This is brilliant! I work in biotech and this is an excellent piece of wisdom and science that I will use to defend my faith

I’ve been intending to make this into a t-shirt for some time now.

Ask the Uncle if you can you see Jesus’ divinity at a molecular level?  How can a glorified risen body change form on the road to emmaus as Jesus did, if he can change form their is it plausable for him to present himself in another form today in the Eucharist? This risen body could suddenly appear in the upper room yet as doubting thomas found out the glorfied body of jesus had wounds of actual flesh.  I guess its ok to believe in all the foundational miracles in the past for Christians without an explanation but us as Catholics the “eucharsist” is a present day miracle that simply saying “we dont understand its a Miracle” will never suffice to many people because it demands what Christ wants most of us. True Faith like a Child, not Faith with Facts. A glorified body sounds pretty awesome!! I cant wait to get mine.

The Church’s teaching has always insisted that the “accidents”- the chemical compositionn remain the same. JESUS’s presence is SACRAMENTAL, His Risen Body remains in heaven even as He is present in the Communion Bread. I have a lot of tgrouble with the visionaries and scientists who find physical components such as heart cartilage- in miraculous communion bread. It makes no sense to me, seems to contradict our faith that is a real presence of body, blood, soul and divinity, but sacramental. I love the ” Change you can believe in!”

Let’s begin we are Trinitarians. Their are three in one The father son and the holy spirit. To begin read John and discover what jesus had to say about the spirit. To continue

This is brilliant, succinct, and very helpful.  I sometimes teach a high school class called Theory of Knowledge, which is required for the Interrnational Baccalaureate diploma.  Among the things we discuss are the interplay among language, thought, and perception.  I may bring this in, for it is helpful in that arena as well.

One of the best statements was, “The error lies in supposing this to be the only level.”  This is a key issue in philosophy of mind.  If the universe is causally closed thanks to a physicalist model, then there can be no such thing as mind, consciousness, or soul.  Is is exactly what is maintained by such popular philosophers and writers as Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, and Paul and Patricia Churchland.  One who argues against this physicalist understanding is David Chalmers.

Thank you for posting this.

Brilliant exposition. Thank you Mark and Mike.

Thank you for this explanation, and it doesn’t hurt that it comes from one of my favorite authors! :)

proto1 I ee you are back on this topic. There is no “problem” the presnce of Christ is a matter of Faith, we see the many NT references,  understand the OLD; Passover, sacrifices of the Lamb and the manna in the desert which are underscored in the whole NT narratives. They include the loaves and fishes, Paul in 1 Cor, Acts, “the breaking of bread” in the loaves and fish and Luke 24 the two going to Emmaus. John 6 hammers it home when Jesus says CHEW/“GIGNOSCE” my BODY,  not pretend it is like a Civil War re-enactment or use of a Christmas crib in church, “reminder” The Eucharist says what it signifies - This is MY BODY/BLOOD EAT/DRINK. The unbelievers waled away in Johh 6.

Excuse my shorthand above. Absolutely did not imply or intend to say God was in the manna or the Passover Lamb. They are TYPES of what was to come, fulfilled in Jesus the Christ. Read John 6- get a Greek-English side by side translation. carefully read 51-58 and see Jesus says CHEW and refuses to back down when the crowd objected to what they saw as cannibalism which is not what HE suggested. That chapter was John’s way of dealing with the lack of faith in Jesus -written 70 or sao years later.John did the Foot Washing at the Supper to show that HUMBLE SERVICE of others flows from the Eucharist which he did not need to repeat the other three Gospels did nnt record the washing, did the Supper of course. This requires study, comparing passages, clearly follow the TYPES of the Old Testament and how they are used in the New by people who knew BOTH and wove them together in light of Jesus’ finishing the preparation begun with the Jewish people 2000 years before.

Proto - You show no evidence of change.  Does that mean God is not in you?

