Some Thoughts...

[Jake Huether]

I had some wonderful thoughts last night. Though, I'm not sure how they will look in words, what God spoke went deep to into my heart and pierced my soul. So, all I hope by posting this is that you might meditate on these thoughts and if God so wills it, He will bring you to a more sound understanding of Himself.

I was reading St. Teresa of Avila's "Interior Castle" when I had this thought about the Eucharist. I don't know now what caused it, but it gave me a better understanding of HOW the Eucharist could happen. I hope it will help ya'll too.

God is the one who destined everything to be what it is. He set aside the "substance" of grass to be grass. He descided that the substance of apple would be apple. He has, through creation, shown us what his will for a certain items "substance" is by his Devine Fingerprint called molecular structurs. And so, when we look at water under a microscope and see H2O, we know for sure it is water. But is H2O what makes it "water"? NO! God intends for it to be water, and that is what makes it water. He WILLs it to be water. H2O is nothing more than the accidents of what God intends. Now, God can intend for anything to happen, and what He intends happens. And we can see this in the wedding at Cana. God, the Son, intends that the water turn to wine, and it does. Now, granted, we don't know if the molecular structure was still H2O, but because it tasted like wine, we can assume so. Therefore, there were actually TWO intentions by God. The First intention was that the substance of water was to be wine. He intended that what was in those vats be wine. He then, Secondly, intended that the divine fingureprint, the molecular structure (which effects the tast, smell, etc.) be that of wine.

Edit: Now that I think of it... He could have merely changed the accidents of water to wine, while the water reatined it's substance. This way, the water would have tasted like wine (the very best wine) and looked like wine, but it would have still been "water". Although, again, from Scripture, God said He changed it to wine, and so we know that the substance too was changed. But just for a clarification of how that works...

You see, when God created humans, He willed that we exist. He had an intention. His intention came first that the substance of humans would be a human. Our chemical and molecular makeup came secondary to our substance. Our makeup is only an indicator of our substance, so to speak.

My thoughts lead me then to consider the Eucharist. God had intended bread to be bread. And so, looking at the molecular structure we know that bread is what it is. But then, at the Last Supper, Christ said, "This is my Body". And so God willed that the bread be His "Body". We know from subsequent Scriptural passages that the taste and look of bread still were the same, because the desciples still refered to the accidents of the substance (Christ now) as "bread". But since God willed that the Bread be Him, than the Bread is Him.

Molecular Structure is a thought of God, and it is a seperate thought than that of substance. Though both thoughts normally come in a pair, this isn't necessary.

In a very simplistic analogy, lets say that I wedge a table between the knob of a door and a wall, so that it "acts" as a doorjam. The table, though it has all the "structure" of a "table" can now truly be considered a doorjam. The substance of the table can be considered "doorjam".

I guess in sum. my thoughts are this:

We are what we are not because of what we are made of necessarily, but because God intended us to be what we are. What we are made of only indicates what we are, because God intended that what we are made of to do so.

So, for our non-Catholic breatheren, we must then not limit ourselves to the possibility that mere bread can be the Creator of the Univers. For, if God so Willed Himself to be the "Divine Substance" of the accidents of bread, then that is what it is. For no other reason is water water, then that the Creater so willed it to be. It isn't because it is H2O. The Creator secondarily, and for our sake necessarily, associated this signiture to "water" so that we might be able to "name" it. But it is what it is, not because of it's signiture, but because God intended it to be.

So it is with the Eucharist. Jesus willed that it be His Divine Body and Blood, and so it is. The signiture of bread was left, but since God willed it to be Him, then that is what it is.

Now, I know that you might think about Jesus saying, I am the vine and you are the branches. But then look at it this way, Jesus said, "I am the vine". And so, if we were to take this litterally, then Jesus takes on the "substance" of vine, while retaining his accidents. But since there are no "accidents" of Jesus (the Creator has no "signature"), then this cannot work. Jesus can NOT make Himself (God) creature. Only creatures have a signiture, because creation must indicate to creation what its substance is. By this we know that it was merely an anology. And it is obviouse furthermore.

But when Jesus held up the bread and wine and said, This is My Body...This is My Blood, then it is the reverse (by the wording) of how He had stated "vine". That is, the bread took on the Substance of Christ, while retaining it's signiture, its accidents. So, while Christ cannot Change his own Substance to be that of a "vine", Christ can change the substance of something else to be His Substance.

