The Eucharist

[CatholicCrusader]

I was asked today by a protestant how the belief in the Blessed Sacrament is different than what protestants believe of the Last Supper. I wrote the following. I do not know if it will be beneficial to any apologists. If not, you may disregard this. If so, I am glad I could help. It was as follows:

The Church, of course, teaches what Christ taught: that when a validly ordained Priest says the Words of Consecration (which were instituted by Christ Himself), with the intention to confect (form) the Sacrament (turn the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ Himself so that they are just as much the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity on the Altar as they were at his Nativity), using proper matter (true bread without anything added, only wheat and water and fruit of the vine, true and natural wine), these change immediately from bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ after the Priest says the final word of the Words of Consecration for each substance. Once the Priest says, "For this is My Body" while holding the bread, it immediately becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. The same is true for the specific formula of words for the wine, so much so that there no longer remains AT ALL any bread or wine in their substance. By this is not meant their accidents. The substance of the bread and wine is replaced wholly, but the "accidents" (that is what they appear as themselves) of bread and wine still remain. This is exactly what happened at the Last Supper when Our Lord Himself said: "For this is My Body." At this time Christ Himself consecrated for the very first time the Blessed Sacrament, which He distributed to the Apostles. He also at this time ordained the Apostles as Priests (and Bishops) of Holy Mother Church to do likewise, as He commanded: "As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in commemoration of me." This is the only feasible way that the Sacrament could be confected, as Christ cannot exist in something that has no mass, or else He would not be physically and totally Present. The accidents themselves could not turn into Christ's physical Flesh and Blood because His Body is in Heaven with Him glorified, now risen from the Ascension. Moreover, Christ would not institute a Sacrament that would be repulsive to partake of. Furthermore, it is worthy of note that the Church teaches absolutely that the bread itself does not become only the Body of Christ and the wine only the Blood of Christ but that each become fully His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity so much so that the whole Christ is present in the smallest Particle of the Host and in the smallest Drop of what before was mere wine, now under the appearance of the Precious Blood. Also of note is that Christ is fully Present under these species, but He is not divided into two by the breaking of the Host, but once the Host is broken there exist two Particles of the Host, both fully Christ.

"Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. ... After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." St. John VI. 54 & 67, 69

[phatcatholic]

excellent work

[Guest JeffCR07]

awesome job!

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 2 2004, 07:58 PM']excellent work [/quote]
Ah, I have approval of phatcatholic--a true achievement!

Thanks, Jeff, also.

Edited August 3, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
8/3 - Eighteenth Tuesday

Well done! May I play the devil's advocate, though?

[quote]The substance of the bread and wine is replaced wholly, but the "accidents" (that is what they appear as themselves) of bread and wine still remain.[/quote]

It seems as if you are referring to some sort of unreality or sub-reality here - are not the bread and wine what they appear to be? What makes up bread if not flour and wheat? Or wine, if not smashed, fermented grape juice? I can easily see that the substance of the human person is the soul, but what is the substance of a dead, inanimate object?

[MorphRC]

Guud stuff

[William Putnam]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Aug 3 2004, 05:17 PM']JMJ
8/3 - Eighteenth Tuesday

Well done!   May I play the devil's advocate, though?



It seems as if you are referring to some sort of unreality or sub-reality here - are not the bread and wine what they appear to be?  What makes up bread if not flour and wheat?  Or wine, if not smashed, fermented grape juice?  I can easily see that the substance of the human person is the soul, but what is the substance of a dead, inanimate object?[/quote]
It is bad enough for an outsider, such as the Jews and some of Christ's weaker disciples in the "bread of life" discourse in John, chapter 6, to understand this, to get over the greater hurtle of actually eating and drinking Christ's [i]natural[/i] body and blood, which is what revolted them. Of course, had they stayed with Him until the Last Supper, they would have gotten the wonderful answer to this dilemma, His actual body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine.

But what your question does is conflict with our natural senses: We smell the host and it smells like bread, we taste the host and it takes like bread, digests like bread, and given sufficient time, would deteriorate like stale bread, left unintended, that it ceases to be bread. Yet we are to believe out of pure blind faith that it is no longer bread and wine but Christ's actual body, blood, soul and divinity.