The spirit is in the bread and wine ,think about it read John it is the spirit that gives life the flesh and the blood are of no avail except the bread and wine does contain substance contained in the spirit as it becomes present, we are almost there scientifically with the proof of matter being present. Think!  Dr Thomas

That comment seems to make no sense Thomas. It is by the POWER of the Holy Spirit that changes the elements into the body and blood of Christ. The Spirit is not “IN” the elements. The reference to the Spirit giving life is just that- the Holy Spirit is the agent of putting the baptised and all who receive the other sacraments in Christ by inserting them into the Life of the Trinity and “grows” that in us by Grace, thanks to His Paschal Mystery.

I believe in “Facevalue” theology.

“Christians” don’t believe in a real presence in the Eucharist.  Therefore, Jesus is not really present in their communion.

Catholics believe in a real presence.  Therefore the Lord is really present in their holy communion.

Let each communion talk for themselves.  Accept in on “Facevalue.”

Certainly, non-Catholics could have no knowledge of the sacred mysteries of the Church.  You might as well require turtles to recite the pledge of allegiance.

And likewise, no sane Catholic could fathom the vagaries of protestant theology.  It’s like herding snails: a job requiring centuries with nothing else better to do.

I bread tastes like bread and the wine taastes like wine at communion time.Supposedly Jesus Christ Spirit is in the bread and wine at holy communion which is the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ.

Likewise priests: “Christians” don’t believe in promoting a sacramental priesthood (despite overwhelming evidence in scripture of the centrality of this institution in the life of the people of God).  Fine, then: there are no “Christian” priests.  No one among their group follows the Jesus of the cross, the NT Melchizedek, the sacerdotal giant of Hebrews.  It’s hard to understand how these “truncated disciples” can call themselves Christian, but hey, that’s up to them.  I take them at Facevalue.

And when “Christians” bridle over calling a priest “father,” I’m not mad.  They have no father.  Our priests merit that name because they “come in the name of the Lord.”  And the Lord is my Father.  I think it’s sad that protestant christians don’t have that kind of relation with anybody but their biological dads.  (Do christians call their dads “father?” or is it reverend mister?)  It’s really sad that they don’t see God in the people who minister to them.  It’s like they’re wolves in sheep’s clothing, or theives climbing over the sheepfold wall, or something.  I feel sorry for them, but I take them at their Face Value.

UNLESS YOU EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOOD YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU. JOHN SIX COMES WAY AHEAD OF THE LAST SUPPER NARRATIVE WHICH AS I WROTE ABOVE CAME DECADES AFTER THE EVENT. THE CHURCH IS A LIVING ORGANISM, IT GROWS AND LEARNS AND WE EACH GET HOLIER IF WE WORK WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH THE SACAMENTS, INNER PRAYER AND SERVING AND LEARNING FROM OTHERS.

If the universe is causally closed thanks to a physicalist model, then there can be no such thing as mind, consciousness, or soul.

Not only that.  There would be no such thing as “number,” which would play hob with mathematics no end.

Mark, that is one of the best explanations of transubstantiation I’ve seen in modern English.  I am a convert from an evangelical Protestant background.  Though I do not have trouble accepting and believing the concept of transubstantiation, I frequently have trouble trying to explain it to my evangelical friends, or trying to grasp it at the level of personal faith.
When I go to Eucharistic Exposition and Benediction, as I did this morning, I always feel as though I cannot quite see what most of the others present do, even though I know the Lord is there.
Thank you!

I love the title of this post! :)

I would like to add that when we taste the bread and say “The bread is sweet.” This is really not a property of the bread, but a property of how we experience it. Paradoxically to our intuition, it says something about us.

This is my blood this is my flesh eat it he meant it the bread is more then just sweet????????  It is real. Dr Thomas

I love these discussions, I love Philosophy and Theology, but I believe it is the body and blood of Jesus, because Jesus said so.  I along time ago thought that if Jesus had not raised from the dead and given us the gift of the Eucharist, he is just a mad liar.  In all the things he did and people he healed, and what things he said, he could not be a liar.  Therefore everything he said is true.  This is my body and this is my blood.  To me their is no other way to interrupt those words.

