Real presence in Eucharist

[jfz178]

But they do not remain bread and wine

But they do and I can prove it. You cannot prove what you are saying. You just believe it. I believe it too, BTW. I just don’t rely on fallacious arguments to make my case. Faith is enough for me.

 

[JonNC]

JimG:

But they do not remain bread and wine

But they do and I can prove it. You cannot prove what you are saying. You just believe it. I believe it too, BTW. I just don’t rely on fallacious arguments to make my case. Faith is enough for me.

But they don’t remain mere bread and wine. By the speaking of the verba and the power of the Holy Spirit they are the true body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Benadam]

I just don’t rely on fallacious arguments to make my case.

What part of the explanation that Transubstantiation presents is false?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Aristotelian philosophical definition: “a property of a thing that is not essential to its nature.”

So accidents of bread would be shape, weight, color, etc. What then is the “substance” of bread?

The substance of Christ is undoubtedly a personal mystery. In the Blessed Sacrament he assumes the accidents of bread?

 

[Gmsod]

@jfz178 Just curious, if you say the church’s explanation for transubstantiation is a logical fallacy. Isn’t it also a logical fallacy to say that the bread and wine are JESUS body and blood even though they look like bread and wine and all your senses tell you otherwise. To me it seems like the only thing that could change to make JESUS words true and not contrary to what the brain GOD gave us is telling us (that they are bread and wine) is that it isn’t the accidents that change but the substance? Just a thought. Thanks

GOD bless!

 

[jfz178]

But they don’t remain mere bread and wine. By the speaking of the verba and the power of the Holy Spirit they are the true body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

You are actually agreeing with me! What you just said is not the Church’s argument. You say “…they don’t remain mere bread and wine.” By using the word “mere” you acknowledge they still are bread and wine, but now they are something more. That is is Consubstantiation, named a heresy.

 

[jfz178]

Read my posts. I have explained it detail. No need to repeat myself.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

But they don’t remain mere bread and wine. By the speaking of the verba and the power of the Holy Spirit they are the true body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

You are actually agreeing with me! What you just said is not the Church’s argument. You say “…they don’t remain mere bread and wine.” By using the word “mere” you acknowledge they still are bread and wine, but now they are something more. That is is Consubstantiation, named a heresy.

Not what I said. I oppose consubstantiation

 

[jfz178]

The way your question is written, I find it confusing, but I will try to answer what I think you’re asking.

No. Real presence is an article of faith. Consubstantiation and other kinds of real presence explanations can account for this without the fallacy. Transubstantiation goes a step farther and says it is no longer bread and wine. It looks, smells, tastes and scientifically tests like bread and wine, but those qualities are “accidental” meaning “non-essential to its true nature.”

 

[jfz178]

Then what did you mean by saying “it is no longer ‘mere’ bread and wine?”

 

[JonNC]

Then what did you mean by saying “it is no longer ‘mere’ bread and wine?”

Just that. It isn’t a comment about substance and accidents. It is a statement about the reality of the mystery. It isn’t mere bread and wine, regardless of our perception of it. It is His body and blood

 

[Bluebright]

That’s a very strange thing to be saddened by…people should always avoid the cup if they have flu etc. it’s common courtesy cos tiny bacteria from their saliva remains on the cup ( despite the cursory wipe). In that case the church has just taken the decision from the masses in case people don’t realise they have it, or don’t have the thought to withdraw from taking the cup. It’s a sensible move really. In Ireland at the moment the peace handshake has been temporarily stopped due to the terrible flu epidemic and I don’t know but would imagine the cup might follow suit in a move to protect the church goers, especially elderly. All of Christ is in the Eucharist so it is not like you are missing out. I grew up in Africa so we almost never had the cup due to the high incidence of TB and it’s likely transmission (through saliva).

 

[Benadam]

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.

Your whole argument here is based on a false premise. You can’t change the terms and call the explanation wrong. Your reason for change lacked reason.

The definition is not ‘made up’ by the Church. Aristotle would never consider bread as having a nature. Aristotle would call bread an artifact. Bread does not have a tendency to become bread. Wheat has a nature. Furthermore a property of a thing is non-essential to it’s species. Which is another classification

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.

Another false premise. That you have determined the facts.Your judge of the facts and ‘Peoples understanding’ is another false premise. You only present your understanding. Which is false.

What they are doing is putting out an illogical, unsupportable argument

Pot meet kettle

I prefer faith in the conclusion that the real presence is there. The rest of this is intellectual BS.

If you really understood what you are talking about you would know that the explanation is not what this doctrine teaches as the object of faith that causes the substance to change. The object of our faith is Jesus words that give form to the Sacrament. ’ This is my body" That’s the cause Transubstantiation is an explanation. Maybe you shouldn’t judge intellect.