Okay, I think I'll leave this at that...

If I made any sense at all, it was by the Glory of God. May all praise and honor be His for ever and ever. Amen.

Edited January 28, 2004 by Jake Huether

[phatcatholic]

jake,

wow dude, i want a hit off of whatever ur smokin! :heymon:

hehe, j/k. anyway, i was w/ you all the way up to this point:

Now, I know that you might think about Jesus saying, I am the vine and you are the branches. But then look at it this way, Jesus said, "I am the vine". And so, if we were to take this litterally, then Jesus takes on the "substance" of vine, while retaining his accidents. But since there are no "accidents" of Jesus (the Creator has no "signature"), then this cannot work. Jesus can NOT make Himself (God) creature. Only creatures have a signiture, because creation must indicate to creation what its substance is. By this we know that it was merely an anology. And it is obviouse furthermore.

i'm not following your logic for asserting that Jesus had no "accidents" or "signature." i see him as having these things, as a consequence of his perfect humanity. your thoughts?

pax christi,

phatcatholic

ps: puff--puff-give...... ;)

[Jake Huether]

I'm not sure...

Can we say that Jesus was "created"??

You could say that his humanity has a signiture. But then that would be denying that He is fully God also. Kind of like saying that Mary gave birth to Jesus' human nature and not God. Jesus is fully God fully man. And although humans have a signature, I'm not sure how to handle God the Son.

In any case, if He willed Himself to be a vine, then He would have become the substance of "vine", while appearing as a human. And since Jesus is also fully God, he could not replace the substance of himself. On the contrary if he was holding a vine and said, this is me, then the substance of the vine would be Him, though it would still look like a vine; just like the Eucharist.

[phatcatholic]

I'm not sure...

Can we say that Jesus was "created"??

You could say that his humanity has a signiture. But then that would be denying that He is fully God also. Kind of like saying that Mary gave birth to Jesus' human nature and not God. Jesus is fully God fully man. And although humans have a signature, I'm not sure how to handle God the Son.

In any case, if He willed Himself to be a vine, then He would have become the substance of "vine", while appearing as a human. And since Jesus is also fully God, he could not replace the substance of himself. On the contrary if he was holding a vine and said, this is me, then the substance of the vine would be Him, though it would still look like a vine; just like the Eucharist.

i wonder if we can say, maybe, that Jesus is human in his "accidents" but divine in his substance. both words do not mean the same as "nature." if this is a correct statement, then he would in fact have a human "signature."

i say, he has one. afterall, when u cut him, he bleeds. when he cries, tears fall. there is no reason not to think that he has a fingerprint and that his flesh and bones are made of the same substance as ours. remember, we're not talking about the Eucharist, but Jesus when he walked on this Earth.

but, how this complicates ur understanding of the Eucharist, I am not sure....

ur thoughts?

[Jake Huether]

i wonder if we can say, maybe, that Jesus is human in his "accidents" but divine in his substance. both words do not mean the same as "nature." if this is a correct statement, then he would in fact have a human "signature."

i say, he has one. afterall, when u cut him, he bleeds. when he cries, tears fall. there is no reason not to think that he has a fingerprint and that his flesh and bones are made of the same substance as ours. remember, we're not talking about the Eucharist, but Jesus when he walked on this Earth.

but, how this complicates ur understanding of the Eucharist, I am not sure....

ur thoughts?

You know. I had began to ponder the same exact thing! Christ having human accidents and God substance. But then it fell short. Becasuse in order to be both fully God and fully man He'd have to have both human substance and God substance. It's the accidents I'm not sure of - since his human accidents would also be "God accidents" which don't exist. Or maybe he does have human accidents since accidents only pertain to "creation". And since God willed himself to have a "created" nature (the human one), then indeed this is possible.

But that is far more than one can travel in the "vine" analogy. For the same reason, that is, in a sence. God cannot become the substance of "vine". He didn't become the substance of human either. He partook in the substance while not giving up his own Substance. It was a True Marriage of Substance.

I suppose my point was to show that it is obviouse that the "vine" statement was an analogy. While the statement with the bread, was actual.

But while this thought process is evolving... Is that what it means to be "Married". Do we, man and wife, imitate God's joint man/human nature. Do married couples partake in their partners substance in a similar way?

And likewise, is this why Christ gave us the Eucharist. So that we may partake in his Substance?