Real presence

[kbwall]

I’ve been thinking on the real presence of the eucharist, and I think I’ve got a way to explain it.

It’s similar to us as humans. We are made of meat, bone, and various other biology stuff. However, we have souls, so we are much more than the sum of our parts. Likewise, the eucharist is bread and wine, but has the real presence, and thus has much more. God is sort of ‘the soul’ of the eucharist, if that makes sense.

Am I close?

 

[RosaryFan]

I’ve been thinking on the real presence of the eucharist, and I think I’ve got a way to explain it.

It’s similar to us as humans. We are made of meat, bone, and various other biology stuff. However, we have souls, so we are much more than the sum of our parts. Likewise, the eucharist is bread and wine, but has the real presence, and thus has much more. God is sort of ‘the soul’ of the eucharist, if that makes sense.

Am I close?

Well, I’m not exactly sure what you mean. I would like to say, however, that it is VERY IMPORTANT to note that when the consecration takes place, the bread and wine CEASE TO EXIST. Only the APPEARANCE of bread and wine remain - it is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord. So to say that the “the Eucharist is bread and wine, but has the real presence”, isn’t accurate. The Eucharist is NO LONGER bread and wine, even though it APPEARS to be. Just having the appearance to human eyes does not mean it is still bread and wine. That would be “consubstantiation” rather than “transubstantiation”. We Catholics believe in “transubstantiation”, not “consubstantiation”. There is a big difference.

So my explanation would be that Jesus is present, completely, truly and substantially, even though I still only see “bread and wine”.

 

[hn160]

I’ve been thinking on the real presence of the eucharist, and I think I’ve got a way to explain it.

It’s similar to us as humans. We are made of meat, bone, and various other biology stuff. However, we have souls, so we are much more than the sum of our parts. Likewise, the eucharist is bread and wine, but has the real presence, and thus has much more. God is sort of ‘the soul’ of the eucharist, if that makes sense.

Am I close?

Lutherans say that Christ’s Body and Blood is in, with and under the bread and wine. You see and taste the bread and wine but you actually receive his Very Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[RosaryFan]

Lutherans say that Christ’s Body and Blood is in, with and under the bread and wine. You see and taste the bread and wine but you actually receive his Very Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins.

What you’re describing is “consubstantiation”. Catholics hold the belief of “transubstatiation”. This means that the bread and wine cease to exist after the consecration at Mass. Since the OP is Catholic, he should understand that what you’re describing is not a Catholic belief, but Lutheran.

 

[Geremia]

What you’re describing is “consubstantiation”. Catholics hold the belief of “transubstatiation”. This means that the bread and wine cease to exist after the consecration at Mass.

Let me qualify that statement a little. The substance of the bread or wine ceases to exist after the consecration, but the accidents (e.g., the size, quantity, appearance, touch, taste, texture, color, etc.) of the bread or wine, now no longer inhering in any substance, remain. An accident is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “a property of a thing that is not essential to its nature.” This section of the Trent Catechism covers this in more detail.

 

[RosaryFan]

Let me qualify that statement a little. The substance of the bread or wine ceases to exist after the consecration, but the accidents (e.g., the size, quantity, appearance, touch, taste, texture, color, etc.) of the bread or wine, now no longer inhering in any substance, remain. An accident is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “a property of a thing that is not essential to its nature.” This section of the Trent Catechism covers this in more detail.

Thank you for clarifying my statement.

 

[Geremia]

Thank you for clarifying my statement.

There was nothing wrong with what you said. It’s just that some might wonder why after the transubstantiation the Body and Blood still look like un-consecrated bread and wine. It is the substance of the consecrated bread or wine which is God, so these verses are still true:[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 13:12[/bibledrb][bibledrb]John 1:18[/bibledrb]

St. Thomas Aquinas writes, addressing “Whether the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by any eye, at least by a glorified one?”:

Christ’s body is substantially present in this sacrament [cf. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article1”]Summa 1, ad 3; 3]

. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is “what a thing is” (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ’s body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect [Human souls are intellectual souls.], which is called the spiritual eye.

 

[hn160]

What you’re describing is “consubstantiation”. Catholics hold the belief of “transubstatiation”. This means that the bread and wine cease to exist after the consecration at Mass. Since the OP is Catholic, he should understand that what you’re describing is not a Catholic belief, but Lutheran.

We don’t believe in consubstantiation, but in the Personal Union of Christ’s Body and Blood with the bread and wine. Consubstantiation is a charge that the Calvinist throw out at the Lutherans.

 

[RosaryFan]

We don’t believe in consubstantiation, but in the Personal Union of Christ’s Body and Blood with the bread and wine. Consubstantiation is a charge that the Calvinist throw out at the Lutherans.

Doesn’t “con” mean “with”? Meaning you believe that Christ is existing “with” the bread and wine? Isn’t that “consubstantiation” and what you said you believed? Or am I wrong in my understanding of what you said?

In any event, the Catholics do not believe Christ is sharing substance with bread and wine. So to answer the OP’s question, Christ ONLY is present substantially. No more bread; no more wine.

