Quick Question on the Eucharist

[promethius]

Quick question if anyone is still paying attention to this topic: Is there any way of defining what the “essence” of something is other than just starting to think of it a different way, or using it to symbolize something else? It seems that the only sense in which the Eucharist would transubstantiate is through symbolism.

The way we think of something existing is human and imperfect. By contrast, we exist because God constantly wills and loves us into existence (and all existence continues because God wills it). In other words, we are constantly kept in existence because of God’s conscious illing of us.

So the reality of something’s essense, on a deeper level than the way we think about it, is the way God thinks about it. When God considers something to be male, for example, it is male. When God’s thought of the bread and wine turns to Body and Blood instead, the universe bends to God’s will and the very being changes.

You have to understand, the thought and will of God is irresistable to the universe (unlike it is with us and our very finite wills). To say that essense is the idea that God has of us is accurate… but we have to understand the power of what it means when God has a concept of who we are… namely our entire being is defined by God’s concept.

To put it another way, how would you determine if transubstantiation occurred successfully or if it hadn’t happened?

Faith. God tells us that the church speaks with His authority, so we can rest assured that when the priest holds up the Sacrament and says the words of institution (This is My Body, this is My Blood), that when whe hear him, we hear Christ Himself making this same pronouncement. (this, of course, assumes proper form, matter, and intent)

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Spockrates,

I’ve sometimes tangled with the folks at carm, and I believe the best you a Catholic can do there is to show the Catholic position is possible, if not plausible. That combined with an unfailing attitude of loving concern for the listeners, apologizing when one loses one’s cool, may be the most persuasive tack.

One point to note is that Christ is, in v 53, speaking to those Jews who have directly questioned His statements, and who may very well understand exactly what He means. In any case He is not making a clearly general statement here.

After that, v 54, and later more strongly, He does make the statement that he who eats His Body and drinks His Blood has eternal life, and He will raise him up on the last day. However, He does not say what would in general happen to those who do not eat His Body and drink His Blood (except to those Jews questioning Him at the time.)

One could respond with the argument above, then one could add also the point that Augustine makes, that one does not really eat of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord if one receives physically only, without the added participation of the Spirit. To eat to the participation of the Spirit requires a living faith.

Thus, to eat, does not automatically give one eternal life, one must eat with faith.

Lastly, eternal life is the Life of God; that is, it is not that we immediately live forever, but that we are in communion with the Life of God, which has no beginning or end.

Acknowledge that he may have a point, but that there are reasonable counterpoints.

peace
steve

Thanks for the advice, Steve. I’ll check back in if I need any help. You’re welcome to join the conversation at Carm in the Catholic forum, if you want.

 

[Phage0070]

… all existence continues because God wills it). In other words, we are constantly kept in existence because of God’s conscious willing of us.

Since this is all faith it is pointless to hope for anything to support it other than internal consistency. But this isn’t even consistent with itself.

What is the essential nature of a sin? Sinfulness of course, which means that which is contrary to God’s will… Wait, what? If we are to conclude that sin exists in the structure which you propose then God must constantly be consciously willing into existence that which is contrary to his will. That doesn’t make the slightest amount of sense; if he is willing it into existence then it is obviously in accordance with his will and therefore isn’t sin. If it is sin then it must therefore not exist.

Lets look at the essential nature of a sinful man. Does he have the free will to accept Christ’s offer to convert his sinful nature into one which is without sin? Presumably God should will that he do so, but if he has free will then what ever part of the man is capable of making that decision must be independent of God’s will. But that can’t be if the constant influence of God is integral to something’s existence; God relinquishing control of the man’s essential nature would cause that nature to instantly blink out of existence! So if the existence of everything is contingent upon God’s will then we must conclude that free will does not exist, as it is necessarily independent of God’s will.

And if we don’t have free will then why possible ethical face can be put on God’s torture of his hapless creations?

 

[promethius]

Phage,

It amuses me that you ask a question to which you already suppose you have the answer. Next time just come out and say it!

Since this is all faith it is pointless to hope for anything to support it other than internal consistency. But this isn’t even consistent with itself.

What is the essential nature of a sin? Sinfulness of course, which means that which is contrary to God’s will… Wait, what? If we are to conclude that sin exists in the structure which you propose then God must constantly be consciously willing into existence that which is contrary to his will. That doesn’t make the slightest amount of sense; if he is willing it into existence then it is obviously in accordance with his will and therefore isn’t sin. If it is sin then it must therefore not exist.

I believe St Augustine said it best when he said “Sin is a no-thing”, or that like dark is the absense of light (and does not exist in itself), cold is the absence of heat, and sin is the absence of God’s goodness.

The problem with your supposed contradiction is that you’ve begged the question that sin actually exists. I propose that it does not.

