Adoration & Bullet Proof Glass Talk

[Jack4]

7 hours ago, dUSt said:

From @Pontifex:

"Accidents are only external visible characteristics. Accidents and substance are usually equal. The miracle of the Eucharist turns that upside down. Getting caught up on the word "physical" is an endless circle of rhetoric. To say He is only present sacramentally would be to reduce the Eucharist to the level of the word, which would be heresy. The Eucharist cannot be contained by Thomistic theology. Thomistic theology is good, but the idea of substance and accidents is 13th century language. With our advancements in molecular biology and other sciences we have other ways to understand presence and physical reality."

With all due respect, I find some sloppy wording there. 

Accidents and substance are usually equal. The miracle of the Eucharist turns that upside down.Getting caught up on the word "physical" is an endless circle of rhetoric. To say He is only present sacramentally would be to reduce the Eucharist to the level of the word, which would be heresy.

 

What is meant here by the words "equal" and "sacramentally"?

 

The Eucharist cannot be contained by Thomistic theology.

 

"contained"? 

The Angelic Doctor, Aquinas himself would be the first person to affirm faith over reason. And when I say first, I mean Book 1, Question 1, Article 1, Reply to objection 1 : "Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith."

 

the idea of substance and accidents is 13th century language. With our advancements in molecular biology and other sciences we have other ways to understand presence and physical reality."

 

22. It is only logical, then, for us to follow the magisterium of the Church as a guiding star in carrying on our investigations into this mystery, for the Divine Redeemer has entrusted the safeguarding and the explanation of the written or transmitted word of God to her. And we are convinced that "whatever has been preached and believed throughout the whole Church with true Catholic faith since the days of antiquity is true, even if it not be subject to rational investigation, and even if it not be explained in words." (9)

23. But this is not enough. Once the integrity of the faith has been safeguarded, then it is time to guard the proper way of expressing it, lest our careless use of words give rise, God forbid, to false opinions regarding faith in the most sublime things. St. Augustine gives a stern warning about this when he takes up the matter of the different ways of speaking that are employed by the philosophers on the one hand and that ought to be used by Christians on the other. "The philosophers," he says, "use words freely, and they have no fear of offending religious listeners in dealing with subjects that are difficult to understand. But we have to speak in accordance with a fixed rule, so that a lack of restraint in speech on our part may not give rise to some irreverent opinion about the things represented by the words.'' (l0)

24. And so the rule of language which the Church has established through the long labor of centuries, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and which she has confirmed with the authority of the Councils, and which has more than once been the watchword and banner of orthodox faith, is to be religiously preserved, and no one may presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new knowledge. Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by the ecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation be judged as no longer appropriate for men of our times, and let others be rashly substituted for them? In the same way, it cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority take something away from the formulas which were used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Mystery for our belief. These formulas—like the others that the Church used to propose the dogmas of faith—express concepts that are not tied to a certain specific form of human culture, or to a certain level of scientific progress, or to one or another theological school. Instead they set forth what the human mind grasps of reality through necessary and universal experience and what it expresses in apt and exact words, whether it be in ordinary or more refined language. For this reason, these formulas are adapted to all men of all times and all places.

 

25. They can, it is true, be made clearer and more obvious; and doing this is of great benefit. But it must always be done in such a way that they retain the meaning in which they have been used, so that with the advance of an understanding of the faith, the truth of faith will remain unchanged. For it is the teaching of the First Vatican Council that "the meaning that Holy Mother the Church has once declared, is to be retained forever, and no pretext of deeper understanding ever justifies any deviation from that meaning."

 

Encyclical Mysterium Fidei of Paul VI, 3 September 1965

(all emphases mine)

10 hours ago, Peace said:

Me neither.

Ok then. I might have been misunderstanding you (ESL, you know!). I thought you were denying that the Eucharist had any substance at all, or that the substance of bread is changed to the substance of the Sacred Body. 

8 hours ago, Amppax said:

This subset of concerns regarding the Eucharist was a major focus of my grad sacraments class. I still feel, and probably always will, that I don't really grasp it at all.

If this means anything, Aquinas himself memorably confessed: auditu solo tuto creditur. Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius; Nil hoc verbo veritátis verius. Or even more tersely, Sola fides súfficit.

