"Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, ..."
"Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament. "
Therefore to adore Christ sacramentally is in no way saying,"Lo, here is Christ,..."
Therefore your remark is irrelevant.
Yea, us little o dummies don't know nuthin'... From your link:
On the contrary, The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place.
I answer that, As stated above (1, ad 3; 3), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.
What a heap of verbal gymnastics...And then you tell each other that you are in the real presence of Christ, but then you're not really...The guy holds up the monstrance so you guys can worship the cracker which is Christ but actually you guys worship the 'substance'...
I'll bet there's not one out of a thousand Catholics who have ever heard what this PHILOSOPHER claims about your Eucharist...A pagan philosopher writes a thesis on a completely unbiblical tenet of your 'not of the bible' tradition and you then claim it is disqualified from being the object of the verses I posted...
Your problem is that the scripture didn't specify whether it was the 'physical Christ' or 'Christ the substance' that was to be rejected...
Jesus just said that if someone says that Christ is here, or Christ is there, or you have Christ locked away in a closet between Masses, dump that religion as fast as you can because they are lying...
On the contrary, The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place.
Oh Brother...The place and the object must be equal...Who says??? A philosopher...
And that's your religion...
ALL the other things you say about us, true or not, have nothing to do with that simple thing.
You were mistaken. Your quote was irrelevant. What is so hard about that?
Oh Brother...The place and the object must be equal...Who says??? A philosopher..
When Aquinas says, "The Philosopher" he means Aristotle. But he is not quoting Aristotle as an authority whose mere pronouncement makes a thing so. Aristotle reasons well about space and place.
If a thing is bigger than its place, then onlypartof it is contained in its place, and the rest not. So its place is not its place. Which is absurd.
If a thing is smaller than its place,then its place is where it touches the other thing in its place, which is absurd.
Therefore the place and the object must be equal.
Yea, us little o dummies don't know nuthin'...
I didn't say that. You made a charge. I hadthe nerve not only to defend against it but to do so reasonably, showing that we do not think Jesus is "here." as in a place so tht one might say, "lo, here."
Evidently I am wrong for being right. Which is absurd.
Abuse is not argument, and therefore not persuasive.
The Catholic Church already tried chaining the Bible to the pulpit by denying it to the people. They lost that battle so now attempt to keep the understanding from the people through double speak, obfuscation, and supposed mysteries.
The scriptures were written so that we can understand as Paul explains.
Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)