now we know that Christ rose from the dead with a glorified body. We also know that this glorified body was not a spirit, it was not immaterial, it was not a simple form having existence. Therefore it must be composed of matter and form, and, therefore, it is a material body, it is physical…So it is a physical body that is present in the Sacrament.
We also know his glorified body was not a spirit because it could be seen. Therefore it had to be material or physical.
Yet, because his resurrected body is a glorified body, its physicality is different from the physical bodies that are in the earthly form of existence. The difference is that a glorified body, though physical, is not subject to the restrictions and limitations of earthly, material bodies. He could walk through doors and walls, be present, in an istant, wherever he wished. And in the Sacrament, he could " hid " his body from our sight, he could veil himself behind the physical accidents of the bread and wine.
But actually I was not thinking of any particular person but was responding to the general run of many comments over the past two years.
I am slowly beginning to realize that these forums actually attract skeptics of one sort or another. Either skeptics regarding the teachings of the Faith and/or skeptics toward the truth value or validity of Thomistic philsosphy or of philosophy in general. While non-skeptics just read and pass on without comment, lacking either the facility or courage to engage. And isn’t this always true in any " battle? "
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I was trying to gauge the understanding of others. There are many ways to understand each. But the way the philosophies of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas understand them are carefully defined according to the purposes of their philosophies.
Linus2nd
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I think its depends, the documentation on St Thomas is well regarded but by jealous critics. There’s really no way imho to get around at least giving regard to what he is saying on any given point. I never say Im strictly this or that because I don’t know where Thomas stands on every point, also on a few points I tend to agree with Scotus, and at times Suárez. To me it really depends on what we are talking about at any given time. I agree with Scotus on predestination.
But for this conversation, I can’t see how you get around Thomas. I’m still on substance and accidents for the sake of honesty.
B
blase6
Guest
I have no memory of explicitly stating those things, or even clearly implying them. I wouldn’t ever say that Christ has a non-physical body; that is a contradiction.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
You stated in post 19 that, " The explanation of the Eucharist as a “change of substance” is definitely based on the assumption that the Thomistic ideas of “form” and “accident” correspond perfectly to physical reality. I seriously question that accuracy, especially with our better understanding of matter now.
I am not sure if this is an acceptable explanation of the Eucharist, but I think it could be understood that a real “change of substance” happens, in that the matter of the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ because they become “disposed” for that purpose, in the sense that the matter in our bodies is “disposed” for our souls. So the underlying physical matter remains the "
I tried to explain what is wrong with this. The teaching on the Church is not based on any assumptions. It is based on what our Lord said at the Last Supper. Whatever terms it used in defining the Dogma the Church stated Dogmatically that in Transubstantion: the substances of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ ( and therefore into the " Whole " Christ ), while only the accidents of the bread and wine remain. It is really pointless to argue over the terms ’ substance ’ ’ species ’ since they are intended to express what actually happens. How else would you explaiin what happens?
Linus2nd
B
blase6
Guest
Because the kind of “substance” which corresponds to physical objects is not absolute. It is all in your mind and how you think of it. So as long as you believe that the “substance” changes in the Eucharist, then the specifics can just remain a mystery. If there really is no objective substance in physical objects, then it may just be as simple as “this is what God thinks it is, so you should think so too”.
I
inocente
Guest
Christians are required to be skeptical of idols. It’s the first commandment.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
I would phrase it, “What God says, is.”
If you remember the famous quote, “Let there be light.”
For me, it matters far less what people think, as opposed to what they do.
So, the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, who is the Incarnation of the Word of God, because He said so.
If philosophers enjoy trying to understand the mystery, go for it.
It is the truth; and once accepted, the world turns upside down, revealing it’s true nature, as one moves closer to knowing God.
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
So your argument is that your belief system states that such and such is true, therefore it is truth?
A
Aloysium
Guest
I am not a philosopher. What is true is revealed in my relationship with God. I am relating what I would say I know. That’s all.
St Thomas was a philosopher. He wrote down his proofs that arose out of his relationship with God. If you want a philosophical discussion of the matter, he makes it perfectly clear.
It seems to me most people here do not want that, but are search for the truth. So, I provide my :twocents:
D
davidv
Guest
That is not what was said. (Straw man)
Our belief does not put words in God’s mouth. It is God’s word that generates faith and belief.
B
blase6
Guest
The problem with that is that you cannot know certainly that the words are from God, or that God is telling the truth.
D
davidv
Guest
Were the apostles face-to-face with Jesus? Did they hear His words? Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. I know for certain these words in particular are from God.
B
blase6
Guest
There are always problems with written text which makes them less accurate to what really happened, in addition to further error from translations. Sure, the religious organization has told you that it is free from error, but how do you know you can trust them certainly?
D
davidv
Guest
Because it is a Divine institution that was promised by God to receive all truth.
CCC said:
- Status