C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
What is a person?
Is the Eucharist a person?
Is the Eucharist a person?
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Its hard to assist with your queries without any context.
However I gather that you seem to be struggling with a metaphysical understanding (i.e. transubstantiation) of the mystery of how Jesus can be said to be truly present in the consecrated bread/wine of the Mass as Jesus stated at the Last Supper.
If that is the case then, unless you spend a few years studying scholastic philosophy and Aristotle, going down this path isn’t going to help.
Aquinas defined “person” (following Boethius) as an individual example of a substance of rational nature. You then need to understand “substance” and “nature” - neither of which mean the same as in common english parlance. Doesn’t help a lot does it?
Yes, Jesus is person-ally present in the Eucharistic species. But we Catholics already know that from both the Gospels and Apostolic teaching.
The bottom line is we do not know how that can be because we neither understand nor see the unusual reality in operation here.
What more were you wanting to glean from scholastic philosophy?
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
When the priest holds the Eucharist and says “This is the body of Christ”, we believe it to be true.
If he said, “This is Christ”… would that be true too?
For example, when Mary held baby Jesus in her arms, she could say “This is Jesus” and it would be true.
If we held the Eucharist in our hands, can we say “This is Jesus” and be true?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes, this is basic Catholic teaching: See C.Catechism #1374
" In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore,** the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained**. This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
(scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm)
Is this a difficulty for some reason?
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
Thanks for your responses.
The difficulty arose when discussing the Eucharist with some anti-Catholics, and they asked simply, “So, the Eucharist is your God?” I felt uncomfortable saying “Yes”.
But it dawned on me over the weeked; God is divine and can’t be contained in a physical body… That would be to simplify His nature.
The difficulty arose when discussing the Eucharist with some anti-Catholics, and they asked simply, “So, the Eucharist is your God?” I felt uncomfortable saying “Yes”.
But it dawned on me over the weeked; God is divine and can’t be contained in a physical body… That would be to simplify His nature.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Actually, if we want to get pedantic, this is probably not the reason.
God can be “contained” in a physical body - just as Mary can be rightly given the title of “Mother of God” (there was a big fist-fight over this in the Early Church but the outcome was such a title is perfectly acceptable).
The reason is difficult to understand in detail because it assumes an underlying philosophical understanding of the difference between “Person” and “Nature”.
God as God (ie “divine nature”) can not of course be contained in anything material because God is spirit so it doesn’t even make sense to talk about “containment” of a spiritual being. Its like saying that roses smell white.
However because Mary carried the “person” of Jesus in her womb and because Jesus possessed a “divine nature” as well as a “human nature” it can be rightly said that being the mother of Jesus also means being the mother of God.
In the Eucharist the person of Jesus is truly present - therefore God is “contained” in the consecrated bread just as God was “contained” in the body of Jesus when he walked in Galilee.
A
ahamid
Guest
Bienvenidos a ABA. - Oropesa del Mar. Marina d’Or .
Somos una empresa especializada en el alquiler, compra y venta de apartamentos en Marina d’Or, Oropesa del Mar ,Castellón. Alquilamos exclusivamente apartamentos dentro del complejo Marina d’Or. En los diferentes apartados que le presentamos podrán encontrar lo mejor de nuestra ciudad de vacaciones.
Somos una empresa especializada en el alquiler, compra y venta de apartamentos en Marina d’Or, Oropesa del Mar ,Castellón. Alquilamos exclusivamente apartamentos dentro del complejo Marina d’Or. En los diferentes apartados que le presentamos podrán encontrar lo mejor de nuestra ciudad de vacaciones.
B
Bravo_6
Guest
Christ’s real body is present.Anatomical structure and physiological modifications belong to qualities possessed by substance.After the consecration we have the substance of Christ’s body present without any external manifestation of His anatomical or physiological appearances,and the qualities of bread remaining as the object sense perception without any substance of bread.That substance of bread has been converted into the substance of Christ’s body.As substance is the basic reality.