Lets look at the essential nature of a sinful man. Does he have the free will to accept Christ’s offer to convert his sinful nature into one which is without sin? Presumably God should will that he do so, but if he has free will then what ever part of the man is capable of making that decision must be independent of God’s will. But that can’t be if the constant influence of God is integral to something’s existence; God relinquishing control of the man’s essential nature would cause that nature to instantly blink out of existence! So if the existence of everything is contingent upon God’s will then we must conclude that free will does not exist, as it is necessarily independent of God’s will.

And if we don’t have free will then why possible ethical face can be put on God’s torture of his hapless creations?

Again, you are begging the question of the extent of willing into existance. We exist in some [undefined] state of being because God constantly wills us to exist. That does not, however, entail that God wills us to act in a specific way. God allows us to choose against Him (and hence to sin). You’ll note I said nothing about CONTROL, merely that our fundamental being itself was a matter of God’s will. What you do with that being is yours.

 

[Phage0070]

Phage,

It amuses me that you ask a question to which you already suppose you have the answer. Next time just come out and say it!

I never said that I had the answer; I asked for an explanation of a particular point of dogma and was presented with an answer that didn’t mesh with other dogma. Pointing out that it doesn’t make sense is hardly being a “know-it-all”.

I believe St Augustine said it best when he said “Sin is a no-thing”, or that like dark is the absense of light (and does not exist in itself), cold is the absence of heat, and sin is the absence of God’s goodness.

So if existence is something which is necessarily contingent upon God’s will (nothing exists without God willing it to be so) then either only those things which do not exist are sinful, or there are some elements of God’s will which are lacking God’s goodness.

If there exists a thing which has the essential nature of being sinful, such as a sinful act or even a hypothetical demon, then it must do so either independent of God’s will or dependent on it. The explanation of natures which was pitched only allows that sinful nature to exist contingent to God’s will, and considering its sinfulness = an absence of God’s goodness we are forced to conclude God’s will in this case does not include his goodness.

Therefore God isn’t always good, which contradicts a major dogmatic principle. I consider it gracious to assume your understanding of natures is incorrect rather than concluding that you believe God is morally imperfect.

The problem with your supposed contradiction is that you’ve begged the question that sin actually exists. I propose that it does not.

Actually I have assumed that sin exists for the sake of discussion, and I agree that it does not (although likely for a very different reason).

We exist in some [undefined] state of being because God constantly wills us to exist. That does not, however, entail that God wills us to act in a specific way. God allows us to choose against Him (and hence to sin). You’ll note I said nothing about CONTROL, merely that our fundamental being itself was a matter of God’s will. What you do with that being is yours.

So if God wills something into existence yet suspends willful control over that thing, we must necessarily conclude that thing does not have God’s goodness, correct? (This assumes that God’s goodness cannot exist independently of God’s direction of course.) Therefore that thing is by definition sinful, which fits with the dogma so far. But lets look at what God did exactly:

God willed something sinful; he willed something and deliberately withheld his goodness from it. If this is so then you cannot say that God always wills that which is good. Or if you are going to go one step further and say that sin does not exist (which you did say if you recall) then what is all the clamoring about? There is no possible punishment for sin because the infraction literally cannot exist!

The only way such a thing could exist, and have God’s will always be good, is if there are things which can exist independent of God’s will. So how do you resolve these contradictions?

 

[jmcrae]

Sin is the absence of moral action - in that sense it “does not exist” - and also in the sense that it was not created by God.

However, just like darkness (the absence of light) and the vacuum of space (the absence of atmosphere) it is both very real, and very dangerous.

 

[Phage0070]

Sin is the absence of moral action - in that sense it “does not exist” - and also in the sense that it was not created by God.

Aha, so now we are getting tricky. If sin is the absence of moral action, the absence of an essence rather than an essence, then we can say that it doesn’t exist as an essence and is instead a concept. (The distinction between these two is fuzzy, but lets gloss over that.)

So when God makes humans and allows free will by withholding his goodness you say he isn’t making sin (doing a sinful action) because sin is a lack of a thing rather than a thing. In more “earthy” terms (if you will pardon the pun) sin is like a hole in the ground; it isn’t a thing, it is the concept of a lack of dirt. You can’t “make” a hole, you can only remove dirt. Dirt is of course analogous to God’s goodness.

This theological dodge seems quite clever until you apply it to regular humans. Humans are similarly unable to make sin, they can only abstain from doing good. So if God doesn’t commit a sin by the action of creating humans while withholding his “goodness” then similarly a human doesn’t commit a sin by withholding “goodness” from their actions.