[PhuturePriest]

5 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

@PhuturePriest no precedent for perpetual adoration of the exposed Host by the laity until 40 years ago?

No, for perpetual adoration. The 40 Hours Devotion was a thing because adoration was rare.

[Jack4]

6 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

... turn many people to be very casual around the Eucharist, and there is certainly no precedent for it until maybe forty years ago. Perhaps the Church's previous restriction...is not something arbitrary and contains wise insight into human nature?

@PhuturePriest, is your rector pro-Extraordinary Form? From his lines of thought, it seems very so!

5 hours ago, Amppax said:

Man, I was really digging this until the last sentence. It strikes me as both bad theology and bad science to say that the physical sciences can advance our understanding of the Eucharist; by its very nature as a miracle, it falls outside the purview of the physical sciences. 

Also, I'm hesitant to dismiss the ideas of substance and accidents as merely "13th-century language." They are, but it's 13th-century language that has been incorporated into the dogmatic definitions of Eucharistic theology. Obviously, this language doesn't "contain" the mystery of the Eucharist, no language can. However, our theological language, especially that language which has been privileged by the Church in her authoritative teachings, can help to guide us, especially in helping us to see what the mystery is not (apophatic theology).

I'd like to attach footnote MF 24, quoted here.  

 

Quote

Perhaps I'm reading more into Father's statements than he means, and if so, I apologize. 

Me too. 

[PhuturePriest]

2 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

@PhuturePriest, is your rector pro-Extraordinary Form? From his lines of thought, it seems very so!

He's a solid Novus Ordo priest. He is, however, fluent in Latin, has two degrees in liturgy, and is bi-ritual.

[Jack4]

1 minute ago, PhuturePriest said:

He's a solid Novus Ordo priest.

Forgive me for my ignorance: Is any special transfer or incardination required for celebrating the EF? Or do you just mean that he doesn't celebrate it?

 

Quote

He is,... bi-ritual.

Which Eastern rite? Byzantine?

[Credo in Deum]

7 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

I'm afraid you're not addressing the question. Either goods such as adoration and communion are always good without restriction, or there is a need of moderation for some purpose or other. That we do have restrictions on communion means the Church believes there is something to be said for moderation.

I'm not saying I have the answer as to why -- I'm simply saying if we can apply this idea to some things, we shouldn't be afraid to apply it to others.

In my rector's experience (of which he has much, including even being the head MC for Pope John Paul II's Mass in Saint Louis), he has seen perpetual adoration turn many people to be very casual around the Eucharist, and there is certainly no precedent for it until maybe forty years ago. Perhaps the Church's previous restriction of adoration being just once per week and for special occasions (like the Corpus Christi procession) is not something arbitrary and contains wise insight into human nature?

Makes sense. We tend to lose an appreciation for things we're exposed to 24/7 or on a regular basis. Eat your favorite meal every day and it will soon no longer be your favorite meal. Live on the beach and love the scenic view until  two years go by and that amazing scenic view is just the normal boring scenery you see every morning.

Temperance in all things. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Credo in Deum

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

Forgive me for my ignorance: Is any special transfer or incardination required for celebrating the EF? Or do you just mean that he doesn't celebrate it?

 

Which Eastern rite? Byzantine?

No, he just doesn't celebrate it, to my knowledge.

Maronite, I think.

[dUSt]

You guys are reading more into @Pontifex than you should. The context of that reply was over a text message, so I'm sure he would explain in a lot more detail if he were writing an official essay or something.

I took it as him explaining that the accidents and substance of a thing usually "match". Like, if it looks, tastes and feels like an egg, the substance is an egg.

And also, simply stating that "substance and accidents" are words that were used in the 13th century in an attempt to explain something that might be more easily explained today using words more familiar to a how we currently speak. I don't think he's denying what St Thomas said at all, just stating the obvious fact that we could explain St Thomas' teaching better if we used a modern language and understanding of the sciences.

[Jack4]

11 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I don't think he's denying what St Thomas said at all

contradicts

 

Quote

I just texted @Pontifex. Asked him if Jesus is "physically" present in the Eucharist. Here's his reply, and I quote, "He is. Argument over."

