Person and Eucharist

[jpennstar]

I suppose a more direct way of saying what I mean:

God’s word directly does, in substance and appearance, what He says. Thus when God created the heavens and earth; they came to be. When God had the flood come upon the earth it really happened.

The same goes for Jesus and his miracles. So when he says, this is my body and my blood; why didn’t the bread and wine actually change in both substance and appearance?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I suppose a more direct way of saying what I mean:

God’s word directly does, in substance and appearance, what He says. Thus when God created the heavens and earth; they came to be. When God had the flood come upon the earth it really happened.

The same goes for Jesus and his miracles. So when he says, this is my body and my blood; why didn’t the bread and wine actually change in both substance and appearance?

OK, still not quite sure what you are getting at but maybe the following helps.

The philosophical problem with the “Real presence” is this. How can both Jesus and the bread be actually present in the one “thing” (=one “substance”) at the same time? Church philosophy appears to hold that the Eucharist is not to be understood as an admixture of two different substances. It may even be a contradicition in terms (I may be wrong on this point).

Or are you suggesting that when Jesus said the words of consecration over the bread it should have literally turned into human flesh? Clearly Jesus did not intend that by his words. In the Eucharist he did not intend to literally replace the “bloody sacrifices” of the Old testament. That took place onetime only on the cross and is not literally repeated in the Mass. (I may not have expressed this well and others may need to correct me on this).

 

[jpennstar]

Ya that is what I’m getting to - the literal aspect of it.

To my knowledge of scripture, there isn’t a time/ instance when Jesus’s word didn’t do exactly what he said in substance and appearance.

When he said it was wine, it was wine. He said the person lived, they lived. And so forth. So is there an exception to this pattern in scripture?

 

[Nita]

Ya that is what I’m getting to - the literal aspect of it.

To my knowledge of scripture, there isn’t a time/ instance when Jesus’s word didn’t do exactly what he said in substance and appearance.

When he said it was wine, it was wine. He said the person lived, they lived. And so forth. So is there an exception to this pattern in scripture?

It is what Our Lord wills that occurs.
He does not have to speak words that literally describe what He wants to occur. For example, the miracle most similar to the Eucharist occurred at Cana when Jesus changed water into wine. Jesus willed/intended the water to be transformed into wine both in substance and in appearance (accidents), and so that is what happened. The only words He spoke were “Fill the jars with water.” and “Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.”

In the Eucharist He willed/wills that the substance of bread should be changed into His body, that the accidents of His body should not be sensibly manifested, and that the accidents of bread should remain. And so that is what happens. To me, His words in the Eucharistic miracle “This is My Body” are more specific than those in the Cana miracle.

I think if you go through the gospels and check out all the miracles Our Lord performs you’ll find many times when what occurs goes beyond just what His words literally say.

 

[jpennstar]

My point is there is no distinction between appearance and substance in scripture in regards to miracles or the efficacy of Jesus’ words. In Cana the water (in appearance and substance) changes into wine (in appearance and substance). So this isn’t like the eucharist; which is appearance of bread only and of a different substance.

That is also what I’m asking of members. To provide, if they know, of such a scripture verse(s); which makes this distinction.

 

[Nita]

My point is there is no distinction between appearance and substance in scripture in regards to miracles or the efficacy of Jesus’ words. In Cana the water (in appearance and substance) changes into wine (in appearance and substance). So this isn’t like the eucharist; which is appearance of bread only and of a different substance.

That is also what I’m asking of members. To provide, if they know, of such a scripture verse(s); which makes this distinction.

If you mean other miracles where Jesus changes just the substance and not the accidents, then I don’t think you’ll find one. The Eucharist is a unique miracle in that sense also.

As I thought about Our Lord’s words at the Last Supper, I realized that not only is the Eucharist what He willed, it is also exactly what His words specify. His words say that there will be a distinction between the appearance and the substance.

He took bread in His hands for the apostles to see (what our eyes see are “accidents” - we cannot see “substance”). He said "THIS (what looks like bread) is my Body.
I would say that Our Lord’s words in that passage actually make the distinction that this miracle is one in which the substance is changed (“is my Body”) but the appearances/accidents are not (“This” - physical matter that looks like bread).

