Quick Question on the Eucharist

[jmj1984]

No offence to others that have posted here, but I think we should be happy to limit an explanantion of how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ to the church’s explanation. Transubstantiation simply means that the bread and wine look, taste and feel like bread and wine but in fact ARE the body and blood of Christ. It explains this by use of the terms ‘accidents’, this simply means things that are necessary for something to be itself for example blue eyes do not make someone human, not does having arms because some people are born without arms etc… Rather the ‘substance’ or ‘substantial reality’ makes a human, human, the substance is what is absolutely necessary for that person to be human. In the same way the body and blood of christ in the Eucharist have the accidents of bread and wine but the Substance or ‘underlying reality’ of the body and blood of Christ. To go any further than this and talk about atoms and so on, with all due respect, does no one any good and merely confuses people myself included.

It is also important to note that the Church teaches that the Eucharist contaisn not only his body and blood but also his soul and divinity, it thus truly IS Jesus Christ, thereby justfying the practice of Eucharistic adoration.

 

[raymond_king]

… 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 …

Indeed, this all seems like a stupid bunch of nonsense , but if you attend to the words of our Benediction Ceremonies you will aquire a sense of what the Eurcharist means: You will see that it is is a much wider meaning than the bread and wine you will in the heart the kingdom of the Lord. Forget acccdents and substances: Behold, within the mind’s spirit the learning of His Kingdom: Behold The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This revelation can only come the Light of The Anointed. This is the only way we want him the rest is superfluous. Ray

 

[raymond_king]

No offence to others that have posted here, but I think we should be happy to limit an explanantion of how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ to the church’s explanation. Transubstantiation simply means that the bread and wine look, taste and feel like bread and wine but in fact ARE the body and blood of Christ. It explains this by use of the terms ‘accidents’, this simply means things that are necessary for something to be itself for example blue eyes do not make someone human, not does having arms because some people are born without arms etc… Rather the ‘substance’ or ‘substantial reality’ makes a human, human, the substance is what is absolutely necessary for that person to be human. In the same way the body and blood of christ in the Eucharist have the accidents of bread and wine but the Substance or ‘underlying reality’ of the body and blood of Christ. To go any further than this and talk about atoms and so on, with all due respect, does no one any good and merely confuses people myself included.

It is also important to note that the Church teaches that the Eucharist contaisn not only his body and blood but also his soul and divinity, it thus truly IS Jesus Christ, thereby justfying the practice of Eucharistic adoration.

So, this is a positive account that we can rely on. So, you learned from where? So I can look on the uplifting of the bread and be assured that this is Jesus? Ray

 

[raymond_king]

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.

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?

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.

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.

If you meditate upon the prayers of the Benediction. The prayers of the new and everlasting covenant you will see in the mind of faith what the kingdom of the Lord means. these are the prayers of St. Aquinas. See also St. Hilary of Poitier. The Eucharistic celebration encompasses the whole world of the ‘communion of saints’. the dogma does far beyond what we hear every day at mass. Pay attention to the structure and every word of the mass. the Holy Spirit–The Life Giver–will let you Know–Will let you Know Himself . Ray

 

[spockrates]

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

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)).
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…
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”.

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

Hi, Philthy. Good to see you again, my friend! I believe the intention of the analogy was to show that when the accidents change, the essence does not. BUT that is not the result of he analogy. The result of the analogy was that when the accidents change, they change the essence. The removal of the accidents (the gears or hands of an analogical clock) results in a change of essence (the essence of a timekeeping device changed to the essence of a paper weight). The analogy actually demonstrates the *opposite *of what is believed to take place with the Eucharist! Thus, another analogy would be needed, for this one will never convince the Protestant skeptic.

So I think the best course of action for us is to decide which is the truth: (1) there are examples, other than the Eucharist, of things normally having a change of essence without a change of accidents, or (2) there are no examples, besides the Eucharist, of things having a change of accidents without a change of essence. At the moment, I do not see how any example other than the Eucharist exists, so option (1) does not seem a good way to defend the belief.