So once again we come back to God either punishing humans for something which is a literal and theoretical impossibility, or punishing them for something which he is guilty of himself. Somehow I don’t think this dogma is internally consistent, do you want to try to rework it?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

This theological dodge seems quite clever until you apply it to regular humans. Humans are similarly unable to make sin, they can only abstain from doing good. So if God doesn’t commit a sin by the action of creating humans while withholding his “goodness” then similarly a human doesn’t commit a sin by withholding “goodness” from their actions.

God doesn’t withold His goodness. He is continually reaching out to us, since even our repentance and faith is by virtue of His grace. However, we can choose to refuse this grace. God’s self-offering then, is perfect and cannot simply be equated with the human action.

 

[jmcrae]

This theological dodge seems quite clever until you apply it to regular humans. Humans are similarly unable to make sin, they can only abstain from doing good. So if God doesn’t commit a sin by the action of creating humans while withholding his “goodness” then similarly a human doesn’t commit a sin by withholding “goodness” from their actions.

Hold up, here. Where are you getting the idea that God withholds goodness? God is all good, and withholds nothing from us. Everything is ours, if we but have faith, and do not sin.

 

[Phage0070]

God doesn’t withold His goodness. He is continually reaching out to us…

Hold up, here. Where are you getting the idea that God withholds goodness?

Both of you seem to have ignored the timing and the act I am talking about. I am talking about the creation of human’s essential nature.

If God creates something then for it to be a good action then what he makes must be good itself. For example creating an evil monster that goes and murders people is itself an evil action; you may assign primary moral responsibility for the murders to the monster but the creator isn’t absolved of all moral responsibility. In the same way the creation of a being which is morally neutral is a morally neutral act. But if you will recall moral neutrality doesn’t exist in Catholic dogma; something is either sinful or not.

If humans have a nature which is sinful (lacking in God’s goodness) then God withheld creating them with his goodness integral to our essence. For example he could have made angels but instead chose to create a morally imperfect being. The knowing creation of an imperfect being when you could do better is intrinsically a morally imperfect act, or in other words not perfectly moral. This is especially obvious when we apply the black/white filter of the sin dogma and discover that the sinful nature of the average human is treated equally to that of a ravenous death-beast bent only upon devouring the bodies and souls of crippled orphan infants. Both are apparently worthy of infinite imprisonment and torture.

So what is the deal? Do you claim that the knowing creation of a monster isn’t an immoral act?

 

[davidv]

Both of you seem to have ignored the timing and the act I am talking about. I am talking about the creation of human’s essential nature.

If God creates something then for it to be a good action then what he makes must be good itself. For example creating an evil monster that goes and murders people is itself an evil action; you may assign primary moral responsibility for the murders to the monster but the creator isn’t absolved of all moral responsibility. In the same way the creation of a being which is morally neutral is a morally neutral act. But if you will recall moral neutrality doesn’t exist in Catholic dogma; something is either sinful or not.

If humans have a nature which is sinful (lacking in God’s goodness) then God withheld creating them with his goodness integral to our essence. For example he could have made angels but instead chose to create a morally imperfect being. The knowing creation of an imperfect being when you could do better is intrinsically a morally imperfect act, or in other words not perfectly moral. This is especially obvious when we apply the black/white filter of the sin dogma and discover that the sinful nature of the average human is treated equally to that of a ravenous death-beast bent only upon devouring the bodies and souls of crippled orphan infants. Both are apparently worthy of infinite imprisonment and torture.

So what is the deal? Do you claim that the knowing creation of a monster isn’t an immoral act?

Since God hasn’t created any evil monsters, it appears that you question doesn’t have much meaning. Care to explain?

Human nature is not sinful, it is good. Original sin damaged that good nature but did not change it to sinful.

It appears to me you are arguing against a strawman.

 

[jmcrae]

If humans have a nature which is sinful (lacking in God’s goodness) …

Sorry - wrong religion.

 

[Phage0070]

Since God hasn’t created any evil monsters, it appears that you question doesn’t have much meaning. Care to explain?

I take it you don’t believe in demons? At any rate it isn’t relevant because I already pointed out that the punishment for eating orphan babies is the same as disbelief; eternal damnation.

Human nature is not sinful, it is good. Original sin damaged that good nature but did not change it to sinful.

Sorry - wrong religion.

You still don’t get it. According to the Catechism human nature has:

“…an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence.”

Now lets look at the instant of creation of our orphan-scarfing monster. It hasn’t committed any sins. Its nature isn’t sinful. It simply has an inclination toward sinful action, an inclination which for all intents and purposes can be considered inevitable. The same can be said for man, although sin of a different stripe.

So what is it guys? Don’t you believe in “concupiscence”? (

 

[Cruxis117]

I take it you don’t believe in demons? At any rate it isn’t relevant because I already pointed out that the punishment for eating orphan babies is the same as disbelief; eternal damnation.