13 minutes ago, dUSt said:

You guys are reading more into @Pontifex than you should. The context of that reply was over a text message, so I'm sure he would explain in a lot more detail if he were writing an official essay or something.

I daresay that the language was too sloppy and inaccurate, even for a text message.

[dUSt]

20 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

contradicts

How does it contradict? 

7 hours ago, Amppax said:

Man, I was really digging this until the last sentence. It strikes me as both bad theology and bad science to say that the physical sciences can advance our understanding of the Eucharist; by its very nature as a miracle, it falls outside the purview of the physical sciences. 

Also, I'm hesitant to dismiss the ideas of substance and accidents as merely "13th-century language." They are, but it's 13th-century language that has been incorporated into the dogmatic definitions of Eucharistic theology. Obviously, this language doesn't "contain" the mystery of the Eucharist, no language can. However, our theological language, especially that language which has been privileged by the Church in her authoritative teachings, can help to guide us, especially in helping us to see what the mystery is not (apophatic theology). Perhaps I'm reading more into Father's statements than he means, and if so, I apologize. 

 @Pontifex didn't say "physical sciences can advance our understanding of the Eucharist". Those are your words.

Also, it seems like common sense to me that things can be more easily explained today using modern language, and understanding of the sciences. If I had to choose between sending my kid to a math course taught in modern English, or a math course taught in Shakespearean language, I'd obviously choose modern English--even though the math concepts he'd be learning originated way before Shakespeare. 

You guys are arguing over semantics, not theology.

[Jack4]

 

1. @Pontifex does not deny what St Thomas says. 

2. The Summa is a work of St Thomas and represents his thought.

3. ST, III, q76, a5 teaches that Jesus is not present in the consecrated species sicut in loco or localiter.

4. Therefore, Fr. Pontifex believes that Jesus is not present in the consecrated species sicut in loco or localiter. 

5. But he affirms that Jesus is present "physically",

6. This means presence sicut in loco or localiter 

Contradiction, nos. 4 and 6.

[dUSt]

18 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

1. @Pontifex does not deny what St Thomas says. 

2. The Summa is a work of St Thomas and represents his thought.

3. ST, III, q76, a5 teaches that Jesus is not present in the consecrated species sicut in loco or localiter.

4. Therefore, Fr. Pontifex believes that Jesus is not present in the consecrated species sicut in loco or localiter. 

5. But he affirms that Jesus is present "physically",

6. This means presence sicut in loco or localiter 

Contradiction, nos. 4 and 6.

You made a huge leap in assuming "physically" means "sicut in loco or localiter". Before hurling accusations, the onus is on you to verify what @Pontifex is actually saying.

Addendum: @Jack4, I just realized the fact that you are using language like "sicut in loco" to argue a point on an internet message board ran by a common layperson, shows me that this whole concept of "using modern language" to more easily explain a concept, might just be going over your head. 

Also, @Jack4, if you believe ensoulment occurs at conception, then you yourself contradict St Thomas Aquinas. An example of how advancements in science can help us explain certain theological concepts with a more modern view.

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

you are using language like "sicut in loco" to argue a point on an internet message board ran by a common layperson...

...well, I myself am a common layperson (and very young and less-educated one at that)! 

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

if you believe ensoulment occurs at conception, then you yourself contradict St Thomas Aquinas.

I am not learned at his views on ensoulment so I can't comment. I'll acknowledge that he is not infallible and leave it at that. 

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

You made a huge leap in assuming "physically" means "sicut in loco or localiter". Before hurling accusations, the onus is on you to verify what @Pontifex is actually saying.

Assuming that what is called "physical" presence says something beyond "substantial presence", then I can't see any other meaning. 

I'd be happy to be corrected on that, though.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Jack4

[dUSt]

Here's my point. If Jesus is not physically there, then why is such care taken with the accidents of the bread? If the priest is only physically handling the accidents of bread, why does it even matter what happens to those physical accidents of bread?

[Peace]

 

3 hours ago, dUSt said:

Also, @Jack4, if you believe ensoulment occurs at conception, then you yourself contradict St Thomas Aquinas. An example of how advancements in science can help us explain certain theological concepts with a more modern view.

lf I may derail the thread yet again, I thought that the the moment of ensoulment is still an open question. Am I mistaken?