 

[XianThinker]

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.

If the Eucharist is God, wouldn’t that mean you are eating God? If it’s Jesus, wouldn’t that be cannabilism? If someone took the Eucharist and destroyed it, would that mean they killed God? I think saying the Eucharist is God is being too literal.

 

[jpennstar]

Yes so the point I was trying to get around to is that the eucharist, in contrast to all of his other miracles, is unique in that a distinction is made.

In light of the phrase “this is” and “is” how should one understand the following?

John 6
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

He is calling himself bread? So does he then appear to be a man, but “is” in substance bread?

 

[Nita]

If the Eucharist is God, wouldn’t that mean you are eating God?

Yes, it does… We do it because Jesus decreed that is the manner he would use to dwell within us. God desires that close a union with us - to be right within us.

One can ponder why He chose to do it.
Why did He choose to provide His coming within us through tangible means that we could experience?
Why not only the spiritual indwellings? Ponder the differences.
Then it also is very profitable to meditate on why He chose bread and wine as the materials He would use.
It is also very rewarding to note passages in the Old Testament that seem to predict the Eucharist and other sacraments. Just a few samples:
Ps. 132:13-15For the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation:
"This is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.
I will abundantly bless her provisions; I will satisfy her poor with bread.

Ps. 104:15 and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread to strengthen man’s heart.

Jeremiah 31 11-12 For the LORD has ransomed Jacob, and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him.
They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil,
and over the young of the flock and the heard; their life shall be like a watered garden…And of course the OT religious rituals and the manna.

If it’s Jesus, wouldn’t that be cannabilism?

No. Cannibalism is consuming mortal flesh (substance) where the appearances (accidents) of flesh are present tangibly. It is taken for the purpose of nourishing the flesh.

The Eucharist is consuming immortal flesh where the appearances (accidents) of flesh are not present tangibly. The Eucharist is taken for the purpose of nourishing the soul.

(Thought I’d get a little fancy and do some color coding. )

If someone took the Eucharist and destroyed it, would that mean they killed God?

No.
First, God/our risen Lord is immortal. That means He cannot be killed; death has no power over Him.

Second, destructive acts affect the sensible accidents of the sacrament, not the substance of the Eucharist. (The accidents of bread and wine are not changed into the body and blood of Jesus - only the substance of the bread and wine is changed.)

Third, when the Eucharistic species no longer retains the appearance of bread and/or wine, the sacramental presence of Jesus is no longer there — departs, you might say.

I think saying the Eucharist is God is being too literal.

Not if it’s true – which it is.
It is the flesh and blood of the** incarnate Lord**, the Second Person of the Trinity. He is God and He has changed the substance of bread/wine into His substance.

 

[Nita]

Yes so the point I was trying to get around to is that the eucharist, in contrast to all of his other miracles, is unique in that a distinction is made.

In light of the phrase “this is” and “is” how should one understand the following?

John 6
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

He is calling himself bread?

Yes – His flesh and blood “bread” that gives eternal life. His flesh and blood “bread” which must be eaten.
It’s the same as what He says at the Last Supper - the bread is His flesh; He is the bread, it is His flesh.

So does he then appear to be a man, but “is” in substance bread?

I’m presuming by “bread” in this question you mean just regular bread made from flour.

Of course He does not mean, nor does He say, that he is ordinary bread. He specifically says that He means “bread” that comes down from heaven and which can give eternal life. Now you know that is not ordinary bread. He specifically defines what He means by “bread”:
John 6:51 …living bread…; …the bread…is my flesh.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Nita well explained above …just a little fine tuning here…

If the Eucharist is God, wouldn’t that mean you are eating God?
Yes, it does… We do it because Jesus decreed that is the manner he would use to dwell within us. God desires that close a union with us - to be right within us.

Further, some of the words used for “eating” in John’s Gospel have been translated “kindly.” The original Greek actually means “grinding” as if to emphasise the sort of “substantial union” that Nita emphasises here.

