Look, if you want to BEGIN to gt one corner of a clue about "Real Presence" you can start by grasping what "Realism" is. And one thing "Realism" is NOT is materialism.
Here's the problem: There are lots of different kinds of sheep. And each individual ewe or ram is unique. But there is SOMETHING they share, or we wouldn't call them sheep. Also, we say, this sheep is a better than that one. It seems there is something which is not an instance or example of sheep by which we determine that this sheep is better than that one.
I judged a show once. I had to assess varieties of sheep and their excellences, and then I had to declare a 'best in show."
I could do this because I had an "idea" of a sheep. This is more than a "picture". I looked at the sheep, I felt them. I watched them move, I checked their hooves, smelled their breath -- all kinds of stuff.
None of the sheep were perfectly good exemplars either of "sheep" or of "Suffolk" "Churro" "Columbia" "Karakul". But there are all those "ideas" which I understood, if not well, at least well enough to be asked to judge.
PLEASE notice that an idea does not exist in my head. That is it's not, as I am using the term, possible for it to be "my idea." I am distinguishing between MY UNDERSTANDING and THE IDEA
So, now we can get going: Realism teaches that "ideas" are, um "real." That is, what some might call "the idea" of, say, triangularity is real and can be thought about without having to think about the examples or instances of triangularity. "Twoness" exists in a different way from any actual pairs of things. We can learn about arithmetic and numbers without having to use pairs of things, but only symbols.
I am using "idea" in this, though the term "form" is probably more usual. But I think for materialists, "form" is a confusing term.
Almost anything that is in a class of things, is in the class because it has a "idea" (NOT an 'appearance', a "idea" can be entirely without appearance THOUGH it is normally encountered at first through its instantiations.)
There is a "idea" therefore of animals, of sheep, of Lincoln Longwool Sheep. We can meaningfully speak of any of those classes.
There is a idea of humans, and a idea of each individual human. When the idea and the human body are separated, except by the grace of God, the human dies and you are not looking at a human, but merely at a human body.
In any event, the ideas exist in the mind of God, AND are manifested in members or instantiations of their class, and are perceived by the human mind. Because they exist in the mind of God, they are REAL.
A substance is an instantiation of a idea. Substance is NOT the equivalent of "material" -- at least not until the "enlightenment" when philosophy started getting incoherent.
A substance, the union of matter with its specifying "idea", is the what-it-isness of a thing -- its "quiddity". We are made of pretty much the same "material" as a sheep, but we are humans NOT JUST because that material is organized in a different way, but because we think and choose and do things which are in themselves esssentially immaterial.
Just as my understanding of the "idea" of sheep is imperfect, so my understanding of the "idea" of Jesus Christ is imperfect. But I can say that when that idea is instantiated, that is when it is "joined" to matter (whether "spiritual" or "natural" matter), I have before me Jesus Christ -- who, incidentally, does not come in pieces, because He is God and God has no parts.
So it is the "whatness" of Jesus with which God graciously replaces the "whatness" of the bread and the wine. In the normal case, without a further miracle, that's all that's done. (But it's a big 'all')
Most importantly, in the normal case the "accidents" (smell, taste, ability to make one drunk or fat, ability to trigger allergic reaction, and so forth) usually remain.
Almost done. We hold that, as "ideas" are real, so this change is real. It is true whether or not it is believed, whether or not it is perceived.
Quix, you asked for Realism 101. You got it. I'll send you a bill.
What do you men *What weasel words*?
I never used the term.
Who was this, um,... interesting post primarily addressed to?
Very well explained post.
Just wanted to let you know I got something out of it - before your pinged posters illustrate they didn’t get anything from it..
:)
I wish all my ideas were real...
Mad Dawg, this is Twilight Zone stuff...Something doesn't become real by thinking it...
But I can say that when that idea is instantiated, that is when it is "joined" to matter (whether "spiritual" or "natural" matter), I have before me Jesus Christ
I have an idea that my truck is a brand new dual wheel F350 but alas, when my head clears, it's the same of clunker than it was before the idea was conceived...
The reality is; the idea combined with matter may make a change 'in your head' but it's the same old thing you started with...The matter doesn't change...The substance doesn't change no matter how vivid the idea is...
SOMEHOW,
I think I missed this post the first go around.
I loved this paragraph.
A substance is an instantiation of a idea. Substance is NOT the equivalent of “material” — at least not until the “enlightenment” when philosophy started getting incoherent.
BTW, I understood all that before you laid it out. My literary and classics exposure is not THAT deficient.
I was thinking that you must be talking of something mysteriously BEYOND that.