Quick Question on the Eucharist

[spockrates]

Hi,

I’m having a deep discussion regarding the Eucharist at another discussion forum, and the thoughtful Protestant is asking me some questions I cannot answer. For example, he is asking me if Jesus is the bread of the Eucharist. Not sure how to answer that one. Anyone have a clue?

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… hi dear friend ,

… grseat to see you again , the bread and wine are called accidents , they have the appearance of bread and wine but after consecration become god the holy trinity in substance , it’s a miracle , it’s the entire holy trinity with jesus’ body . blood , soul and divinity , to understand how the entire god can be present in his entirety in all or any part of the consecrated host and wine to precious blood just understand that god and jesus are infinite love and that infinite love is present everywhere but also anywhere and one place in it’s entirety at one time , so gods love is infinite and present evrywhere and even in the most infinitesimally small place or space in it’s entirety at one time , this makes it easy to understand how the entire god is present in that little waifer etc i hope , and when consecrated the bread and wine simply become that which is already there – god , in his entirety , as said it is accidental that it still looks like bread and wine , it’s substance though not visible now to the human eye has been miraculously changed into god who was already there , so the bread and wine is now truly the entirety of god , hope this helps ??? ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[promethius]

Hi,

I’m having a deep discussion regarding the Eucharist at another discussion forum, and the thoughtful Protestant is asking me some questions I cannot answer. For example, he is asking me if Jesus is the bread of the Eucharist. Not sure how to answer that one. Anyone have a clue?

He has it exactly backwards. The accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist are literally the Body and Blood of Jesus through transubstantiation. I’m sure what he’s doing is buttering you up to try and hit you with more questions, so allow me to clarify a bit what transubstantiation and how St Thomas Aquinas explained it as working:

Let me give you a philosophy primer and then a metaphor…

***The primer:
**Reality is not defined by existence, but rather by essense. In the greek philosophy, let’s say simply that the idea of a man preceeds the existance of man… in other words, I am a man because I have the ESSENSE of a man, and incidently I have the body of a man to go with that essense… but my “maleness” existed before my body. This is contrary to existentialism that says I’m only a man because I have the body of a man. So to everyone before Neitsche and existentialism came around, reality was defined by the essense of something… THAT was reality, not just what you saw sitting before you.

**Metaphor (or, how this applies):
**Let’s say I have a clock. It has a wood housing, a face, gears, hands, etc. But the clock is a clock because it is a timekeeping piece. My clock could just as easily be made entirely from metal. It could be digital and have no gears. It is a clock because it’s ESSENSE says it is a timekeeping piece known as a clock.

One day my clock breaks. It will no longer tick or tell time (as I like to joke, it becomes accurate only twice a day). I start to set it on papers to keep them from blowing off of my desk. The clock no longer tells time, it now has the essense of a paperweight. It still has the wood, the gears, the hands, the face of a clock… but it does not have the very essense of a clock. This is no longer a clock, it is a paperweight in the physical appearance of a clock.

In the same way, we have the bread, but the institution of the Eucharist REMOVES the essense of bread from it’s physical existance. This essense, it’s real being, is replaced totally by the essense of Body of Christ. As such, it is Christ in the physical appearance of bread. The reality is the essense, that the real being of the bread, it’s essense, is now that of the Body of Christ.

(Side note: in church dialogue, these two natures of objects are known as substance and accident. So transubstantiation removes the substance (essense) and replaces it with new substance, while the physical accident (existence) is unchanged. This is not merely a spiritual change, however, remember we are talking pre-neitsche where essense is reality, not existence).
*
*For a scriptural defense of the real presence, this site is excellent: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
*

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

He has it exactly backwards. The accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist are literally the Body and Blood of Jesus through transubstantiation. I’m sure what he’s doing is buttering you up to try and hit you with more questions, so allow me to clarify a bit what transubstantiation and how St Thomas Aquinas explained it as working:

Let me give you a philosophy primer and then a metaphor…

***The primer: ***
Reality is not defined by existence, but rather by essense. In the greek philosophy, let’s say simply that the idea of a man preceeds the existance of man… in other words, I am a man because I have the ESSENSE of a man, and incidently I have the body of a man to go with that essense… but my “maleness” existed before my body. This is contrary to existentialism that says I’m only a man because I have the body of a man. So to everyone before Neitsche and existentialism came around, reality was defined by the essense of something… THAT was reality, not just what you saw sitting before you.