***If someone took the Eucharist and destroyed it, would that mean they killed God? ****No. First, God/our risen Lord is immortal. That means He cannot be killed; death has no power over Him. Second, destructive acts affect the sensible accidents of the sacrament, not the substance of the Eucharist. (The accidents of bread and wine are not changed into the body and blood of Jesus - only the substance of the bread and wine is changed.)Third, when the Eucharistic species no longer retains the appearance of bread and/or wine, the sacramental presence of Jesus is no longer there — departs, you might say. *

Nita is saying that Jesus is immortal in a deeper sense than you and I are immortal. While our souls are immortal our bodies are not. Jesus however is now immortal both body and soul for he is already glorified and re-united with his body as we shall be at the end times. (It probably would still hold even if he was only a human Messiah - but we hold him to be a Divine Messiah). He can no longer die.

“Departs” may not be the best way of describing the absence of Jesus when the accidents of bread/wine are no longer verifiable - sounds too much like the departing of the souls of our loved ones at death. Actually the reality you are attempting to name here seems to be exactly what Charles and I were discussing above when we said the Eucharist “contains” (as in localises/circumscribes etc) Jesus. When the bread is gone Jesus is no longer “contained” or localised by the remaining “matter” at hand.

***I think saying the Eucharist is God is being too literal. ***
*… He is God and He has changed the substance of bread/wine into His substance. *
I will accept your criticism if you say that I am being too nitpicky in the following observation.
Strictly speaking the bread does not change into His substance - it is converted. “Change” implies corruption/generation of forms (and the inherent potentiality to do so). “Conversion” implies it is to do with complete substances. yabablo makes this point well I think forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=428082&page=2

 

[jpennstar]

In light of breaking down John 6 in its entirety and not focusing only on the verses which speak of “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, but also including:

26
Jesus answered them and said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled.

27
Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal."

28
So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?”

29
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”

Jesus directly and plainly answered their question. Then they wanted a sign, and stated (wrongly) Moses gave Israel mana. So Jesus goes with this use they understand and then, and only then, begins to refer to himself as the mana.

32
So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

33
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Still they didn’t understand and requested he give them this bread. They are thinking from their bellies just as they had done before at the Galilee sea. Except they think Jesus has bread so they wont hunger.

35
17 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.

36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.

And yet they murmur amongs themselves. So he essentially repeats himself for a second time.

47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

48
I am the bread of life.

49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;

50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

Now the Jews get angry and begin to quarrel amongst themselves. So they went from questioning Jesus, to murmuring, and now they’re quarreling. Now Jesus will repeat himself a third time with even more graphic language.

52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

He repeats himself three times. His own disciples murmur now and eventually leave. But he only ever explains these things to his apostles. He never ever explains these things to anyone else. Good things always came to those who had faith in him and immediately listened to what he had to say.

Then to his apostles he turned and asked them if they would leave him. And the does explain these hard words to them.

63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

It isn’t his flesh that is to no avail, but man’s fleshly understanding. He said this to Peter just as he said to Peter in Matt 16, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but God the Father.” So it is the spirit which will allow for proper understanding.

---

The point I’m getting to is I don’t underestimate the importance of communion, as we’re told to do it in the last supper. And I beleive the Catholic church respects this act fully. But I don’t think this distinction between appearance and substance is warranted in the text alone. And I don’t think the distinction is necessary. I will call it his flesh and his blood just as Jesus did. But in what sense I can’t say.

I find this, for me, to solve a lot of the other questions. I don’t bother to ask if this is then cannibalism. I don’t bother to ask what happens to the eucharist after I eat it, or what happens when it breaks down over time, etc.

Sorry for the big post… I don’t usually like to do this.

 

[jpennstar]

I just realized. These are the same Jews who had received a sign of being fed; yet they’re asking for another.

It makes no sense, with such a lack of faith, to bother explainnig anything to them.

 

[jpennstar]

A Catholic Exposition with quotes from St Augustine.