I do see a way to defend option (2), however: If the Protestant skeptic says the lack of analogies proves the Eucharist is a lie, we might ask her if the Trinity is a lie. When she answers that it is indeed not, we might then ask her if there is any adequate analogy for the Trinity. Any analogy she suggests, we will be able to easily debunk and show how it is inadequate. All we then have to do is ask this:

“Since we believe the Trinity to be true even though there are no good analogies to explain it, then why should we believe the Eucharist to be a lie just because it also has no good analogies to explain it?”

 

[spockrates]

… 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 …

Thanks John. Never thought that the Eucharist was also the Father and the Spirit. I suppose it’s possible. Is this a topic of acceptable debate among Catholics, or has the Church made a declaration regarding more than one person of God being the Eucharist?

 

[raymond_king]

… 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 …

Are we so afraid about the reality of His existence that we have to grasped onto other peoples words like a life raft. Go to the Benediction celebrations ask Our Spirit to teach you the Real Presence. Let Faith Arise to open your eyes! Do not be afraid to hear the words that come forth from your soul {heart and mind} yourself might be amazed. Ray

 

[spockrates]

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

Excellent, Steve! And this might be the analogy we need. I mean, take a man who is a marathon runner and amputate the accident of his legs, he might no longer be a runner, but runner is NOT his essence. Human is. Legs or not, he is still human. So here we have an analogy of a change of accidents not changing the essence of someone.Well done!

 

[spockrates]

No offence to others that have posted here, but I think we should be happy to limit an explanantion of how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ to the church’s explanation. Transubstantiation simply means that the bread and wine look, taste and feel like bread and wine but in fact ARE the body and blood of Christ. It explains this by use of the terms ‘accidents’, this simply means things that are necessary for something to be itself for example blue eyes do not make someone human, not does having arms because some people are born without arms etc… Rather the ‘substance’ or ‘substantial reality’ makes a human, human, the substance is what is absolutely necessary for that person to be human. In the same way the body and blood of christ in the Eucharist have the accidents of bread and wine but the Substance or ‘underlying reality’ of the body and blood of Christ. To go any further than this and talk about atoms and so on, with all due respect, does no one any good and merely confuses people myself included.

It is also important to note that the Church teaches that the Eucharist contaisn not only his body and blood but also his soul and divinity, it thus truly IS Jesus Christ, thereby justfying the practice of Eucharistic adoration.

Yes, I see how the human analogy is a good way to explain how the concept of accidents and essence is a true one.

 

[raymond_king]

Thanks John. Never thought that the Eucharist was also the Father and the Spirit. I suppose it’s possible. Is this a topic of acceptable debate among Catholics, or has the Church made a declaration regarding more than one person of God being the Eucharist?

Yes,myself, Iwas very amazed that the trinity of persons resided within the Holy Eucharist. I learned this by hearing. It was in june, the month of the sacred heart. The feast day of Corpus Christa. The month of the feast of St. anthony of Padua. From a Song about the sacred heart that was sang at mass. The sacred heart is the father and the son. He gives us His Heart–The Heart of God. Ray:shrug:

 

[jmj1984]

Yes,myself, Iwas very amazed that the trinity of persons resided within the Holy Eucharist. I learned this by hearing. It was in june, the month of the sacred heart. The feast day of Corpus Christa. The month of the feast of St. anthony of Padua. From a Song about the sacred heart that was sang at mass. The sacred heart is the father and the son. He gives us His Heart–The Heart of God. Ray:shrug:

If I may say so this sounds a little theologically suspect, as neither God the father nor the holy spirit have bodies I cannot see how they could be in the eucharist, nor does it appear to make sense as we ask the holy spirit not to come into the eucharist but to transform it into the body and blood of Christ, not that of the whole trinity. Going any further is heterodox.

 

[promethius]

Hi, Philthy. Good to see you again, my friend! I believe the intention of the analogy was to show that when the accidents change, the essence does not. BUT that is not the result of he analogy. The result of the analogy was that when the accidents change, they change the essence. The removal of the accidents (the gears or hands of an analogical clock) results in a change of essence (the essence of a timekeeping device changed to the essence of a paper weight). The analogy actually demonstrates the *opposite *of what is believed to take place with the Eucharist! Thus, another analogy would be needed, for this one will never convince the Protestant skeptic.