What if the spirit has meaurable matter and substance in the slightest antomnomical way. The spitit in us all caontains trace elements of our substance being flesh and blood science is working on discovering energy or soul or spirit as it leaves the body. It is tje spirit that gives life do not think carnally flesh and blood are of no avail. This is my flesh this is my blood it drink my spirit will come into the substance and give it matter, the beauty and truth of the trinity and John 6.  God bless, Dr Thomas

The central gospel message is Christ’s death on the cross.  But for a brutal murder to be “good news” is absurd.  Both Catholics and other Christians agree that this was a sacrificial death, modeled after the sacrificial offerings of the old covenant.

The epistle to the Hebrews details this early Christian understanding in depth and clarity.  In it Christ is described priest, offering and altar.  This aboriginal Christian understanding is reflected in all NT writings: John 6, Last Supper Discourses, Pauline Epistles, Revelation.

Since Christ is our Great High Priest, we also must share in his priesthood: offering spiritual sacrifices to God in his name.  We are all priests in this sense.

But as the history of the Church demonstrates, including historical NT accounts - Jesus instituted a hierarchical structure in his Church with the power to lead, teach and sanctify, also in the name of the Lord.  Ecclesiastical offices within the structure of the Church are as ancient as the apostles.

“Where are priests in the NT?”  You might as well ask “Where is air in the atmosphere.”

Proto:

There is the office of “presbyter” from which the English “priest” is derived.  The Church does not believe in the fiction of sola scriptura.  You are wasting your time.

Proto:

Also, you are hijacking this thread.  Stop it, or I will boot you.  This thread is about transubstantiation, not your obessive attempts at anti-catholic rhetoric.  This is your one warning.

Other readers: Please don’t feed the Energy Creature.

@Magister Christianus,
That’s awesome that you’re a solid Catholic TOK teacher. I got stuck with an openly homosexual man, who made it pretty clear when I had him for sophomore English he was opposed to my beliefs…making it very hard to be in his TOK class. I really need to start reading more philosophy, to understand my own paradigm, and then counterargue the opposing views. All part of the grand exploration of why we know what we know. :)

Mark, awesome piece.
And the initial FB status on transubstantiation was pretty witty.

At the molecular level cremated remains are just ash. But I don’t see anyone putting an urn of beloved Kingsford on their mantels.

I love the quip! Jesus’ presidential campaign slogan if He ever was to have one!

[—-
This is my blood this is my flesh eat it he meant it the bread is more then just sweet????????  It is real. Dr Thomas
—-]

Dr. Thomas,

There was no claim that it was not real. Christ is not merely a property of the bread among many. We don’t call it the miracle of consubstantiation where Christ mingles with the substance of bread. He is the only underlying substance. So your accusation does not even logically follow from what I said. I was saying the accidents are not to be trusted even though they too are real, though supernaturally real. To clarify my original point, some properties we assign to objects are more descriptive of us than of the object. We know the Eucharistic substance is real because of Divine Revelation. This is because God has access to what is True Reality, and He shared it with us. We don’t have access to True Reality except by way of God.

In the same sense, the apple is only sweet by way of us. The bread or apple is not sweet in and of itself. It takes us to taste it and say it is sweet or not. That is why it is not really a property of bread. So paradoxically to our intuition, it says something about us.  It is another example where our senses can deceive.

