Fr. Thomas Joseph White changed my life. His work "The Light of Christ" was a game changer for me. I crept around the Angelicum looking for him one afternoon and unfortunately he didn't appear! I am joyfully looking forward to this discussion!
Simply put, this is THE BEST short presentation on transubstantiation that I have ever seen! Fellow Catholics (and interested others), this is A MUST WATCH.
I heard a Baptist pastor discussing the nature of the Eucharist in a video. He said "I know that Jesus said this is my body, but that depends on what you mean by the word 'is'". I nearly choked on my coffee...
This topic has been on my mind. Jacob Power and I talked about this before on Discord, we ended up with more questions than answers about the Eucharist, Transubstantiation, and the philosophy behind it. I’m very glad you brought Gaven Kerr (My favorite Thomist), and Fr. Thomas Joseph (who had a lot of impact on me before becoming a Catholic convert). I can’t say anything more except I agree with Jacob Power, perfect timing Suan!
What a great episode. I’m so glad Fr. Thomas addressed Calvin’s response to consubstantiation and how it really is a low view of the Eucharist. And then the last question took a lot of brilliant philosophy and made it very practical. I woke up from a nap grumpy that my head was hurting too much to go to tonight’s vigil Mass as I had intended. Then came across this video and as a result will go to Mass tomorrow with a deeper understanding of the Eucharist. Thanks for this episode.
Nice meeting you earlier this week in Wichita Suan! Great discussion here, it was a good follow up from your talk at ToT. Keep up the good work, praying ya bro.
Granted it would be a somewhat strange and possible macabre discussion, but I would have liked to hear more about what it might even possibly be like NOT to have the accidents sustained.
This is sort of helpful. As a Protestant in RCIA, transubstantiation is the biggest thing standing between me and the Catholic church. As laid out here, I can see how Catholics think it's consistent with the Bible. But the apostles had absolutely no concept of Aristotolian ontology. I can't understand why the church decided to retroactively add this philosophy to the Bible over a millennium later. I know Catholics will retort that real presence is in the earliest writings and I would even agree with that. Paul uses sacramental language in 1 Corinthians. But I think Calvin made sense of this in saying that christ is truly present in an immaterial way. It's not _merely_ a symbol but also not changing substance in a complicated Aristotilian way. Why was it so necessary for the church to be this specific on the topic and inject a realm of philosophy completely foreign to early Christianity? Why didn't the church simply affirm the sacramental nature and reject that the Eucharist is merely a symbolic act as the Baptists say it is?
It's important to note that the Church's use of Aristotelian philosophy is not about imposing a new belief but about providing a philosophical framework to explain a belief that was always held. The core belief in the real presence is rooted in the words of Jesus at the Last Supper and the practice of the early Church. The philosophical explanation helps articulate this belief in a way that addresses intellectual and theological questions. Addressing Heresies Cathar and Albigensian Heresies: These groups denied the material reality of the sacraments, including the Eucharist, viewing the physical world as evil. The Church defined transubstantiation to affirm the true and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, countering their dualistic views. Protestant Reformation Challenges: Reformers like Zwingli viewed the Eucharist as merely symbolic, while others like Calvin saw Christ's presence as purely spiritual. The Council of Trent reaffirmed transubstantiation to clarify that the Eucharist is not just symbolic but involves a real and substantial change, maintaining continuity with early Christian belief.
Would it be correct to say that there is no necessary relationship between any substance and any of its accidents? So any substance could possibly have any accidents.
I don’t understand why the metaphorical interpretation isn’t considered the most straightforward and satisfactory interpretation of the Biblical data. No Aristotelian categories required.
There is one thing that doesn't seem to make sense. If the body of Christ is not locally present where the host is, then why are we looking at the host or touching the host as if Christ was locally there? If Christ is not locally present where the host is, then it seems there is no more reason to look in the direction of the host than in another direction when we are at Mass. Furthermore, if Christ is not locally present where the host is, then it seems there is no real change in the consecration except the annihilation of the bread. Think about it: before the consecration, there is the body of Christ in Heaven, and the bread with its accident on the altar. After the consecration, there is still the body of Christ in Heaven, and only the accidents of the bread on the altar. So it seems that the only thing that changed was the annihilation of the substance of the bread. Christ body is still in Heaven, and not on the altar. What could be the relation between the body of Christ in Heaven and the accidents that remain on the altar? Simply saying that Christ is "substantially present" doesn't help if you cannot explain exactly what that means and how it resolves the above difficulties. If the substantial presence is not a local presence, then we don't understand at all what it is, and we don't see how we can avoid all those problems I mentioned.
Substances are not the same as accidents. Location is an accident. Christ is present substantially, but not in His accidents. Summa Theologiae iii, questions 75-77 might help. We look at the bread (really just it's accidents) because Christ is present there substantially and not elsewhere. Similarly, we look at people when we speak to them because they are there (body and soul) even though their souls aren't there locally.
Everyone has their god. There are so many named gods from different cultures and places on the planet. There is only one god, the sun, Sol. Without Sol all would not exist. Good luck in your own god.