The substance of Christ’s body is not subject to processes of digestion or to any chemical reactions.The qualities of bread of course behave in their normal way,undergoing a change as they are affected by digestion.Christ’s substantial presence ceases as the qualities cease to retain those characteristics proper to bread.
It’s not your best explanation,but I hope that helps a little?
The substance of Christ’s body is not subject to processes of digestion or to any chemical reactions.The qualities of bread of course behave in their normal way,undergoing a change as they are affected by digestion.Christ’s substantial presence ceases as the qualities cease to retain those characteristics proper to bread.
It’s not your best explanation,but I hope that helps a little?
H
Holly3278
Guest
Why would you feel uncomfortable in answering them yes, that the Eucharist is our God? The Eucharist is indeed our God. The Eucharist is the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Eucharist is indeed our God.
That said, I hope you do not think I am being harsh with you or anything. I am just seeking to understand what made you uncomfortable about it.
N
Nita
Guest
I’m guessing that when the anti-Catholics say “Eucharist”, they are thinking primarily of the “accidents” of bread and wine which we physically perceive. ** We do not believe those accidents ARE the person of Jesus.** When the consecration takes place, the “substances” of bread and wine are transformed into the “substance” of Our Lord, but not the accidents. The accidents of bread and wine remain, but they no longer inhere (not sure if that’s the right word to use) in any substance; they are no longer subjected in the substance of bread and wine, and neither are they subjected in the body and blood of Our Lord. God miraculously holds them in existence without them being subjected in any substance.
The Summa Theologica has a section on this topic. See Part III, Article 1, Question 77.
Here’s a link to that Article. newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm
It’s also very important to note the qualities that are present in “accidents” - especially the “dimensive quantity”. To read about this, just continue reading on thru the Second Article.
If you’re not familiar with they format St. Thomas uses in the Summa, please be aware that the first part of each Article gives the false understandings (objections). After listing these, St. Thomas begins his response/rebuttal in the paragraph that starts with the words "On the contrary,…"
If you wish to explain and defend our doctrine of the Eucharist to those who attack it, it’s very important to take the time to learn the philosophical terms involved. I found a couple of books by D.Q.McInerny the easiest to comprehend. (“Metaphysics” and “Philosophical Psycology”) He has the ability to make difficult philosophical concepts understandable for beginners, – and best of all, interesting
(at least that’s how it was for me). Dr. McInerny is a philosophy professor at a Fraternity of St. Peter seminary.fraternitypublications.com/philosophy.html
M
mdcpensive1
Guest
I have enjoyed your answers and they are right on the mark. The problem I have seen is that when talking to people about things like this, especially non-Catholics, they don’t want an answer that involves metaphysics or philosophy. They are more interested in short one liners that are quotes from the bible. But now I know why there is so much emphasis that priests get in seminary for philosophy. It gives a greater understanding of theology and how it relates to the world. That is why we can understand two natures in one person. God has all the attributes being divine, that it takes to manifest a human nature. He did not add to himself but already possessed everything needed. So He continually manifests Himself in the Eucharist as a continual example of being humble to us.
mdcpensive1
N
Nita
Guest
I don’t think it’s quite the same.
In the Incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity actually united Himself to the human nature He assumed; He united Himself to the created human soul and to the human body with all its “accidents”. In the Eucharist, Jesus does not unite Himself to the accidents of bread and wine.
Jesus is present “under the appearances” of bread and wine, but He is not “contained” in the bread and wine in the same way that He was “contained” in His human body.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for the words I was looking for.
N
Nita
Guest
You’re welcome.Thank you for the words I was looking for.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Sounds good to me
.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You are absolutely right.
The relationship between Person/Nature is of a completely different order than that of Substance/Accidents.
Cannot disagree with that either if by “contained” you refer to the two different philosophic relationships just defined above.