You are over thinking this. It is far more simple then that. Of course it is real Jesus tells us in John 6. I am saying the spirit has the properties of the physical substance contained in them. The Spirit gives life . What if the spirit or soul or energy as it transends has measurable matter not seen to the eye?? If that is called down into the eucharist then the bread and wine contains all three properties of the trinity. I am sure Jesus knew that, that is why he kind of told all not to think carnally. IT IS REAL. Perhaps there is some science to this besides all the philosophical thought, which of course is ok and mind fun. God bless. Dr Thomas

This is getting so complicated. JESUS said THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME, special meaning of Memory is from the Hebrew sense of time, not “pretend” as in kids’ playtime. The Church knew philopsohy and invented some words as a RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR THE MYSTERY. That does not EXPLAIN the Mystery but shows it is not irrational, just as if GOD created sexual activity to produce a human baby HE can bypass that to have Jesus conceived without a man. We cannot understand but we believe and can tell skeptics it is not irrational. JESUS does not expect all of us to get a degree from Notre Dame in Philosophy and another one in Physics from MIT to accept or understand THIS IS MY BODY.
KISS- keep it simple sister!

As to PRIEST PRESBYTER. Correction; presbyter is ELDER. The word priest was used as the Church reflected on our roots. The OT priests offered sacrifice by killing animals whose blood was poured out. JESUS is called HIGH PRIEST in Hebrews because HE freely was obedient and that resulted in His death by those who would not listen to God in Him. It was easy then by reflection and extension to apply the word PRIEST to the human ordained men who stood in for Jesus and said THIS IS MY BODY/BLOOD and re-presented the ONE SACRIFICE OF THE ONE PRIEST JESUS CHRIST. It is getting more common today to refer to “priests” as presbyters, elders but that is not a translation of priest. It was the word used in JAMES’letter who said call in the presbyters of the Church, which was technically presbyters in older Bible translations.

Still everyone is over thinking what Jesus said in John 6 the presence is real not symbolic he meant what he said. He meant it to be simple. To much philosophy to understand something so simple and quite clever in his choice of words. God bless, Dr Thomas

If you will read the approved writings of Luisa Piccaretta of The Divine Will theology (as well as certain saints who have lived in the Divine Will, like Faustina, Liz of the Trinity, Luisa) you will discover “living hosts” who appear to please Christ (as will be in the New Era - read Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi’s writings on this subject - one of the few Eschatology Theologians - and only one at present approved by Vatican to write about and interpret properly Luisa’s writings while her cause is being studied) more than the bread as host because it will be the human will involved rather that a “dead” material, bread, chosen to be used by Christ for His Presence.

Too much for the group here?  Do some reading…for the New Era Christ will remain in the persons from one Eucharist reception to another…as it was for Faustina.

In my simple way, I’ve always figured so…The bread and wine start as physical bread and wine, they become spritually the body and blood of Christ, the spiritual world is a higher reality than the physical world, it “trumps” the physical world, once the Host becomes the Body of Christ, it is of no importance at all what the physical world has to say.

Good, that is simple and good, however think of this. What if Jesus who is God and is the Spirit knew that metaphysically that spirit has measurable substance and matter. In John it is the spirit that gives life do not think carnally the flesh and blood are of no avail but the spirit gives them substance. At this time we are begining to trap exscaping energy leaving a dead body trapping or quantifying the antomnomical particles in that force, perhaps when we call down the spirit those properties become truly present in the bread and wine no accident it happens. Think about it.  God bless Dr Thomas

Sorry, not to much to grasp but still running from the God given scientific explanation of the possible real matter in the spirit soul or energy of the flesh and blood as it transends and roams free to return where it chooses to go . That is the purpose of the trinity . Dr Thomas

Sorry,Michael: The bread becomes the Body of Christ, not spiritually which is what some protestant theologies say. THIS IS MY BODY. End of discussion. We believe that. An attempt to understand it is that the substance of the bread, that which stands under it, in Greek philosophy terms, is changed into the substance of Jesus’ body. There is absolutely no need to bring in any saints or near saints rosie or any other playing around with metaphysics Thomas. St Thomas Aquinas is the best theologian to reconcile the humanly explainable and divinely believable aspects of the Eucharist. KISS again Keep It Simple Sister. Just sit in the Blessed Sasrament in the 24/7 chapel or come early or stay after Mass to BE IN HIS PRESENCE. Aquinas had a vision and said all he wrote was STRAW and he was a genius and saint to boot. I do not try to tempt my GOD even though there is not a book or article on the Eucharist I have not read or studieds in 50 years and more. “To whom shall we go, you have the words of Eternal Life” St Peter said when the folks walked away from Jesus in JOHN 6. My parents taught me “MY lord and my GOD when the host was raised at the consecration, a custom still in Ireland, know now it came from St Thomas when he surrendered to Jesus’ wounds and believed.