 

[mcrow]

Doesn’t “con” mean “with”? Meaning you believe that Christ is existing “with” the bread and wine? Isn’t that “consubstantiation” and what you said you believed? Or am I wrong in my understanding of what you said?

In any event, the Catholics do not believe Christ is sharing substance with bread and wine. So to answer the OP’s question, Christ ONLY is present substantially. No more bread; no more wine.

I think you are correct.

Perhaps he’s confusing Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

 

[hn160]

I think you are correct.

Perhaps he’s confusing Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

The problem is Roman Catholics and Calvinist, both want to try to explain how Christ’s Body and Blood is or is not present in Holy Communion. Roman Catholics try to explain by the term Transubstantiation, Calvinist try to explain that it is a memorial meal and that the communicants soul communes with Christ because Christ Body is confined there, therefore Christ’s physical Body cannot be everywhere at the same time. Lutheran’s don’t try to explain it, we believe the Words of Christ when He said " This IS My Body…, This IS My Blood… Never in our Lutheran Confessions is the word Consubstantiation used. If you can find it let me know.

 

[cooterhein]

I’ve been thinking on the real presence of the eucharist, and I think I’ve got a way to explain it.

It’s similar to us as humans. We are made of meat, bone, and various other biology stuff. However, we have souls, so we are much more than the sum of our parts. Likewise, the eucharist is bread and wine, but has the real presence, and thus has much more. God is sort of ‘the soul’ of the eucharist, if that makes sense.

Am I close?

I think there is a sense in which belief in the RP is dependent on a certain kind of dualism with regard to all matter, not just people. Whether one half of the dual partnership ceases to exist and gets replaced is a matter for Catholics to clarify. I think it’s an ok way to explain it.

I think a couple of other things about it too, though. First, that this dualistic concept did not exist when Jesus instituted a remembrance of Him at the Last Supper, so His disciples certainly did not understand His words in this way. And second, this dualistic notion as applied to all matter was only taken seriously until…well, different people stopped taking it seriously at different times. Let’s just say it’s a little easier to defend in an era when earth, fire, wind, and water are taken seriously as “the four elements.” Or when various “humours” were believed to flow through people’s bodies and determine some aspect of their personalities. Our knowledge of matter, of substance, and of being have all changed since then, and one of the casualties was the dualistic nature of all matter. Philosophically and scientifically, it is now indefensible and that’s not ever going to change. At one and the same time, it is indispensable to the doctrine of transubstantiation. But probably not the RP as a whole.

Your side-by-side comparison of a dualistic philosophy of mind with a dualistic philosophy of matter is useful, but it also constitutes a fairly direct path to criticism of either philosophy. Of the two, “matter dualism” is the one you really don’t want to try and defend. You shouldn’t plan on even making an attempt- this is more of an occasion for an escape. The typical play here is to claim that you don’t have to defend it. Talk about how the CCC and official Church documents don’t use the word “accident.” That kind of thing. Distance yourself from it.

(Useful reference point: TPAM, right there at the end. That’s how you do it).

Cartesian dualism as a philosophy of mind continues to enjoy fairly widespread acceptance outside of academia, but that’s already changed within it. They’re just working on different ideas that can replace his and have the same kind of staying power. Some of them are really interesting- you should look into it.

Basically, you described two different philosophies of dualism that are similar in many ways and different in others. One of the differences is that one has nothing in the way of intellectual currency while the other isn’t quite there yet, but it’s well on its way out.

 

[JonNC]

The problem is Roman Catholics and Calvinist, both want to try to explain how Christ’s Body and Blood is or is not present in Holy Communion. Roman Catholics try to explain by the term Transubstantiation, Calvinist try to explain that it is a memorial meal and that the communicants soul communes with Christ because Christ Body is confined there, therefore Christ’s physical Body cannot be everywhere at the same time. Lutheran’s don’t try to explain it, we believe the Words of Christ when He said " This IS My Body…, This IS My Blood… Never in our Lutheran Confessions is the word Consubstantiation used. If you can find it let me know.

This is exactly correct. Sacramental Union is not an attempt to describe or explain the disposition of the substances bread and wine upon consecration.
The problem, for Lutherans, with both Transubstantiation and consubstantiation, is the use of metaphysical thinking and terms regarding the substance and accidents of the bread and wine. For Lutherans, what we see, feel, taste appears to be bread and wine. What we receive is His body and blood, because that is what He said.
God does with the bread and wine as He wills.

Jon

 

[Geremia]

The problem is Roman Catholics and Calvinist, both want to try to explain how Christ’s Body and Blood is or is not present in Holy Communion.

Sure, we Catholics are not fideists; we recognize the importance of both faith and reason.

Roman Catholics try to explain by the term Transubstantiation …]. Lutheran’s don’t try to explain it, we believe the Words of Christ when He said " This IS My Body…, This IS My Blood…

Isn’t that an explanation? If so, it sounds very much like transubstantiation if you interpret the words literally. If you cannot explain it with reason, though, even to a minimal level, how do you know what you believe?