Metaphor (or, how this applies):
Let’s say I have a clock. It has a wood housing, a face, gears, hands, etc. But the clock is a clock because it is a timekeeping piece. My clock could just as easily be made entirely from metal. It could be digital and have no gears. It is a clock because it’s ESSENSE says it is a timekeeping piece known as a clock.

*One day my clock breaks. It will no longer tick or tell time (as I like to joke, it becomes accurate only twice a day). I start to set it on papers to keep them from blowing off of my desk. The clock no longer tells time, it now has the essense of a paperweight. It still has the wood, the gears, the hands, the face of a clock… but it does not have the very essense of a clock. This is no longer a clock, it is a paperweight in the physical appearance of a clock. *

*In the same way, we have the bread, but the institution of the Eucharist REMOVES the essense of bread from it’s physical existance. This essense, it’s real being, is replaced totally by the essense of Body of Christ. As such, it is Christ in the physical appearance of bread. The reality is the essense, that the real being of the bread, it’s essense, is now that of the Body of Christ. *

*(Side note: in church dialogue, these two natures of objects are known as substance and accident. So transubstantiation removes the substance (essense) and replaces it with new substance, while the physical accident (existence) is unchanged. This is not merely a spiritual change, however, remember we are talking pre-neitsche where essense is reality, not existence). *

For a scriptural defense of the real presence, this site is excellent: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

… i just got the terms wrong i see now , thx for correcting them , it’s been a long nite here …

 

[spockrates]

… hi dear friend ,

… grseat to see you again , the bread and wine are called accidents , they have the appearance of bread and wine but after consecration become god the holy trinity in substance , it’s a miracle , it’s the entire holy trinity with jesus’ body . blood , soul and divinity , to understand how the entire god can be present in his entirety in all or any part of the consecrated host and wine to precious blood just understand that god and jesus are infinite love and that infinite love is present everywhere but also anywhere and one place in it’s entirety at one time , so gods love is infinite and present evrywhere and even in the most infinitesimally small place or space in it’s entirety at one time , this makes it easy to understand how the entire god is present in that little waifer etc i hope , and when consecrated the bread and wine simply become that which is already there – god , in his entirety , as said it is accidental that it still looks like bread and wine , it’s substance though not visible now to the human eye has been miraculously changed into god who was already there , so the bread and wine is now truly the entirety of god , hope this helps ??? ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

Thanks, John. Good to see you again, my friend!



My thought was this: The Eucharist is Christ metaphysically, but not physically. That is, the Eucharist is the metaphysical (non-physical) real presence of Christ’s body, soul and divinity. So the bread is literally physical bread, but it is also literally metaphysical (or non-physical) Christ. Does this sound close to what the Church teaches, or closer to heresy?

 

[spockrates]

He has it exactly backwards. The accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist are literally the Body and Blood of Jesus through transubstantiation. I’m sure what he’s doing is buttering you up to try and hit you with more questions, so allow me to clarify a bit what transubstantiation and how St Thomas Aquinas explained it as working:

Let me give you a philosophy primer and then a metaphor…

***The primer:
***Reality is not defined by existence, but rather by essense. In the greek philosophy, let’s say simply that the idea of a man preceeds the existance of man… in other words, I am a man because I have the ESSENSE of a man, and incidently I have the body of a man to go with that essense… but my “maleness” existed before my body. This is contrary to existentialism that says I’m only a man because I have the body of a man. So to everyone before Neitsche and existentialism came around, reality was defined by the essense of something… THAT was reality, not just what you saw sitting before you.

