Real presence in Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(continued)

The substance/accident distinction was employed by Aristotle as a way of understanding reality and more specifically as a way our intellects perceive reality. We perceive things undergoing changes (accidents) that there is something stable in them and remains (the substance) throughout the changes as for example, the growth of a sycamore tree and the changes in the color of its leaves. Most people would probably not consider Aristotle an illogical or unreasonable man. In fact, I believe Aristotle was the founder of that field of study called logic.

The scholastic theologians employed Aristotlelianism in their philosophical and theological studies and writings some of whom are canonized saints and doctors of the Church among whom shines the genius of St Thomas Aquinas. Considering the praises the Church has heaped upon St Thomas Aquinas and his writings throughout the centuries to the present day, I don’t think you will find many people, if any, in the Catholic world who consider Aquinas and his writings the work of an illogical and unreasonable mind. In fact, I think anybody who takes the time to read and study the writings of St Thomas Aquinas will discover in them the work of a master of logic and reason.
However, St Thomas Aquinas was well aware of the limits of the natural light of human reason darkened by the sin of our first parents and subject to error. St Thomas was gifted with a very powerful intellect but above this he was a man of great faith. It was his faith in the teaching of the Church and the sources of divine revelation, namely, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that guided him in his theological/philosophical works. Philosophically, St Thomas was no mere slave to Aristotle’s philosophy though he held him in high esteem among philosophers though he was not without error. St Thomas had to rework Aristotle’s philosophy here and there in order for it to be comformable to the truth of divine revelation and the catholic faith especially concerning certain truths revealed by God which can be known by the natural light of reason but not without great difficulty and study.
 
Last edited:
(continued)

The eucharist is one of the great mysteries and gifts of our faith that Jesus bequeathed to us. The use of logic and human reason here has it limits before it must give way to pure faith, that which is beyond human reason and logic and the explainable, to the miraculous, to the simple words of Christ who is God. In his treatise on the eucharist and transubstantiation, St Thomas Aquinas does not attempt to gloss over the awesome miracle that is the eucharist but he instead brings it out in full force. Transubstantiation explains to us what happens to the bread and wine at the consecration at Mass, i.e., by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ. How does this change in the bread and wine happen? It is a supernatural miracle performed by the Almighty power of God. A miraculous change, says St Thomas Aquinas, that involves more difficulties than God creating the world out of nothing. What a gift! What an awesome display of God’s power right before our very eyes at every Mass if only we believe! What could God do more to draw us to Mass and the eucharist? If only we have faith!

It’s very sad to see how some catholics do not realize how beautiful and awesome, a divine gift and work from the infinite Goodness and Love of God, is that change wrought in the bread and wine at the consecration of the Mass which we call transubstantiation by which the body and blood of Christ are made substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine. Instead of inspiring praise, thanksgiving, gratitude, wonder, and awe as it is meant too, transubstantiation becomes a stumbling block, ‘a hard saying; who can listen to it?’ (John 6:60).

I will say some prayers for you.
Peace and blessings
 
Last edited:
is the human hair connected to a human body or not connected such as when a person’s hair is cut?
 
Take it both directions. Does it change the substance?

While we are at it, are substance and essence different words for the same concept?

And what’s is the substance or essence of bread?

I have not had a philosophy class in 30 years.
 
Last edited:
going to have to reply later, have to go for now, God bless

Food for thought for time being. The substance of material substances is the compound of the substantial form and matter or prime matter. The substance of human beings is the rational soul (substantial form) united to the body (matter).
 
Last edited:
You Mean you have a life besides Catholic Answers? Go for it.

Catch you later.
 
Shakuhachi said:
What is the “substance” of a human hair?

While we are at it, are substance and essence different words for the same concept?

What is the substance of bread?
Click to expand...
I would like to hear the thoughts of everyone.
 
Try Frank Sheed’s, Theology for Beginners, where he talks about Transubstantiation. The distinction between substance and accidents, explains it in its simplest way.

Try not to confuse Chemistry substance with Philosophers substance, the latter which is what we talk about.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SHEEDEUC.HTM
 
Bluebright said:
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.
Click to expand...
The nails that pierced the hands and feet of our Lord, were probably filthy and full of germs. Jesus died for me. At some point I shall have to stand before our Lord, I don’t want to say to Jesus, sorry Lord, I did not take the cup in case it had germs on it.
 
Well that sounds very noble and pious and of course is your right, missed my point but never mind. I don’t dispute your right to take the cup and discount any ‘germs’ but I do dispute your ‘right’ to add to any of those germs and say that if you have the flu (bird, Australian or even just the common or garden variety) you should decline from having the Lord’s Blood in order not to pass on those germs to other people who do not wish to get those germs because they may be of weak constitution ie. elderly or ill or even just not wanting to get flu…such is their right and your duty as catholic (love your neighbour). I was never talking about what is in the Lord’s Blood because that is His business not mine, I was only talking about what is on the vessel/cup from our lips. I remind you that all of Christ is in the Eucharist and it is acceptable and not less to have one and not the other, especially if you are ill.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
40.png
Bluebright:
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.
Click to expand...
The nails that pierced the hands and feet of our Lord, were probably filthy and full of germs. Jesus died for me. At some point I shall have to stand before our Lord, I don’t want to say to Jesus, sorry Lord, I did not take the cup in case it had germs on it.
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever heard of a large spreading of the flu or similar from the chalice? I never have.
The padding of the peace seems far more risky
 
Reuben_J said:
Try Frank Sheed’s, Theology for Beginners, where he talks about Transubstantiation. The distinction between substance and accidents, explains it in its simplest way.
Click to expand...
Sheed’s explanation is poor.