Yes Mike makes this to complicated Jesus meant what he said and besides that the spirit contains the flesh and blood in trace particles of matter as it is called into the host. Get it Mike. God bless. Dr Thomas

Perhaps. Perhaps there is a measurable quantity we will someday be able to catalogue. But still of little importance. The Host is Christ because Christ tells us so, the faithful always have and always will know this, the goats to the left never will acknowledge this no matter what is measured or not measuered.

HermitTalker and Thomas,  I believe the Protestants say the Host symbolically represent the Body. Thus making it less of a reality. If the Host is spiritually the Body, and the spiritual world is more of a reality than the physical world, to acknowledge the spiritual reality and to ignore the physical as unimportant is actually keeping things as simple as they were meant to be.

May I suggest we surrender our puny finite minds and join the first POPE Peter and the doubting but finally believing Apostle St Thomas and join St Thomas Aquinas on his knees after his vision and drop the straw efforts at logic and say;
MY LORD AND MY GOD.
JESUS I TRUST IN YOU.
I BELIEVE LORD HELP MY UNBELIEF.

PLEASE LORD, INCREASE MY FAITH.

This is generally speaking a good explanation, but we should be careful about *anachronistic* statements. St. Thomas’ explanation of transubstantiation intended to express in the scientific language of his day (that of Aristotelian substances and accidents) that the accidents of bread and wine could subsist without the substance of bread and wine (indeed, without *any* substance as the proper subject in which these accidents would inhere). But obviously the Church was around for a long time before Thomas offered this explanation and the Church accepted it, and it is certainly not correct to say that “the Church has always taught that there is no molecular or chemical change.” We might claim that this is implied, but if anyone knows of the Church actually *ever* explicitly teaching something like this, I would much appreciate being informed about it.
Another important point: St. Thomas teaches that the *whole substance* of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ, and the whole substance of the bread includes both substantial form *and* *matter.* He does not teach that only the substantial *form* is changed, but that neither the substantial form nor the matter of the bread and wine remain following transubstantiation.

Russell: “The error lies in believing without evidence that there is any other level.” Hmmm… Two questions: 1) Are you concerned about the possible error of dismissing ‘without evidence’ the real possibility of different levels? 2) Have you ever read that wonderful pagan philosopher Aristotle (preferably with an open mind)? An important thing that he noticed is that “being is said in many ways,” and he could possibly give you a thing or two to reconsider before jumping to conclusions about how anything like ‘evidence’ actually comes to be as such (qua *evidence*).

It is not that complicated and St Thomas and Aristotle as brilliant as they are they are not our contemporaries. The Church fully embraces in time science and its explanations by todays methods as potential truth. God bless Dr Thomas

I said the host is the real presence not symbolic. Read all i have said again.Dr Thomas

Well of course that is the basics. Open your hear and let the spirit come upon you. God bless Dr Thomas

Michael in John Jesus tells us that the spirit contains matter as it transends back to the host. Get it. Pax, Love Dr Thomas

I am past being tired of the use of science, mis-applying the words matter and spirit when they have nothing to do with the simple but profound Faith we have; JESUS said THIS IS MT BODY/BLOOD. The Acts and Paul confirm its use and the Church has witnessed to it since the earliest times in docuuments and homilies and art work. Molecules and matter and energy have nothing to say in a matter of Faith. When one gets right down to it, we do not gactually believe in transsubstantion, it is a way of explaining the Mystery rationally. Millions who never heard of the Greek philosophyic way of expressing it BELIEVED and DIED to profess and defend this MYSTERY OF FAITH.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Of course faith is so important and always will be but faith and science have a place. Reason and faith have a place. Is it faith that brings us to reason or is it reason that brings to faith. They all are important. Remeber this is about the understandinf of transubstantion, the trinity and how it works in that miracle of God. We are saying nothing different except I am kicking it up another level. What if, always use God’s gift to wonder wonder and wonder. Imagination is the begining of all knowledge that brings closer to the truth of the creator, God the father, to know the Son Jesus and the experience of the Holy Spirit. Pax much love and God bless. Dr Thomas