**Metaphor (or, how this applies):
**Let’s say I have a clock. It has a wood housing, a face, gears, hands, etc. But the clock is a clock because it is a timekeeping piece. My clock could just as easily be made entirely from metal. It could be digital and have no gears. It is a clock because it’s ESSENSE says it is a timekeeping piece known as a clock.

One day my clock breaks. It will no longer tick or tell time (as I like to joke, it becomes accurate only twice a day). I start to set it on papers to keep them from blowing off of my desk. The clock no longer tells time, it now has the essense of a paperweight. It still has the wood, the gears, the hands, the face of a clock… but it does not have the very essense of a clock. This is no longer a clock, it is a paperweight in the physical appearance of a clock.

In the same way, we have the bread, but the institution of the Eucharist REMOVES the essense of bread from it’s physical existance. This essense, it’s real being, is replaced totally by the essense of Body of Christ. As such, it is Christ in the physical appearance of bread. The reality is the essense, that the real being of the bread, it’s essense, is now that of the Body of Christ.

(Side note: in church dialogue, these two natures of objects are known as substance and accident. So transubstantiation removes the substance (essense) and replaces it with new substance, while the physical accident (existence) is unchanged. This is not merely a spiritual change, however, remember we are talking pre-neitsche where essense is reality, not existence).

For a scriptural defense of the real presence, this site is excellent: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

I think I understand, Paul. My thinking (perhaps in error) is that the Eucharist is both bread and Christ. That is, it is bread physically (because it looks, feels, smells and tastes like bread). But the Eucharist is Christ metaphysically, or non-physically (because the body, soul and divinity of Christ are, when they are the Eucharist, metaphysical, rather than physical).

That is, the bread does not have the physical essence (or atoms) of Christ’s physical body, but it does have the metaphysical essence (or atomlessness) of Christ’s metaphysical body.

To me, this makes sense. The body that Christ had after His resurrection was physical, but the body that arrived in Heaven, after He ascended, must be metaphysical. For Heaven is not a physical place where physical things exist in the time and space we experience as reality.

Is this sound, or does it not quite sound the same as the teaching of the Church?

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Thanks, John. Good to see you again, my friend!



My thought was this: The Eucharist is Christ metaphysically, but not physically. That is, the Eucharist is the metaphysical (non-physical) real presence of Christ’s body, soul and divinity. So the bread is literally physical bread, but it is also literally metaphysical (or non-physical) Christ. Does this sound close to what the Church teaches, or closer to heresy?

… my dear friend ,

… i think the consecrated bread and wine change miraculously into god and jesus in their entirety so they are no longer bread and wine though they appear so to the eye , not sure exactly what the church says but it is christ in his entirety , i see matter and body as a different type and degree of the spiritual and hence being spirit in glorified form and divinity it can and does act as the holy trinity which it is joined to and part of , some of my own theory which i don’t believe is against church teaching as such ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[spockrates]

… my dear friend ,

… i think the consecrated bread and wine change miraculously into god and jesus in their entirety so they are no longer bread and wine though they appear so to the eye , not sure exactly what the church says but it is christ in his entirety , i see matter and body as a different type and degree of the spiritual and hence being spirit in glorified form and divinity it can and does act as the holy trinity which it is joined to and part of , some of my own theory which i don’t believe is against church teaching as such ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

Thanks John. I’d say that if the Eucharist is the physical flesh and blood of Christ, than it must be cloaked. For a DNA test would confirm it has the atoms of bread, rather than human DNA. So I’m not quite sure I understand, but I’m trying to learn!

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Thanks John. I’d say that if the Eucharist is the physical flesh and blood of Christ, than it must be cloaked. For a DNA test would confirm it has the atoms of bread, rather than human DNA. So I’m not quite sure I understand, but I’m trying to learn!

