Well, Jesus, as man, had a fully human nature, and thus a fully human substance (along with the appropriate human appearances). And he was also fully God, and had the substance of God (which being spirit only, has no outward appearances.)I would propose that there is at least one other case, which is Jesus Christ c. 0-33AD. Every possible analysis would have indicated that the substance of the man Jesus was that of a human person, but in actuality the substance of the man Jesus was that of God.
I guess the question is whether “substance” would refer to “nature” or “personhood” - Christ having both a human and a divine nature, but being only a divine person. But that’s probably best left for another thread. The simple point, which I’m sure you’d agree with, is that no possible physical analysis of the man Jesus Christ would have revealed him to be God, just as no possible physical analysis of the Eucharist would reveal it to be God.Well, Jesus, as man, had a fully human nature, and thus a fully human substance (along with the appropriate human appearances). And he was also fully God, and had the substance of God (which being spirit only, has no outward appearances.)
On that we can agree.I guess the question is whether “substance” would refer to “nature” or “personhood” - Christ having both a human and a divine nature, but being only a divine person. But that’s probably best left for another thread. The simple point, which I’m sure you’d agree with, is that no possible physical analysis of the man Jesus Christ would have revealed him to be God, just as no possible physical analysis of the Eucharist would reveal it to be God.
So what if when the bread is made someone puts poison in the mix? After the consecration there should no longer be any poison in the flesh, right?
I would agree with a PP, in that the poison could not be transubstantiated into Jesus, and it could in fact lead to an invalid Eucharist.And there wouldn’t be, but the accidents of the poison (e.g., the molecular properties that cause its poisonous effect) would continue to exist, just as the accidents of bread continue even after the substance has changed.
Which, notably, is an Aristotelian term: the Church didn’t just redefine it at its leisure.In the modern world the term “substance” is seldom understood in the same sense as the Church means it in this doctrine.
I don’t think that’s orthodox. Jesus had a fully human nature, but He’s a divine person. He is one in substance with God. He is of uncreated divine substance, and we are of created, non-divine substance. Christ has no such created substance in Himself.Well, Jesus, as man, had a fully human nature, and thus a fully human substance (along with the appropriate human appearances). And he was also fully God, and had the substance of God (which being spirit only, has no outward appearances.)
Well yes, Jesus is of one substance with the Father, the word substance being used here equivalently to ‘nature.’ And He is a divine Person. But he is one person who totally possesses both the one divine nature and a particular human nature. His human nature is complete: that is, his human nature consists of the substance and accidents of any human being, using the terms in their Aristotelian sense. I am only restating the doctrine of the hypostatic union.I don’t think that’s orthodox. Jesus had a fully human nature, but He’s a divine person. He is one in substance with God. He is of uncreated divine substance, and we are of created, non-divine substance. Christ has no such created substance in Himself.
Jeremy
No, I just think that few people study metaphysics anymore, and few are familiar with the Aristotelian and Thomistic distinction between appearances and substance.Why do people have such a problem believing in the substance of anything–which of course can’t be seen–and their own soul–which cannot be seen?
Is it worship of self?