Real presence in Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So neither I, nor the doctor, were there, but I know more about science than he did and I obvious adhere to logic more than he chose to. You are right in saying you did not adequately explain in and neither does the Church. The fact that it is Church teaching doesn’t change that.

As I said, I will sign up for it, because it is a “low investment belief.” Heck, I don’t care what kind of substantiation it is. As someone said earlier, it is not worth getting divisive over. It is not worth label people who use the brain God gave them to think for themselves as “heretics.”
 
I’m sorry, but I HIGHLY doubt you adhere to logic moreso than the man called the greatest of the four great doctors of the Latin Church, of the one whose work influenced western philosophy in such a way as St Augustine of Hippo.
 
Spyridon said:
I found myself sympathizing with the points you raised, but I had to remind myself Transubstantiation is a dogma of the Church and to deny it is to be anathema.
Click to expand...
That is the logical fallacy of an argument from authority. It does not change the argument one bit. If that’s all you got, that “the Church says so,” you have logically thrown in the towel.

I read the linked article. It sounds like a lot of doublespeak and twisted logic. He tries to make the point that transubstantiation = real presence, which is nonsense. Real presence can be accounted for in some of the other theories also.

Again, I will sign up for transubstantiation, because I am a Catholic and basically I don’t care about substantiation. It is irrelevant to me. But don’t say it makes any sense.
 
Kei said:
I’m sorry, but I HIGHLY doubt you adhere to logic moreso than the man called the greatest of the four great doctors of the Latin Church, of the one whose work influenced western philosophy in such a way as St Augustine of Hippo.
Click to expand...
Well here’s the problem with that. Any philosopher/logician, including Augustine, would have to tell you that arguments based on false premises are invalid. While Augustine was well versed in logic and philosophy, his knowledge of science and the nature of the physical universe would not match a grade schooler’s knowledge today.

A great example of how this can play out is the Church’s later argument with Galileo. Well, we come up against the same thing in this argument. Augustine had such a limited view of the molecular nature of things like bread and wine that he was free to believe that they could be physically changed. Now we have facts and the old arguments are based on false premises. The Church has not kept up and presented new arguments that make sense knowing what we know today.
 
Last edited:
No, I think you are the one that is simply mistaken. No one has claimed the molecular nature of bread changes to little molecules of Christ, or whatever you think we are saying.

In fact it feels as though you are denying a transcendent reality beyond the physical world. Are you? Because a change is not in the physical bread as we observe, but in the substance of the thing.
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
40.png
JonNC:
Just this is my body.
Click to expand...
[in, with, and under the bread]? Is that what Our Lord meant?
Click to expand...
In with and under sounds remarkably like substance and accidents, if one us willing to hear both as “this is my body”.
 
Kei said:
In fact it feels as though you are denying a transcendent reality beyond the physical world. Are you? Because a change is not in the physical bread as we observe, but in the substance of the thing.
Click to expand...
You are completely missing the point of what I’m saying and trying to make it personal to me. I think you are caught up in dogma and it is impeding your judgement. I can tell you are capable of intelligent, independent thought, but you are choosing to avoid it.

Substitute some not religious concept in your statement there and see if it makes any sense. Let’s say I’m trying to sell you a pill. The pill is a placebo, completely inert. And I say that’s OK, when I say a magic incantation over that pill it will become pixie dust and when you take it, it will bring you enlightenment.

So I you have the pill analyzed before and after the incantation, no difference. You have yourself analyzed before and after: bloodwork, psych testing, the works. No difference. You object that nothing has changed. So then I present the sentence:

“You are denying a transcendent reality beyond the physical world. Because a change is not in the physical pill as you observe, but in the substance of the thing.” You would conclude I was completely full of BS if I said that and you would be right.

So that gets to my point. It’s all about belief. It’s about faith. One of my favorite priests said: “Certainty is the opposite of faith and of the two, faith is greater.” That is what I believe. I have faith. It is harder than certainty, but more rewarding. What I get upset about is the Church and so-called apologists trying to deny faith and trying to create certainty by presenting gobbledigook arguments that are illogical and unsupportable. I’m perfectly fine with the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ regardless of the mechanism involved because I have faith.
 
If you tried to say this, with no other reason to believe you, then I would not.

If you did all sorts of wonderful things like healing the sick and raising the dead, I would be more inclined to believe you.

But, the church did not say the substance changes after a bunch of molecular testing but long before it to describe what happens. Jesus the Christ said, “This is my Body” and so I believe this is He. I believe Jesus Christ held Himself in His own hands.
Likewise, I cannot see the substance change with my eyes, but is a reality seen with Faith.

However, it seemed like you were denying the reality of the substance in the first place.
 
JonNC said:
How do you know it is Transubstaniation?
Click to expand...
The changing of substance; the substance of bread changes into the Body of Christ, while the substance of wine changes into the Blood of Christ.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
In with and under sounds remarkably like substance and accidents, if one us willing to hear both as “this is my body”.
Click to expand...
What makes bread what it is, is not the color, taste, shape, etc. What makes wine what it is, is not the color, taste, shape, etc. ‘Sacramental union’ states that the entire substance of Body and Blood exists in, with, and under the entire substance of bread and wine; that contradicts the creative order of God and is illogical.

