The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[Havoc]

Again, what you say is wholesome. Those of our saints whom we call "Fathers" or "Mothers" of the Church are those whose sanctity comes through in their written word--those that the Church has found indeed have views in accord with God and godliness. Instead of railing against me or St. Basil, why don't you just read a little of his writings to see for yourself.

I'm not railing against St. Basil. I'm saying that his written word amounts to sqauller if it cannot be fully supported in scripture. Just because he's from an early period doesn't make everything he says gold. Nor does it require less scrutiny. Paul couldn't speak anything he pleased and call it gospel just because he was Paul. Paul spoke in agreement with scripture and in agreement with the other Apostles and Jesus. If those that came later can't be shown to do the same thing - what they say is worthless.

[Fury]

Nobody called anyone any names, why don't you just shut up and quit telling full grown men how to act in your make believe world, and acting like the thread police, before the name calling REALLY starts.

LOL. In my make believe world, men act like gentleman. I'm sorry in your world they do not.

I thought we are all supposed to be good stewards of this thread. And threats don't intimidate me - either on-line or in person. :) Take care - Fury

[malakhi]

Chemical analysis only confirms the appearance (accidents). Modern science does, in fact. not deal with what the Greeks called substance or essence, but only the appearance. Push come to shove, there is not even what the materialists call "matter,"but only "mass," which is only a measurement.

Explain to me, then, how substance and accidents are truly distinct. If the difference is not detectible physically, and can only be perceived spiritually, then how can you say that a physical change happens at consecration? It seems that the most you can say is that something spiritual happens. If a change cannot be detected physically, then it is not really a physical change.

[malakhi]

As for your question...yes. And it is treated as such (or perhaps a "piece of the Divine" is a better description). But I would assume you knew this?

Well, I'm aware of the practice of eucharistic adoration, so I guess at some level I did know it. But I never really thought through the implications. Would you say that the consecrated host can legitimately be an object of latria?

[malakhi]

Ping to my #7123.

[IMRight]

Would you say that the consecrated host can legitimately be an object of latria?

I would guess so. But it gives birth to a complex conversation. If the host is actually Christ's body, then what is being worshiped is Christ and therefore ok. If it is not Christ's body (say for argument that it has not been consecrated), then the individual still believes he is worshiping Christ, not some piece of bread.

If I do something meritorious and say "Not I. but Christ in me has made this possible" then I am serious that Christ has done this thing, though I am still the physical participant. Those who adore the host adore Him who they believe is within the host. I suspect that this mean that the accidents are not worthy of either worship or adoration. So we are back to square one.

[IMRight]

Would an interior locution count? Frodo can be my first disciple. ;o)

The Man of Steel didn't have disciples, silly.

[SoothingDave]

You may have all the faith in the world, but if you chemically analyze that bread and wine, it is still bread and wine.

Yes, absolutely.

To those without faith in this miracle, it seems absurd to say that they have been physically changed into the body and blood of Jesus.

Substantially changed. Physically present. But, yes, to those without faith it seems absurd. So does a heck of a lot of other things in which we have faith.

A talking bush?

SD

[DouglasKC]

I would guess so. But it gives birth to a complex conversation. If the host is actually Christ's body, then what is being worshiped is Christ and therefore ok. If it is not Christ's body (say for argument that it has not been consecrated), then the individual still believes he is worshiping Christ, not some piece of bread.

How is that any different from worshipping a man who has Christ in him? One could make the claim that they aren't worshipping or following the man, but are worshipping and following the Christ that lives in him.

I think that situtations like this is exactly why God gave us the 1st and 2nd commandments.

[DouglasKC]

The Man of Steel didn't have disciples, silly.

Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen...:-)

[DouglasKC]

The Man of Steel didn't have disciples, silly.

Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen...:-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

A talking bush?

Hey didn't you get this out of that same book where they allegorically parted the red sea? :-)

[SoothingDave]

Not a bad analogy. Now let me take this stick and poke at it a little. You would of course be able to empirically test my changed "substance", simply by asking me how I now identify myself. Further, you can observe how my outward actions are indicative of this interior change. The priest might find it odd if you begin interrogating a communion wafer.