Physical things have essential qualities (qualities which MAKE them the thing they are properly called, and entitle them to be deemed included within the concept of the thing in question) and accidental qualities (qualities which could vary without altering what makes the physical thing properly called what it is, i.e., properly includable in the concept of the thing).

What makes a bird a bird – the essence of “birdness” or “birdhood,” if you like – is not its heart beat or respiratory rate (although it must have a heart and lungs), size (these range from hummingbird to condor), shape, gender, color, skeletal structure or even its ability to fly (there are flightless birds, and there are flying mammals). Birds – and there are hundreds if not thousands of species of birds – qualify as “birds” by virtue of a combination of physical qualities, each of them accidental (i.e., variable) when considered in isolation but all of them in combination revealing the essence of what we know as a bird. Stated another way, “birdness” is a concept that is formed by a combination of accidents, and with the right combination the essence of a bird can be distinguished from that of other creatures or things.

So it is with bread. So it is with wine. The essence of bread, or of wine, is indicated by a combination of accidental qualities.

The concept of “essence” or “substance” (I’ll use these words interchangeably for now, although the latter has a slight overlay – at least in English – of physicality) is thus quite different from the concept of an accidental quality, yet is dependent on a combination of accidental qualities. Combine a given set of such accidents in a particular way, and VOILA! – we have inclusion within the genus. We have the essence of what makes the thing properly thought of as that thing.

No believer in transubstantiation can accept this analysis of essence vs. accidents, even if Aristotle did. The reason? It favors accounting for the Real Presence by consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation. It favors pointing to the combination of accidents that comprise the Host and saying “Aha! That’s the every essence of (the concept of) breadness. That’s bread!”

The only way out of this is to attempt a metaphysical distinction between concepts and reality.
 
Last edited:
I cannot comment on what you said as I am not a philosophy student. I find his explanation not very convincing too.

I would just use layman understanding to explain it but maybe it is not acceptable for smart people here.
 
Both are risky. The transmission of disease is not my area of expertise you’d need to consult epidemiologist, but I doubt they study flu transmission from the chalice though I am sure it is not only possible but highly likely. It is discussed in another thread so I will refrain from more discussion.
Also, this disagreement is getting silly, so we shall agree to disagree.
 
Bluebright said:
I do dispute your ‘right’ to add to any of those germs and say that if you have the flu (bird, Australian or even just the common or garden variety) you should decline from having the Lord’s Blood in order not to pass on those germs to other people
Click to expand...
If I have a cold I will not take from the cup, this is purely that I would not like to make the people behind me feel uncomfortable. But that is not the point I was trying to make. People may be carrying all kinds of germs, and they genuinely may not be aware of them; when they go up for the cup. I don’t even think of this if I am towards the end of the line, I just take the cup, it is all in our Lord’s hands.
Bluebright said:
I was never talking about what is in the Lord’s Blood because that is His business not mine, I was only talking about what is on the vessel/cup from our lips.
Click to expand...
I am only concerned about the blood of our Lord, I do not worry about what might have been on the lips of the people before me.
Bluebright said:
I remind you that all of Christ is in the Eucharist and it is acceptable and not less to have one and not the other, especially if you are ill.
Click to expand...
I have grown up knowing this, but when the cup is offered, it is the blood of our Lord. And Jesus said, take this all of you and drink. I prefer simple instructions rather than big words and explanations.
 
jfz178 said:
Worse. I don’t actually care a wit about Thomistic philosophy. I was
Click to expand...
You don’t see an issue with being utterly ignorant of and apathetic toward Thomistic philosophy, whilst simultaneously pontificating about Thomistic philosophy?

That is the pinnacle of arrogance and pride.
 
No the pinnacle of arrogance and pride is being a self-appointed internet apologist/catechist. I worship Christ, not Thomas. Who do you worship?
 
Last edited:
I had a Jesuit/Navy chaplain once who had previously worked on the Vatican staff. He told me once that mostly, all you need to believe in to be Catholic is what is in The Creed. I do, I belive what is SAYS, not some people’s interpretations and extensions of what it says.

I have been a Catholic for 65 years, server in the Latin Mass, taught the old Catechism by nuns priest and brothers in Catholic schools. I don’t need some self-appointed, self-important internet “apologist” tell me how to be a Catholic. I will talk to my priest and I do. That’s how I was taught, that’s what I believe.

And I find this, “I will say a prayer for you” to be condescending. I will say a prayer for God to ignore you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top