… my dear friend ,

… at the consecaration the one time sacrifice of christ takes place in an unbloody fashion – the same sacrifice of calvary , this can be so because with god there is no time so the sacrifice is always present and made so at holy mass , but the consecrated bread and wine have the look , feel , touch , smell , taste and all the physical characteristics of bread and wine although they are no longer bread and wine at all having been miraculously changed completely into god and christ , all the holy angels and saints do not see bread and wine once consecrated – they only see god , it is veiled from our eyes this most sacred mystery , we see god with the eyes of faith only now , it’s a miracle – looks etc like bread and wine but is really god now even if we cannot perceive it , hope this helps dear friend ??? ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[promethius]

I think I understand, Paul. My thinking (perhaps in error) is that the Eucharist is both bread and Christ.

That’s a concept known as CONSUBSTANTIATION, which is rejected by the church. The Eucharist is truly and ONLY the Body and Blood of Christ.

That is, it is bread physically (because it looks, feels, smells and tastes like bread). But the Eucharist is Christ metaphysically, or non-physically (because the body, soul and divinity of Christ are, when they are the Eucharist, metaphysical, rather than physical).

What it is, physically, is an accident of bread with a molecular structure similar to bread, but what it actually IS is totally and completely Body and Blood of Christ. Its entire existence is changed by the removal of its previous substance and replacement with the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

That is, the bread does not have the physical -]essence/-] accident (or atoms) of Christ’s physical body, but it does have the -]metaphysical/-] essence (or -]atomlessness/-] real being) of Christ’s -]metaphysical/-] body.

There, fixed it.

To me, this makes sense. The body that Christ had after His resurrection was physical, but the body that arrived in Heaven, after He ascended, must be metaphysical. For Heaven is not a physical place where physical things exist in the time and space we experience as reality.

Nope, Christ has a physical body in heaven. He was bodily raised from earth and to heaven.

Difficult? Yes, it is a mystery of the Church.

Is this sound, or does it not quite sound the same as the teaching of the Church?

A few minor corrections, but you’re close.

You’re placing too much emphasis on the physical molecules as being reality. Those are not reality, they are simply how reality has taken shape. No one two hunded years ago would have thought that existence determined essense or reality. Nietsche was the one who came up with that very heretical idea… an idea he backed with the assertion that God is dead. In reality, when the essense/substance of an object changes, that thing’s being changes as well, even if it looks, tastes, smells the same as before.

The broken clock sitting on my papers on my desk is no longer a clock at all, it is a paperweight so long as it continues not to work in clock manner. It looks like a clock. It has the molecules of a clock and the parts of a clock, but as long as it is broken and being used as a paperweight, it is not a clock. It is a paperweight.

The Eucharist in the mass is no longer bread. It looks like bread. It has the molecular structure of bread, tastes, and smells like bread, but as it has been consecrated it is substantially (or in essense) the Body of Christ, it is not a piece of bread. It IS the Body of Christ.

 

[spockrates]

… my dear friend ,

… at the consecaration the one time sacrifice of christ takes place in an unbloody fashion – the same sacrifice of calvary , this can be so because with god there is no time so the sacrifice is always present and made so at holy mass , but the consecrated bread and wine have the look , feel , touch , smell , taste and all the physical characteristics of bread and wine although they are no longer bread and wine at all having been miraculously changed completely into god and christ , all the holy angels and saints do not see bread and wine once consecrated – they only see god , it is veiled from our eyes this most sacred mystery , we see god with the eyes of faith only now , it’s a miracle – looks etc like bread and wine but is really god now even if we cannot perceive it , hope this helps dear friend ??? ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

Thanks John. Sorry for asking, but I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying the Eucharist does have the physical body of Christ, or are you agreeing that it is physically bread and only has the metaphysical (atomless) body of Christ?