Indeed.

Another difference is that my discovery of myself to be a Jew is not a physical change. A medical exam would reveal the same ol' angelo.

It is a substantial change. It is a change to (at least part of) the answer to "who are you?" You are physically present here. But now you are "angelo the Jew."

In the same way, when transubstantiated, the answer to "what is it?" changes, though the "medical exam" would reveal the same ol' bread and wine.

Third, your analogy would require that the communion bread and wine to have always been "in some cosmic sense" the body and blood of Jesus, and that this "identity" is only revealed at the moment of consecration. I don't think this would jibe with Catholic eucharistic theology.

The analogy breaks down here. Baptism would be a better analogy, but I wanted to customize it for you. :-)

I would not agree that the bread and wine even becomes "spiritually" the body and blood of Jesus, although I will concede its spiritual significance to Christians. A spiritual change is, nevertheless, much less problematic theologically and (dare I say it?) philosophically.

What exactly would a "spiritual change" mean? And how would that differ from a substance change?

SD

[SoothingDave]

If the bread and wine are believed to literally become the body and blood of Jesus, and Jesus is believed to be God, then does this imply that Catholics believe that the consecrated host is divine?

Weren't you Catholic?

Does the phrase "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" ring a bell?

Would not all the bowing and genuflecting be idolatry were it not God present?

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

LOL!!! Only if you promise to sing a good old fashion hymn ever once and a while also. :)

You'll be happy to know we've rock and rolled some great old hymns. :-)

[IMRight]

How is that any different from worshipping a man who has Christ in him? One could make the claim that they aren't worshipping or following the man, but are worshipping and following the Christ that lives in him.

Good point, but Christ never said "that man over there is me" did he? Whether we accept whether He meant it or not and whether we accept that it happens still today, He certainly did say that the bread was His body. He didn't say "is kinda like", He said "is".

That having been said. We don't follow Paul, we follow Christ in Paul. The pastor (or Pope for that matter) has no authority apart from the authority of Christ that is given him.

[SoothingDave]

If I recall correctly, Catholic teaching is that the consumed consecrated bread and wine cease to "be Jesus" once they lose their distinct physical attributes (i.e. relatively soon after consumption). Do I have this right Dave?

Yep.

That does raise an interesting theological question. Why, exactly, does the consecrated bread and wine cease to be the body and blood of Jesus when it loses its distinct physical "accidents", if the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist is in the substance and not in the accidents?

The presence is not just in the substance. The accidents are the only thing that physically exist.

The miracle is the Presence of God under the appearance of bread and wine. When the appearance of bread and wine is no longer, the presence ceases.

In some sense, perhaps, you could say that the Presence is spiritually digested and incorporated into the consumer.

SD

[SoothingDave]

In the East we never did like that Aristotelian mumbo-jumbo about substance and accidents. At an epistemological level we know it's His Body and Blood because He told us it is. At the ontological level, the only explanation we given in the East as to how is "by the action of the Holy Spirit".

The simplicity of your method is apparent. I'm sure we had a good reason to go into more detail. We've been very creative in spawning heretics.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Explain to me, then, how substance and accidents are truly distinct. If the difference is not detectible physically, and can only be perceived spiritually, then how can you say that a physical change happens at consecration? It seems that the most you can say is that something spiritual happens. If a change cannot be detected physically, then it is not really a physical change.

I think I've found the source of your confusion. We don't teach that a physical change happens. We teach that a substance change happens. And the substance which is changed just happens to be attached to some accidents which are physically present.

The presence is physical, in the sense that you can see and feel and taste it. What is it? It is the Body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Where is it? Right over there.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Hey, how 'bout those Avs? It's always good to get your mettle tested early on, to remind you of what is to come.

Drury's goal which broke the game open was an absolute masterpiece. It reminded me of a young Jagr in the absolute determination to let nothing stop him on the way to the goal. Fabulous!

As for the Bruin fans out there, sorry. Enjoy the Super Bowl trophy some more and Vive Les Habitants

SD