It’s definitely a limited analogy. However, the accidents in the analogy did not change. The gears, the face, the hands, the wood, they are all still there. We could say that my clock broke because the battery ran out of juice if it makes you feel better. I could even continue using it as a clock in this state (it would be right twice a day, after all). It would be a bad clock in that way, but it would still tell time (very inaccurately).

Does a dead battery change the accidents and therefore the essense of a clock? You could argue that… but you’d also have to be able to defend the idea that a clock with 90% of a charged battery is less of a clock than one which has a fully charged battery.

The point is that the clock does not need to become something else in order for it’s nature to change. I might never adjust the clock, nor use it to tell time. It’s still fully functional, but I’m only allowing for it to be used as a paperweight.

Is this a limited analogy? Of course. It’s only meant to display the difference between accident and essense, and how when the essense of something changes that it’s BEING changes. More on that point to follow…

So I think the best course of action for us is to decide which is the truth: (1) there are examples, other than the Eucharist, of things normally having a change of essence without a change of accidents

I’m going to go ahead and agree with you that there are no other perfect examples of this. Otherwise transubstantiation would be neither mystery nor miraculous. It’d just be like “oh, there’s that Jesus showing up in the appearance of bread again. Did you see that tree showing up in the appearance of a pony the other day though? Man, THAT was entertaining!”

If the question is “how does it work”, the best we can do with any mystery of the church is a flawed analogy to try to help people understand the means of how it works.

If you’re asking to prove THAT it works at all, we have only one argument that needs to be said: that Christ stated, and His authoritative church has affirmed and preserved that the bread becomes and is His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[spockrates]

It’s definitely a limited analogy. However, the accidents in the analogy did not change. The gears, the face, the hands, the wood, they are all still there. We could say that my clock broke because the battery ran out of juice if it makes you feel better. I could even continue using it as a clock in this state (it would be right twice a day, after all). It would be a bad clock in that way, but it would still tell time (very inaccurately).

Does a dead battery change the accidents and therefore the essense of a clock? You could argue that… but you’d also have to be able to defend the idea that a clock with 90% of a charged battery is less of a clock than one which has a fully charged battery.

The point is that the clock does not need to become something else in order for it’s nature to change. I might never adjust the clock, nor use it to tell time. It’s still fully functional, but I’m only allowing for it to be used as a paperweight.

Is this a limited analogy? Of course. It’s only meant to display the difference between accident and essense, and how when the essense of something changes that it’s BEING changes. More on that point to follow…

I’m going to go ahead and agree with you that there are no other perfect examples of this. Otherwise transubstantiation would be neither mystery nor miraculous. It’d just be like “oh, there’s that Jesus showing up in the appearance of bread again. Did you see that tree showing up in the appearance of a pony the other day though? Man, THAT was entertaining!”

If the question is “how does it work”, the best we can do with any mystery of the church is a flawed analogy to try to help people understand the means of how it works.

If you’re asking to prove THAT it works at all, we have only one argument that needs to be said: that Christ stated, and His authoritative church has affirmed and preserved that the bread becomes and is His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Thanks for your help, Paul! Blessings to you.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Thanks John. Never thought that the Eucharist was also the Father and the Spirit. I suppose it’s possible. Is this a topic of acceptable debate among Catholics, or has the Church made a declaration regarding more than one person of God being the Eucharist?

… my dear friend ,

… it’s official , the prayer taught the seers at fatima by the angel is as follows and approved by the church , you cannot separate god at all , the seers were taught to pray this whilst adoring the eucharist and worshipping it etc , it’s true ,

Eucharistic Prayer
Most Holy Trinity, I adore you! My God, my god, I love you in the Most Blessed Sacrament!

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[jmj1984]

… my dear friend ,

… it’s official , the prayer taught the seers at fatima by the angel is as follows and approved by the church , you cannot separate god at all , the seers were taught to pray this whilst adoring the eucharist and worshipping it etc , it’s true ,

Eucharistic Prayer
Most Holy Trinity, I adore you! My God, my god, I love you in the Most Blessed Sacrament!