 

[spockrates]

That’s a concept known as CONSUBSTANTIATION, which is rejected by the church. The Eucharist is truly and ONLY the Body and Blood of Christ. What it is, physically, is an accident of bread with a molecular structure similar to bread, but what it actually IS is totally and completely Body and Blood of Christ. Its entire existence is changed by the removal of its previous substance and replacement with the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

OK, but I’m trying to understand what it means to say the Eucharist is truly and only the Body and Blood of Christ. It sounds as though you are saying the attributes of the bread (its atoms, DNA and so forth) are NOT the Eucharist. Am I understanding you correctly?

That is, the bread does not have the physical [accident] (or atoms) of Christ’s physical body, but it does have the essence (or [real being]) of Christ’s body.

There, fixed it.

Let me try to wrap my mind around that, and at least apprehend it.

accident = atoms

essence or real being = not atoms

So the accidents of the bread are the atoms of the bread; the accidents of Christ’s resurrected body are the atoms of Christ’s resurrected body. The essence or real being of the bread is that which is not atoms, but which is still bread. The essence or real being of Christ’s body is that which is not atoms, but which is still His body. True, or not quite?

Nope, Christ has a physical body in heaven. He was bodily raised from earth and to heaven.

Difficult? Yes, it is a mystery of the Church.

Possible, I suppose, if Heaven is not an absence of the physical but something extra-physical, or beyond physical.

A few minor corrections, but you’re close.

You’re placing too much emphasis on the physical molecules as being reality. Those are not reality, they are simply how reality has taken shape. No one two hunded years ago would have thought that existence determined essense or reality. Nietsche was the one who came up with that very heretical idea… an idea he backed with the assertion that God is dead. In reality, when the essense/substance of an object changes, that thing’s being changes as well, even if it looks, tastes, smells the same as before.

Perhaps you are right.

The broken clock sitting on my papers on my desk is no longer a clock at all, it is a paperweight so long as it continues not to work in clock manner. It looks like a clock. It has the molecules of a clock and the parts of a clock, but as long as it is broken and being used as a paperweight, it is not a clock. It is a paperweight.

I wonder about the analogy. One thing I wonder is this: What changed the essence or real being of the clock. Was it a change of accidents, or a change of something else?

The Eucharist in the mass is no longer bread. It looks like bread. It has the molecular structure of bread, tastes, and smells like bread, but as it has been consecrated it is substantially (or in essense) the Body of Christ, it is not a piece of bread. It IS the Body of Christ.

Yes, trying to apprehend (even though I can’t fully understand) how it is not bread. Thanks for your patience, and sorry this is turning out to be more than merely a quick question!

 

[steve_b]

I think I understand, Paul. My thinking (perhaps in error) is that the Eucharist is both bread and Christ. That is, it is bread physically (because it looks, feels, smells and tastes like bread). But the Eucharist is Christ metaphysically, or non-physically (because the body, soul and divinity of Christ are, when they are the Eucharist, metaphysical, rather than physical).

That is, the bread does not have the physical essence (or atoms) of Christ’s physical body, but it does have the metaphysical essence (or atomlessness) of Christ’s metaphysical body.

To me, this makes sense. The body that Christ had after His resurrection was physical, but the body that arrived in Heaven, after He ascended, must be metaphysical. For Heaven is not a physical place where physical things exist in the time and space we experience as reality.

Is this sound, or does it not quite sound the same as the teaching of the Church?

Mt 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, (Eucharisteo) he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”…

Lk 22:19

do this in remembrance of me

1 Corinthians 11:27
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

After consecration, Bread and wine still looks and tastes like bread and wine. But they are no longer JUST bread and wine otherwise, that’s an awfully severe consequence Paul warns about, for not recognizing the distinction, … true?

2 Pet 1: 13…
I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

We have no reason to believe any of this except for Jesus, through the witness of the apostles who were there, through the witness of the Catholic Church who was there, as it is today, and forever.

 

[steve_b]

The body that Christ had after His resurrection was physical, but the body that arrived in Heaven, after He ascended, must be metaphysical. For Heaven is not a physical place where physical things exist in the time and space we experience as reality.

Is this sound, or does it not quite sound the same as the teaching of the Church?