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.

False premise. The ingredients in bread are refined products of things that the term ‘nature’ can be applied to. But bread is an artifact.

No. Real presence is an article of faith. Consubstantiation and other kinds of real presence explanations can account for this without the fallacy.

except it fails the true form of the Sacrament which is; “this is my body” The form of consubstantiation ‘might’ be “here is my body”

Read my posts. I have explained it detail. No need to repeat myself.

Done so, what part of the explanation that Transubstantiation presents is false?

 

[jfz178]

Done so, what part of the explanation that Transubstaniation presents is false?

You may have read, but you have not heard. That’s fine. I have explained myself thoroughly. You don’t accept my analysis of it and I don’t accept yours. No sense in either of us trying to convince each other by rehashing ad nauseum.

 

[Spyridon]

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?”

No, you would question its accidents.

I think your understanding of Thomistic philosophical terms is lacking, severely. You wouldn’t be saying half the stuff you are if you actually grasped the subject matter which you are attempting to pontificate on.

 

[Benadam]

Yes. I agree jfz178

 

[jfz178]

Worse. I don’t actually care a wit about Thomistic philosophy. I was just reacting to what people have said about it here.

As I said to @Benadam. I’m not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. I’m happy to leave it at that, but if you want to continue this slugfest, I’ll play.

 

[JimG]

The substance of Christ is undoubtedly a personal mystery. In the Blessed Sacrament he assumes the accidents of bread?

To clarify, Jesus does not assume the accidents of bread and wine. Those accidents do not inhere in him. He exists ‘under’ the accidents of bread and wine. Jesus does not become a small white host; he exists whole and entire, his whole body and spirit, soul and divinity, under the smallest particle of the host. When it is broken in half, for example, Jesus remains whole and entire under each half.

Of course, if one does not accept the distinction between substance and accidents, then one would assume that no change has taken place, because the accidents remain exactly the same both before and after consecration. But the substance of Jesus is there. We do not apprehend him because his accidents are not present.

 

[Shakuhachi]

The nine kinds of accidents according to Aristotle are quantity, quality, relation, habitus, time, location, situation (or position), action, and passion (“being acted on”).
[from WIKI]

These are not things that determine the appearance of bread such as taste, smell determined by chemistry. The thomistic approach then seems to be “Anti-essentialism”. My understanding that properties and accidents have nothing to do with essence.

But then it leads to the further question: What is essence? (If not all that we perceive as properties or accidents.

 

[Richca]

(Reply to jfz178 post 81)

I believe that if you had real catholic (universal) faith, then there is no way you would make such a statement as ‘The rest of this is intellectual BS.’ Transubstantiation is a dogma, an article, of the Catholic faith; it is a truth that the Catholic Church has solemnly defined and proposed for our belief. In making an act of faith, we propose to believe all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches (cf. act of faith in the Baltimore Catechism and Compendium to the CCC) guided as it is by the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent upon the Church to guide it to all truth. The truth of transubstantiation excludes the errors concerning Christ’s Real Presence in the eucharist such as pure symbolism, impanation, companation or what is also called consubstantiation. These errors revolve around the idea that no real change occurs in the bread and wine at the consecration of the Mass, i.e., the bread and wine after the consecration are substantially bread and wine just as before the consecration. The question can be asked 'Well, where is the true body and the true blood of Christ then which we believe to be present in the eucharist according to the very words of Jesus at the Last Supper and how did it get there? If nothing has changed in the bread and wine at the consecration then in what sense can we call the eucharist the body and blood of Christ when it is simply bread and wine? If one thinks that transubstantiation involves philosophical difficulties, one can only imagine the philosophical acrobatics employed in trying to make some philosophical sense of how the Real Presence of Christ’s true body and true blood are substantially present in what are substantially and simply bread and wine. A human body and human blood are not the same thing as bread and wine.

The Catholic Church professes, following the teaching of the early Church fathers and doctors (the faith handed down to us from them), that a real change occurs in the nature, essence, substance, or elements (as some fathers called it) of the bread and wine at the invocation of the word of God, i.e., the word of Christ who is God, as well as of the invocation of the Holy Spirit who came upon the Virgin Mary to fashion the body of the incarnate Christ. This change that occurs in the bread and wine at the consecration at Mass happens at the level of substance, it is a substantial change and so as the Church teaches it is fittingly called transubstantiation which means a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of the blood of Christ.

You appear to suggest that the philosophical concepts of substance and accident are illogical, unsupportable concepts. Of course, not everyone would agree with you here including some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind. The Church itself uses the concept of substance in defining some of its dogmas such as the one under discussion here, transubstantiation, and we recite and profess every Sunday at Mass in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) that Jesus is consubstantial (of the same substance) with the Father.