Hermit Talker,

You may be tired of it, and that is ok, but everyone has a different threshold for belief. Some require more rational underpinnings to what we believe. All truth leads to God. So talking about Transubstantiation philosophically, scientifically, etc.. all have their place in the search for Truth.

I suggest you read the papal encyclical “Fides et Ratio” by PJPII

I think Hermit Talker is a closet Protester on a Catholic universal site. There are many truths that bring us closer to God always wonder Hermit open your arms and receive the spirit. God bless . Dr Thomas

Looking for Truth is great, but spiritual truth is found in the soul and the teachings of the Catholic Church, not in a test tube. When my wife says she loves me I have faith, when my brother says he supports me, I have faith, When the Lord says “this is my body”, I don’t say, prove it. “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.” If I doubt my wife, I should look elsewhere, if I doubt my faith I have no faith.

sounds like sola fidei to me and a protester but that is ok. There is much more. God bless Dr Thomas

Of course not Thomas. At no time have I said faith alone. But one does work with faith and works together. If one keeps questioning ones faith, one will not have the time, energy, or inclination for the works. Actually, it is protestant to assume one’s intellect is such that all things need to be explained to one’s satisfaction. That is how Luther started the 13000 protestant religions.

One must relax, of course faith is center to our faith but so is all the other ability’s of reson given to us by God. I am a true soldier of Christ and the mother church. Please there is so much more since the middle ages . Science without religion lame, religion without science is blind. Oh and imagination is more important then knowledge. I love all the mystery and the beauty of the church, and Jesus is just all right with me also. Luther was a Catholic and a bit misguided. God bless. Dr Thomas

Hermit Talker:

There is absolutely no need to bring in any saints or near saints rosie or any other playing around with metaphysics Thomas.

————————————-
I…didn’t “bring them in”.  They are obviously already in, approved by the Church. And…within the approved Diary of Faustina, backed so whole heartedly by JPII, are the facts, a genuine portion of Church approval within Her own teachings, in agreement with the early Church Fathers.  Now you may not like that particular portion of the Faith but being adamant about only your selective understanding of that Faith and its continuing manifestation, as it is not dead, is your limitation, not others’. In order to better understand the mysteries, the living Church is continually blessed by the Saints in their own gifts of the Spirit to help us better understand in depth the Essence of those mysteries.  In fact, direct manifestations of the Spirit to certain chosen individuals I would say is better than man’s own struggle to try and explain certain mysteries using his own struggle with the limited science of the moment, even while science should be linked with faith naturally.  It is only for a select group for its grasp while the former serves the faithful as a whole in its more immediate fruits.

The reason we are at times given a view beyond the veil, as in the approved Eucharistic miracles, and given Saints who express the human natures of so many, like Thomas the Doubter, is because they go hand in hand.  Not only are God’s ways far beyond our own understandings, but so is His Mercy in granting the poor doubters help for certain times in general and for moments of their own personal human doubt.

I’ve long enjoyed the basic view and rich paradox we find in our God’s loving provision of himself in the form of bread and wine.  We look at H2O and witness the same molecules in three unique phases .... they maitain their bonding behaviors, even while movong in appearence and behavior form a solid, liquid and gas.  The almighty says ... why not simply maintain the appearence and change the substance? Then He threads and weaves this appearence throughout our salvation history.

Perhaps a more physical example might help those who look at the Consecrated host and see only bread. 