Jesus has a physical body in heaven. He still bares the marks of the crucifixion. Mary is in heaven, body and soul also. The ascension and the assumption.

 

[spockrates]

Jesus has a physical body in heaven. He still bares the marks of the crucifixion. Mary is in heaven, body and soul also. The ascension and the assumption.

Yes, thanks Steve.

 

[promethius]

OK, but I’m trying to understand what it means to say the Eucharist is truly and only the Body and Blood of Christ. It sounds as though you are saying the attributes of the bread (its atoms, DNA and so forth) are NOT the Eucharist. Am I understanding you correctly?

Not precisely. They make up the accident of the Eucharist, but not it’s real being. They are there, but the Eucharist (after Consecration) is the flesh and blood of Christ.

Let me try to wrap my mind around that, and at least apprehend it.
accident = atoms

essence or real being = not atoms
So the accidents of the bread are the atoms of the bread; the accidents of Christ’s resurrected body are the atoms of Christ’s resurrected body. The essence or real being of the bread is that which is not atoms, but which is still bread. The essence or real being of Christ’s body is that which is not atoms, but which is still His body. True, or not quite?

This is true. Substance is what a thing is, while accidents are it’s particular physical make-up.

Let me give you an example… you’re a demi-god right now with the power to create simple things. I tell you to create a rock. You think of a rock, and use your divine powers to create one.

Did the essense (in this case, your thought) of a rock preceed the existance of that rock… or did the rock have to pop into existence before you ever even thought of it?

I wonder about the analogy. One thing I wonder is this: What changed the essence or real being of the clock. Was it a change of accidents, or a change of something else?

In this case, I changed it (because this is not a case of Divine Transubstantiation). My clock broke and became a useless hunk of metal and wood. I gave it a new purpose or being and began using it as a paperweight. The accident never changed, it still has all the physical make-up of a clock, even in its form. I could just as easily have had it fixed and it would have become a clock again.

Yes, trying to apprehend (even though I can’t fully understand) how it is not bread. Thanks for your patience, and sorry this is turning out to be more than merely a quick question!

This is the problem with modern philosophy. You’re giving too much credence to the existence of the rock as to being what it is. When God decides that a rock is now a dog, but that that dog maintains the appearance of a rock (and all it’s molecules), then the rock ceases to be a rock and becomes a very quiet and stationary dog. In the same way, when the substance of the bread is removed, and replaced by the Substance of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, the bread ceases to be bread anymore. It is the Body of Christ in the appearance of bread.

 

[spockrates]

… In this case, I changed it (because this is not a case of Divine Transubstantiation). My clock broke and became a useless hunk of metal and wood. I gave it a new purpose or being and began using it as a paperweight. The accident never changed, it still has all the physical make-up of a clock, even in its form. I could just as easily have had it fixed and it would have become a clock again. …

Paul:

Thanks again for helping me apprehend. Here is the difficulty I’m having–it’s not with believing the substance of a physical thing is not its atoms. It’s with an apparent (possibly not real?) logical contradiction.

It sounds as though you are saying the substance of a thing causes the thing to be what it is. I’m thinking that a cause always precedes its effect. You are also saying that when the accidents of a thing change (the gears of the clock break), the substance then changes. So I’m thinking the change in the accidents, since it occurs prior to the change in substance, is the cause of what the object becomes. Hence, the accidents caused the change in the substance of the thing (in this case, the broken gears caused the substance of the clock to become the substance of a paper wait). Thus, accidents are what ultimately causes an object to become what it is–not substance.

But with Transubstantiation, isn’t it believed to be the other way around? Doesn’t the substance ultimately cause the bread to be what it becomes (the body of Christ), rather than the accidents? So I’m thinking there is a flaw in your analogy, or a logical contradiction with Transubstantiation. I guess the former, rather than the latter, must be the case. Then again, perhaps there is a third possibility: My understanding of the whole thing is clear as mud, and what I think to be a contradiction is in fact not.