This is exactly correct. Sacramental Union is not an attempt to describe or explain the disposition of the substances bread and wine upon consecration.
The problem, for Lutherans, with both Transubstantiation and consubstantiation, is the use of metaphysical thinking and terms regarding the substance and accidents of the bread and wine. For Lutherans, what we see, feel, taste appears to be bread and wine.

So would anybody in a sane state of mind

What we receive is His body and blood,

Yes, but you also receive the accidents, too, right?

because that is what He said.
God does with the bread and wine as He wills.

But the accidents are clearly in your mouth, stomach, etc. You can physically sense them, can’t you?

St. Thomas Aquinas writes a hypothetical objection with which you might agree:

1. 
   *]there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. [E.g., I can judge what a cat is (what its substance is) by petting one’s fur, hearing its meows, etc.; but although its fur and meows are only accidental to the substance of a cat (e.g., I could find or conceive of a fur-less, silent cat), they still give me some idea of what a cat is (what its substance is). In order to know completely what a cat is, I would need to observe many more cats. Similarly, we know who God is by His effects—His creatures—so the more of His effects we learn about, the more we can know Him. Whether one can in the present life “know God directly” (many Protestants’ view) or only in analogy from His effects (the Catholic doctrine of *analogia entis) is the crux of the issue. Cf. Romans 1:20.]

1. 
   *]It seems, then, that human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the substance of the bread does not [after consecration]. [In the cat example above, this would be like saying: “That which looks like a cow over there is really a cat.” Hence the judgment is deceived.]
   *]Consequently this ** is unbecoming to this sacrament. {And thus they should disappear into thin air, be an illusion, or, like I think you mean, be up to God who “does with the [accidents of the] bread and wine as He wills.”}
   
   In response to this objection, he writes:
   

   There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception. …] aith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.

   This question might interest you, too: “As it is in this sacrament, can Christ’s body be seen by the eye, at least by the eye of a glorified body?” St. Thomas writes that Christ’s body “is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye” and that “it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural things.”

 

[david_friol_1]

Lutherans say that Christ’s Body and Blood is in, with and under the bread and wine. You see and taste the bread and wine but you actually receive his Very Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins.

I am not sure but I do not think Lutherans have valid holy orders so there is only bread and wine at their service though they tend to believe otherwise…no offense intended!

 

[PJM]

=kbwall;7835435]I’ve been thinking on the real presence of the eucharist, and I think I’ve got a way to explain it.

It’s similar to us as humans. We are made of meat, bone, and various other biology stuff. However, we have souls, so we are much more than the sum of our parts. Likewise, the eucharist is bread and wine, but has the real presence, and thus has much more. God is sort of ‘the soul’ of the eucharist, if that makes sense.

Am I close?

To a Believer already; yes… to an unbeleiver

PM me if you’d like some addition amunation

God Bless,
Pat

 

[JonNC]

=Geremia;7847436]Sure, we Catholics are not fideists; we recognize the importance of both faith and reason.

I have no problem with faith and reason, but reason tells me its bread and wine, while fiath tells me its His body and blood.

Isn’t that an explanation? If so, it sounds very much like transubstantiation if you interpret the words literally. If you cannot explain it with reason, though, even to a minimal level, how do you know what you believe?

It sounds incredibly like Transubstantiation, without the metaphysical overtones. And recent Lutheran Catholic theological dialogue indicates we are essentially stating the same thing.

So would anybody in a sane state of mind. Yes, but you also receive the accidents, too, right? But the accidents are clearly in your mouth, stomach, etc. You can physically sense them, can’t you?

True. What appears to our senses as bread and wine are His body and blood.

Let me review the Aquinas quotes more.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I am not sure but I do not think Lutherans have valid holy orders so there is only bread and wine at their service though they tend to believe otherwise…no offense intended!

No offense taken. This is the teaching of your communion, and you are correct to professing it. Pardon us if we disagree. Further, a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.(

While no one would say tha Cr. Ratzinger here was disputing the teaching of the CC regarding Holy Orders, what he is saying that Chrsit’s presence in the Lutheran sacrament cannot be discounted. Even to him, what we do is not a nothing.

Jon

 

[Geremia]

It sounds incredibly like Transubstantiation, without the metaphysical overtones. And recent Lutheran Catholic theological dialogue indicates we are essentially stating the same thing.

Yes, it does seem like we are, so perhaps my attempt to find a difference, besides Lutherans not having validly ordained priests (as another poster on this thread mentioned, without offense), is futile.

 

[Geremia]

And recent Lutheran Catholic theological dialogue indicates we are essentially stating the same thing.

Yes, it sounds similar, besides the fact that Lutherans do not have validly ordained priests, as another poster on this thread respectfully pointed out.

True. What appears to our senses as bread and wine are His body and blood.

So the accidents are Christ? How can that be? The accidents can change—e.g., they can be big, small, right here, over there, broken into many parts, in one piece, etc.—but Christ, who is immutable, cannot.

You seem to believe in consubstantiation, which says that consecrated bread or wine is both Christ and bread or wine.

Also, by “is” one means “has the same substance as,” since only things which have the same substance can be identical. E.g., if I shared the accident of shortness with a short monkey, that does not mean that I am a monkey (that I have the same substance as a monkey)!