And if such is then a great leap of faith, what does inanimation have to do with it? Or are we now reverting to our senses again, that for it to be Christ's body and blood, it must be animate? Well, when He died, Christ became inanimate, the slain Lamb of God, for which the consecrated host, in it's inanimation, so perfectly addresses! We receive His slaim bodyl which was crucified for us! What a most wonderful and beautiful mystery it is!

No, I don't answer your question completely and I ramble here, but these things bring forth the days when I first believed in the Holy Eucharist as taught by Holy Mother Church. I cannot explain how or why I believe it, only that I suddenly believed it and I continue to believe it today! That was my [i]Coup de grace[/i] after which all other objections to the Church fell by the wayside. I became a Catholic in 1953.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


[i]Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis![/i]

[DancesforLove]

You did a very good job with that!

[MorphRC]

Im surprised no ones gone for the catechism yet.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
8/8 - Nineteenth Sunday

My question is more philosophical than apologetic or theological - its answer wouldn't be found in the catechism.

To clarify my question - what do you mean by "substance" and "accident" that can be applied across the board? For if bread has a substance, do stones? Does water? Water seems to be an aggregate (a collection of accidents) of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, therefore not having a substance. I have a substantial form (my soul), and when I die, my body will have a different substantial form (that of being a corpse).

So I could see how wheat has a substance (namely, wheat-ness), but does it retain any sort of substance after being mixed with flour, water, &c., to make bread?

[i](to clear up any confusion, I'm just playing devil's advocate; my faith in the Holy Eucharist is right where it should be - right with Holy Mother Church)[/i]

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Aug 8 2004, 09:52 AM'] JMJ
8/8 - Nineteenth Sunday

My question is more philosophical than apologetic or theological - its answer wouldn't be found in the catechism.

To clarify my question - what do you mean by "substance" and "accident" that can be applied across the board?  For if bread has a substance, do stones?  Does water?  Water seems to be an aggregate (a collection of accidents) of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, therefore not having a substance.  I have a substantial form (my soul), and when I die, my body will have a different substantial form (that of being a corpse).

So I could see how wheat has a substance (namely, wheat-ness), but does it retain any sort of substance after being mixed with flour, water, &c., to make bread?

[i](to clear up any confusion, I'm just playing devil's advocate; my faith in the Holy Eucharist is right where it should be - right with Holy Mother Church)[/i] [/quote]
From my understanding, I could be wrong, but the word substance is being used not so much as the material of something but the essence or nature of something.

So for example I could get a tan but the color of my skin would be an accident of who I am. Or if I lost a limb, the accident of myself would change, but I would still have the same substance/essence/nature, I would still be me.

The following quotes are from Thomas Aquinas: On Being and Essence;


[quote]The essence is that according to which the thing is said to exist; hence, it is right that the essence by which a thing is denominated a being is neither form alone not matter alone but both, albeit that existence of this kind is caused by the form and not by the matter. Similarly, we see that in other things that are constituted from many principles, the thing is not denominated from just one or the other of the principles but rather from that which embraces both. [/quote]

[quote]We should now see in what way there are essences in accidents, having said already how essences are found in all types of substances. Now, since, as said above, the essence is that which is signified by the definition, accidents will thus have essences in the same way in which they have definitions. But accidents have incomplete definitions, because they cannot be defined unless we put a subject in their definitions, and this is because they do not have absolute existence per se apart from a subject, but just as from the form and the matter substantial existence results when a substance is compounded, so too from the accident and the subject does accidental existence result when the accident comes to the subject. Thus, neither the substantial form nor the matter has a complete essence, for even in the definition of the substantial form we place something of which it is the form, and so its definition involves the addition of something that is beyond its genus, just as with the definition of an accidental form. Hence, the natural philosopher places the body in the definition of the soul because he considers the soul only insofar as it is the form of the physical body.[/quote]



[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-esse.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-esse.html[/url]



But anyway this is way too much thinking for me.

Edited August 8, 2004 by Cure of Ars