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition

Ver. 36. You demand this bread; behold it is before you, and yet you eat it not. I am the bread; to believe in me is to eat me. You see me, but you believe not in me. (St. Augustine) — It is to this place that those words of St. Augustine are to be referred: “Why do you prepare your teeth and belly? believe in me, and you have eaten me.” Words which do not destroy the real presence, of which he is not speaking in this verse. (Maldonatus, 35.) — Jesus Christ leads them gradually to this great mystery, which he knows will prove a stumbling block to many. The chapter begins with the miraculous multiplication of the loaves; then Christ walking on the sea; next he blames the Jews for following him not through faith in his miracles, but for the loaves and fishes, and tells them to labour for that nourishment which perishes not, by believing in Him, whom the Father had sent; and then promises, that what their fathers had received in figure only, the manna, the faithful shall receive in reality; his own body and blood.

 

[Nita]

***I think saying the Eucharist is God is being too literal. ***
*… He is God and He has changed the substance of bread/wine into His substance. *

I will accept your criticism if you say that I am being too nitpicky in the following observation.
Strictly speaking the bread does not change into His substance - it is converted. “Change” implies corruption/generation of forms (and the inherent potentiality to do so). “Conversion” implies it is to do with complete substances. yabablo makes this point well I think forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=428082&page=2

Aquinas uses both terms. “Change” happened to be the word used in the sections I was most absorbed in when replying.

For any interested, you can read the Summa on the Eucharist/transubstantiation here:
newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm (Question 75. “Of the Change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.”)

newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm (Question 76, “Of the Way in which Christ is in this Sacrament”)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Aquinas uses both terms. “Change” happened to be the word used in the sections I was most absorbed in when replying.

For any interested, you can read the Summa on the Eucharist/transubstantiation here:
newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm (Question 75. “Of the Change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.”)

newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm (Question 76, “Of the Way in which Christ is in this Sacrament”)

Nita
Do have a closer look, especially at the Latin rather than (perhaps) a less than exact English translation as on the NewAdvent site. I have not checked the Latin directly myself but I can readily see contradictions in the New Advent translation you reference.

For example, at newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article4 the heading at the top is:

“4.Is it **changed **into the body and blood of Christ?”

Yet when we actually go down to that article the heading becomes:
“Article 4. Whether bread can be converted into the body of Christ?”

Maybe Aquinas does occasionally slip in the word “change” even in the Latin. However it is clear from his own philosophical explanations that such use by him would be understood to be generically intended and is not exact. When he gets into the philosophical nitty gritty he does not appear to use the word “change.”

 

[Nita]

Nita
Do have a closer look, especially at the Latin rather than (perhaps) a less than exact English translation as on the NewAdvent site. I have not checked the Latin directly myself but I can readily see contradictions in the New Advent translation you reference.

For example, at newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article4 the heading at the top is:

“4.Is it **changed **into the body and blood of Christ?”

Yet when we actually go down to that article the heading becomes:
“Article 4. Whether bread can be converted into the body of Christ?”

Maybe Aquinas does occasionally slip in the word “change” even in the Latin. However it is clear from his own philosophical explanations that such use by him would be understood to be generically intended and is not exact. When he gets into the philosophical nitty gritty he does not appear to use the word “change.”

I actually used my hard cover volumes of the Summa (I hate reading anything lengthy on computer screens); both terms were used there. I just like providing links so people can check out what I say in case they don’t have the books. I don’t have a Latin version of the Summa, and don’t know if there is one online.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I actually used my hard cover volumes of the Summa (I hate reading anything lengthy on computer screens); both terms were used there. I just like providing links so people can check out what I say in case they don’t have the books. I don’t have a Latin version of the Summa, and don’t know if there is one online.

Thats fine but you do have to be careful when you counter my observation and opine “Aquinas uses both terms…” (for the “change” known as transubstantiation) when you are not actually sighting Aquinas’s Latin text.

I have just consulted the Latin text and I believe the NewAdvent English “translation” appears sloppy. Aquinas actually uses “convert” in all places where he is clearly referring to the “change” we would call transubstantiation. NewAdvent appears to translate many of those “converts” as “change.”

The difference in word use is important and indicates the “replacement” of the substance of bread by the substance of Jesus is also done in a very uinique manner. Of course “change” is perfectly acceptable in colloquial use.