 

[Philthy]

I hope Im not stepping on Paul’s feet here…

Thanks again for helping me apprehend. Here is the difficulty I’m having–it’s not with believing the substance of a physical thing is not its atoms. It’s with an apparent (possibly not real?) logical contradiction. It sounds as though you are saying the substance of a thing causes the thing to be what it is.

The substance (or essence) of a thing is the essential characteristic of a thing which determines it as being what it is. Apart from this essence, or essential nature, it is not that particular thing (For such a thing is determined to be said thing by possessing a particular essence (or substance)).

I’m thinking that a cause always precedes its effect. You are also saying that when the accidents of a thing change (the gears of the clock break), the substance then changes.

The metaphor was somewhat tenuous so I can understand why you thought this. But if I’m not mistaken, the metaphor of the clock was to demonstrate the difference between essence and accidents. The essence of “that which is a clock” is time telling. The accidents of “that which is a clock” are hands, a face, numbers, gears, power source, etc. And the point of the metaphor was that even if the accidents remain UNCHANGED the ESSENCE can still change. And conversely, if the essence changes, it is possible for the accidents to remain unchanged. I believe this latter expression is what we hold by faith regarding the Eucharist: the essence has changed (bread has become God), the accidents have remained unchanged: atomic structure is unchanged. Again, this is my understanding of Paul’s example. Hopefully he will weigh in on this…

So I’m thinking the change in the accidents, since it occurs prior to the change in substance, is the cause of what the object becomes. Hence, the accidents caused the change in the substance of the thing (in this case, the broken gears caused the substance of the clock to become the substance of a paper wait). Thus, accidents are what ultimately causes an object to become what it is–not substance.

Causality is not part of the discussion in the Eucharist, though, again, I understand why you bring this up based on the metaphor of the clock. Regardless of cause, whatever essence is possessed determines “what it is”.

But with Transubstantiation, isn’t it believed to be the other way around? Doesn’t the substance ultimately cause the bread to be what it becomes (the body of Christ), rather than the accidents?

The substance defines what it is in essence; the accidents are incidental properties of matter that may or may not accompany it - they are optional, but the essence is mandatory.

So I’m thinking there is a flaw in your analogy

You are correct that there is a limitation to the analogy, but this is true of most metaphors.

Then again, perhaps there is a third possibility: My understanding of the whole thing is clear as mud, and what I think to be a contradiction is in fact not.

Lets be clear: no one even begins to grasp how it is possible for ordinary bread to become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. We accept it by faith because it has been revealed to us. We can expand on this Truth with bits and pieces in order to draw lines in the sand (ie reject heresies “it’s only a symbol”), but that is a far cry from understanding it. It - like the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation - is, and will always be, a Mystery of the faith.

Blessings!

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Thanks John. Sorry for asking, but I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying the Eucharist does have the physical body of Christ, or are you agreeing that it is physically bread and only has the metaphysical (atomless) body of Christ?

… my dear friend ,

… it’s no longer bread or wine once consecrated at all , it is now christ physically but we can’t see it now – that is all ,it’s a miraculous change but really no longer bread and wine , it is now god , it is actually more than christ though , you cannot separate the holy trinity so it is the entire holy trinity in all or any part of the consecrated bread and wine , no longer bread and wine at all , it just looks like it as said dear friend – miracle !!! ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[thenobes]

Lets be clear: no one even begins to grasp how it is possible for ordinary bread to become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
Blessings!

Ooh-ooh! I do!

If we look at Aquinas’ definition of a soul, that it is the organizing and guiding principle of a living entity, we can see that if Christ extends His human Soul to some form of matter, that is in this case bread, then it must become the object of a human soul, that is Body and Blood. However, Christ also transfers His Glory to it as well, and enables the matter to retain properties distinct to Bread. But, it in actuality is, due to the presence of Christ’s human soul, Christ’s Body and Blood.

Of course this hasn’t been declared dogma, but it satisfies me.

peace
steve