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

If I may, this is a private revelation which means it is not dogmatic or binding on catholics and it doesnt state that the trinity is present in the eucharist. Rather it states what we all know, 1) That Jesus Christ is fully God, that all the persons of the trinity are and yet that God is 1 God not three, 2)That God is present in the eucharist.

In other words the prayer first gives due praise to the trinity and then to Christ (who is God) in the blessed sacrament.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

If I may, this is a private revelation which means it is not dogmatic or binding on catholics and it doesnt state that the trinity is present in the eucharist. Rather it states what we all know, 1) That Jesus Christ is fully God, that all the persons of the trinity are and yet that God is 1 God not three, 2)That God is present in the eucharist.

In other words the prayer first gives due praise to the trinity and then to Christ (who is God) in the blessed sacrament.

… my dear friend ,

… what i’ve said is correct , i don’t argue but only seek truth in the process of problem solving which is the purpose of all human communication , what is the point of arguing ??? , there is none except to vent anger or worse at being offended because someone violated the laws and rules in your head rather than obeying them , the laws and rules in peoples heads are total insanity i’m afraid , i don’t operate that way – i cannot , if you want to seek the truth and solve problems this is truly human but don’t look for fights , this is so counter - productive it destroys the whole human communication process and is well and truly the # 1 problem on these forums but also for all humanity , i’m not an evil person trying to corrupt and defile others – note this please , this is not a complete book - length explanation of my thinking so allow for this also , it’s a forum and not a place to write books dear friend , jesus himself said you cannot separate the father and holy spirit from him , read and think on the nt , god is one and one cannot be separated ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[raymond_king]

So, this is a positive account that we can rely on. So, you learned from where? So I can look on the uplifting of the bread and be assured that this is Jesus? Ray

is there no “explanation” it is a matter of seeing it your mind Behold is a word: it is a word of faith given to us by the Holy Spirit! It is a "vision " of the Word . it is beautiful, attend to your mind and you will “see”. it is true and it is life: please attend to the voice. it is a sound?

 

[raymond_king]

is there no “explanation” it is a matter of seeing it your mind Behold is a word: it is a word of faith given to us by the Holy Spirit!

it is a mystical realty : that are faith is : we behold according to the intellect: it takes time to comprehend the reality. you got to work at the minds vision. HE will help you ask Him and you be more then informed

 

[raymond_king]

… my dear friend ,

… what i’ve said is correct , i don’t argue but only seek truth in the process of problem solving which is the purpose of all human communication , what is the point of arguing ??? , there is none except to vent anger or worse at being offended because someone violated the laws and rules in your head rather than obeying them , the laws and rules in peoples heads are total insanity i’m afraid , i don’t operate that way – i cannot , if you want to seek the truth and solve problems this is truly human but don’t look for fights , this is so counter - productive it destroys the whole human communication process and is well and truly the # 1 problem on these forums but also for all humanity , i’m not an evil person trying to corrupt and defile others – note this please , this is not a complete book - length explanation of my thinking so allow for this also , it’s a forum and not a place to write books dear friend , jesus himself said you cannot separate the father and holy spirit from him , read and think on the nt , god is one and one cannot be separated ,

… may god bless and love you ,so what is your point?confrontation or dialoge
what was the question?

… john …

 

[jmj1984]

… my dear friend ,

… what i’ve said is correct , i don’t argue but only seek truth in the process of problem solving which is the purpose of all human communication , what is the point of arguing ??? , there is none except to vent anger or worse at being offended because someone violated the laws and rules in your head rather than obeying them , the laws and rules in peoples heads are total insanity i’m afraid , i don’t operate that way – i cannot , if you want to seek the truth and solve problems this is truly human but don’t look for fights , this is so counter - productive it destroys the whole human communication process and is well and truly the # 1 problem on these forums but also for all humanity , i’m not an evil person trying to corrupt and defile others – note this please , this is not a complete book - length explanation of my thinking so allow for this also , it’s a forum and not a place to write books dear friend , jesus himself said you cannot separate the father and holy spirit from him , read and think on the nt , god is one and one cannot be separated ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

Nor am I seeking to argue merely pointing out the correct theology of the church that is all, its nothing personal nor an attempt to argue.