However my colloquial (ie non-philosophic) use of the word “contained” in* “therefore God is “contained” in the consecrated bread just as God was “contained” in the body of Jesus when he walked in Galilee”* was actually mirroring Charles’s colloquial use of the word “contained.”
Charles said* “God is divine and can’t be contained in a physical body…”*
From this I understand Charles to be talking about the limitations inherent in physicality, materiality, location, corporeality, 3D extension. These sensible factors are universal to all material things and are in fact inherent in the very first “accident” of all “corporeal substances.” It is known as “quantity” (there are 8 others). This accident effectively localises (“contains”) substances in our physical/material world.
Clearly Jesus is present in the Eucharist only under the appearances (accidents) of bread and wine. That does not mean the accidents of, say, the bread have no part to play in Jesus’s presence. For example, it is by means of the bread’s primary accident of “quantity” that Jesus in known to be present on the altar at all. And when the bread accidents no longer indicate the presence of bread? … then Jesus is “gone.” That is, he is no longer contained.
In this way the accidents of bread (e.g. its accident of “quantity”) functions in exactly the same way as the accidents of Jesus’s fleshly body did (e.g. the body’s accident of “quantity”). Just as Jesus is no longer contained in his fleshly body when it is corrupted…so too exactly the same holds wrt the consecrated bread’s accidents. When we can no longer recognise bread then Jesus’s presence is no longer contained/localised.
In that sense Jesus is truly contained in the Eucharist in the same way he was contained in his earthly body. That is all I am saying. Unless I have missed something there is nothing strange here.
N
Nita
Guest
Thanks for clarifying.
It wasn’t so much the word “contained” that I thought could be misleading as the expression “same as” (“in the same way”) - that’s why I went into how the 2 ways differed.
I’d say if, in explaining Our Lord’s Eucharistic presence to non-Catholics, one says it is contained in the bread the same as in the Body, it is absolutely ESSENTIAL to include your clarification as to what is meant by the statement. Otherwise they would no doubt go away thinking Christ had united Himself to bread the same as to His Body.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Thanks Nita.
I like the “old days” when “The Mysteries” (i.e. our teaching on the sacraments to Catechumens in the Early Church) were literally that - inhouse family matters (high truths if you will) that we only taught to those who were coming into the family. Why? because they were very personal, deep and easily misunderstood/disrespected and so were only revealed to those with great love of Jesus.
For this reason I find no necessity for trying to explain our deepest most mysterious truths to “outsiders”. Why throw pearls… Even a majority of Jesus own early disciples left him when he attempted to communicate the mystery of his Body and Blood.
J
jpennstar
Guest
I’m not sure if this would be a continuation, or a seperate thread. But I am struggling to wrap my rational mind around this subject; not to say my faith doesn’t overcome this to believe in the Eurcharist.
But my question approaches the mystery, indeed, from a different angle. I’ve heard the argument for the Eurcharist from the point of, “Well, Jesus’ words do what he says, because they have real power; so if he says it is his blod and body, it indeed is.” Thus he raises people from the dead; turns water into wine; heals the sick, by his very word.
Is there a passage in scripture where Jesus’ words don’t produce a change in both the appearance and substance?
I hope my question is clear.
Tx
But my question approaches the mystery, indeed, from a different angle. I’ve heard the argument for the Eurcharist from the point of, “Well, Jesus’ words do what he says, because they have real power; so if he says it is his blod and body, it indeed is.” Thus he raises people from the dead; turns water into wine; heals the sick, by his very word.
Is there a passage in scripture where Jesus’ words don’t produce a change in both the appearance and substance?
I hope my question is clear.
Tx
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
jpennstar
Not quite sure what you are asking here…
Jesus’s call and enabling of faith and repentance powerfully changed people without overt miracle’s taking place. Yet entrance into eternal-life by means of grace here and now…is this not more wonderful than sensible miracles?
On another tack: We say that baptism, confirmation and ordination changes or “marks” the “character” of the soul substantially (quite apart from sanctifying grace) by the authority of Christ’s Word.
But this may not answer your question?
- Status