When Our Lord changed the substance of water into the substance of wine at the wedding feast of Cana, the wine did not exist in, with, and under the substance of water; then it would not be wine, but some illogical and non-philosophical novelty of wine-water.
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
What makes bread what it is, is not the color, taste, shape, etc.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Pigment. Cells that interact with tastebuds and our sense of smell.
AugustTherese said:
Sacramental union’ states that the entire substance of Body and Blood exists in, with, and under the entire substance of bread and wine; that contradicts the creative order of God and is illogical.
Click to expand...
Do you not see bread and wine? Taste bread and wine? The creative order of God is that it is bread and wine. By the power of the Holy Spirit, this bread and wine is the true body and blood of Christ, fulfilling His institution. He explains nothing as to how this happens, but it does.
The problem is not the teaching of Transubstaniation. It presents a reasonable human explanation intended to leave no doubt in the believer. The problem is a dogmatic requirement to believe it, as an addition to Christ’s words.
AugustTherese said:
When Our Lord changed the substance of water into the substance of wine at the wedding feast of Cana, the wine did not exist in, with, and under the substance of water; then it would not be wine, but some illogical and non-philosophical novelty of wine-water.
Click to expand...
Can you see, taste, smell the difference between water and wine?
 
Last edited:
The term “accidents” as used in the doctrine of transubstantiation, means “those qualities which are perceptible to the senses.” In that regard, it is worth noting that all of physics, all of chemistry, indeed all of science, deals with accidents, not substance. Our senses never perceive substance directly. Our senses—along with any scientific instruments which extend our sense perception—can only perceive accidents. If I see a man in front of me, I know he is there by sense perception. I can’t put the man into my intellect directly; I am aware of him—or anything else—only by sense perceptions, which are not the man or the thing in itself.
 
JimG said:
The term “accidents” as used in the doctrine of transubstantiation, means “those qualities which are perceptible to the senses.” In that regard, it is worth noting that all of physics, all of chemistry, indeed all of science, deals with accidents, not substance.
Click to expand...
That definition of the word “accident” though, is a definition made up by the Church, so it is a circular argument. The standard definition that applies is the Aristotelian philosophical definition: “a property of a thing that is not essential to its nature.” The molecular composition of the bread and wine, along with its taste and smell, are essential to its nature. That is what makes it bread and wine and not other things, so it is essential to its nature. And that does not change when it is consecrated.

Let me ask you this: If someone pulled a prank on the congregation (I have no idea why anyone would do this, but it is a scenario to make a point) and substituted soap for the host and colored vinegar for the wine, when you received it, would you not immediately question its “essential nature?”
 
Last edited:
Apples and oranges comparison. If Jesus changed water into wine, it would be wine. An analysis of that wine would reveal that it was wine, not water. We are talking about wine, that is still wine, but we are trying to say it only looks, tastes and smells like wine, but it is not. That is where the argument breaks down.

The Church has three logical choices the way I see it: It can either come up with an explanation that is logical, agrees with the facts and people can understand and accept, it can say that is the real presence and the process doesn’t matter or it can just say, “Because we told you so.” And then they can accept the consequences of that decision.

What they are doing is putting out an illogical, unsupportable argument and then saying, “It does matter how the real presence gets there, but you have to take leave of your senses and not use the brain God gave you and accept this argument, even if it doesn’t make sense. You not only have to accept the conclusion because we told you to, you also have to accept our twisted argument for it.”

I prefer faith in the conclusion that the real presence is there. The rest of this is intellectual BS.
 
The molecular composition of bread and wine is known only by a study of what can be known through sense perception or sense perception amplified by scientific instruments.

If I tasted soap and colored vinegar in the elements of communion, I would conclude that invalid matter had been used, and I would be correct.

Yes, with respect to the Eucharist, one does take leave of the senses, in a way—because the sense perceptions of bread and wine remain, but under those appearances is Jesus Christ in his entirety.

Of course, sense perceptions (accidents) normally match up with the underlying substance. Our senses do not lie to us. But in this one case, they do. The appearances of bread and wine remain. But they do not inhere in any substance—not in the bread and wine because it is replaced by Jesus, and not in Jesus, because he has his own proper accidents, which we do not perceive.
 
JimG said:
If I tasted soap and colored vinegar in the elements of communion, I would conclude that invalid matter had been used, and I would be correct.
Click to expand...
So that, to me, is you admitting the physical, molecular nature of bread and wine are essential elements of the Eucharist and therefore not “accidental.” Interestingly with my friend with Celiac’s the Church has refused to allow gluten-free hosts. So apparently the Church sees the molecular structure of bread as being part of the “essential nature” of the Eucharist and therefore not accidental.
 
Last edited:
Bread and wine are necessary elements for the Eucharist. They are the matter of the sacrament. But they do not remain bread and wine but become the body and blood, the entirety, of Jesus. Yet their appearances remain, and that’s a good thing: it makes it possible for us to receive Jesus. If he appeared under his own proper appearances it would be impossible to receive him.

Also consider this: Place and time are also appearances. Jesus has only one body. He is not multiplied at communion. I receive the same Jesus as the person next in line, or the person in line last week or last century. He is not multiplied, but the appearances of bread and wine are multiplied. Because we all receive one and the same Body, we are united not only with Him but with one another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top