God didn’t create them as evil. That’s where you run into your first problem. They were once, originally, as all things were, good. They were holy Angels.

You still don’t get it. According to the Catechism human nature has:

“…an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence.”

Now lets look at the instant of creation of our orphan-scarfing monster. It hasn’t committed any sins. Its nature isn’t sinful. It simply has an inclination toward sinful action, an inclination which for all intents and purposes can be considered inevitable. The same can be said for man, although sin of a different stripe.

So what is it guys? Don’t you believe in “concupiscence”? (

Yes, we do believe in concupiscence. Now, with regards to your creation of your orphan-scarfing monster, was it always one which ate orphans? Or was it one which actually did something which then fundamentally damaged the original, good nature of the monster? That factors into concupiscence. If we look at Christians of today, they still sin. Why? Because they have that temporal effect of sin, or concupiscence, still today. If we agree that it hasn’t committed any sins, but only has this nature, and suddenly dies (we’re assuming that there is no Messiah-Monster in the picture), then the Monster would go to heaven (I would liken this to those holy innocents who have been murdered due to abortion). They would be fundamentally cleansed, perfected by the Lord in Heaven. Then again, this seems to be a bit off the topic with regards to the most Holy, Sacred Eucharist.

 

[jmcrae]

I take it you don’t believe in demons? At any rate it isn’t relevant because I already pointed out that the punishment for eating orphan babies is the same as disbelief; eternal damnation.

You still don’t get it. According to the Catechism human nature has:

“…an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence.”

It was not “put there” by God. It is the gap that was created that broke the relationship between God and the human race when Adam sinned.

Now lets look at the instant of creation of our orphan-scarfing monster.

What “orphan-scarfing monster” are we talking about?

It hasn’t committed any sins. Its nature isn’t sinful. It simply has an inclination toward sinful action, an inclination which for all intents and purposes can be considered inevitable.

Are we talking about some kind of animal, or a human being?

If it’s a human being, this human being is making a free choice to commit sin. If it’s an animal, it can’t sin. It can do things that are detrimental to human beings (because of Adam’s sin, which damaged the whole Creation such that it no longer functions as intended by God), but it is not actually capable of committing sin, since it doesn’t have a rational mind with which to make moral decisions - it only has an instinct for survival that sometimes causes it to “scarf orphans”.

 

[Phage0070]

God didn’t create them as evil. That’s where you run into your first problem. They were once, originally, as all things were, good. They were holy Angels.

So what you are saying is that they weren’t created good enough to stay good, right?

 

[Phage0070]

It was not “put there” by God. It is the gap that was created that broke the relationship between God and the human race when Adam sinned.

About that… how many relationships with people you know resulted in the breaking of relationships with unrelated people who haven’t even been born yet? Did God’s experience with Adam make him… a bigot? Xenophobic?

If it’s a human being, this human being is making a free choice to commit sin.

Nope, this is especially obvious when we consider people who have never heard of the Abrahamic god but is also evident when we consider thought crimes (sins, whatever). For instance coveting something, or an honest disbelief in the existence of God.

 

[jmcrae]

About that… how many relationships with people you know resulted in the breaking of relationships with unrelated people who haven’t even been born yet? Did God’s experience with Adam make him… a bigot? Xenophobic?

I have no idea what it was that Adam did that caused the Universe to not work right any more. However, God has chosen to continue to work with a broken Universe, rather than throw the whole thing out and start over again.

We need to keep in mind that it was not God who broke the Universe - it was Adam. And the fact that the Universe is broken means that things don’t work the way God had originally intended them to.

God could, if He so chose, just pitch the whole thing out and start over - we would never know the difference - we would simply cease ever to have existed.

However, He has chosen to work with the situation as it has become.

 

[JerrySeibert]

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

All I can say is, WOW!
Awesome example

 

[Phage0070]

I have no idea what it was that Adam did that caused the Universe to not work right any more. However, God has chosen to continue to work with a broken Universe, rather than throw the whole thing out and start over again.

Oh come on, you believe all of this through pure faith. You don’t have to prove anything, and you can never be contradicted because it is all in your head. But even your religion, which owes much of its existence simply to explain why things are the way they are, doesn’t offer an explanation as to what happened?

We need to keep in mind that it was not God who broke the Universe - it was Adam. And the fact that the Universe is broken means that things don’t work the way God had originally intended them to.

Wait, even if we grant that Adam broke the universe… why could he do that? Humans cannot levitate themselves, they cannot manipulate things at a distance purely with their minds, we cannot travel faster than the speed of light; there are numerous limitations placed upon humans which don’t impede our free will. So why exactly would God arbitrarily disallow my regrowing an arm lost to a freak accident yet allow the first human ever to break the entire universe for all time?

How is that not a design flaw of ridiculous proportions?