When a man and woman enter into a sacramental marriage, they have not physically changed, but they are changed nonetheless. It is not a measurable by molecular analysis change, but it is a change.  They are no longer simply the individuals they were before, they are now much more to each other, and exclusively while still retaining all of who they were before they entered the sacrament of marriage; but now they are husband and wife. The affection and love felt before the declaring of the vows has been made a permanent promise to hold when feelings faulter, when life is hard, and when it is not easy.  The couple has been made one.  Their lives are now fixed towards eternity, with a starting point—the marriage sacrament itself, and no end.  Hope it helps.

Another example:

Sacramental marriage is quite spiritual but neither party has the physical properties of the other . We are talking transubstantion as it relates to the trinity and universal Catholic teaching. Does spirit contain antomnomical property . God bless Dr Thomas. PS and yes I have faith lots of it but as we move ahead there is room for faith and science guided by the devine inspiration of the father son and the holy spirit

Thomas: The spirit by definition does not have anatomical propoerties, simply stated a spirit by definition has no body. The Holy Spirit does not either of course. A human being has a body-spirit-mind combination to become PERSON and of course in marriage the M and F anatomical properties mingle to express grace in a proper God-recognised union.  That of course is totally irelevant to the main discussion here which as Mark Shea remindsed another post-er is the point. There is anothher site where marriage is the topic. I suggest you move to that. It seeems to me this topic has been exhausted unless we continue to ramble on to presume that the DOCTRINE of the Eucharist has anything to do with science.

Dr Thomas what evidence can you offer to demonstrate that I am a “closen Protestant?” See all my posts; quite simply stated, the Faith we have is that THIS IS MY BKIDY, MY BLOOD. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME, memory in the Hebrew meaning zikarron, past and present and future made one, not play-acting as kids or re-creating a past battle or historic event. THE CHURCH used GREEK PHILOSOPHIC TERMS to EXPLAIN that the Doctrine, a matter of FAITH is RATIONAL. Neither GREEK PHILOSOPHY nor BIOLOGY nor QUANTUM PHYSICS nor any science can prove anything about the DOCGTRINE which is a matter of FAITH shown to have been part of the Catholic Christian Church’s beliefs since the Last Supper.  I ask you; do you use human reason, sccience to “prove” a GIFT OF FAITH ....
ON THE COMMENT ABOUT LUTHER; What Luther personally taught and believed is NOTHING like what most evangelical protestantism teaches today, including a lot of Lutherans. He is not responsible for the multi-denominationalism of today’s PROTESTANTISM. It was reformers and dissenters who cut their little boats from the MOTHER SHIP THE BARQUE of PETER and ripped themselves from the sails, the anchor and stereing column and the CAPTAIN’S overseer role and thus the HOLY SPIRIT who guided the BARQUE was thrown out as GUIDE, TEACHER, CORRECTOR and CONSOLER of the CHURCH whom Jesus sent to guide it. PRAY more with the Church, homour science but do not confuse scientific images, analogies and examples OR philosophic theories as PROOF of FAITH. Jesus raised the dead, some started to plot His death, some said the Devil did it and some BELIEVED. Same today.

I am not saying you are a closet Protester only that one must be carefull of Faith alone and scripture alone as many protesters at least here in the states rely on. Look throughout history how the church has had to modify there positions as they have related to faith and science, customs and traditions. That is what makes the catholic church universaland not close minded.We agree so i am not sure what your concern is. I have only challenged one to examine John 6 as truly real presence in the Eucharist, not symbolic, faith brings us there science someday will prove that the spirit as jesus says truly gives life. The bread and wine contain all properties of the trinity. What is spirit is proven to have transendent measurable matter. Have faith that it would be all guided by the hand of God embraced by the love and humanity of the son and given that boost of energy by the spirit. The Trinity, transubsatantion. Real presence this is what we are talking about . I feel like you wish to burn me at the stake for thinking with the guidance of the forces of the Trinity. We agree,so please do not take offense . I love scipture, the church, history, customs nd traditions. The church contains all the teaching lessons we need. God bless.  Dr Thomas

If God, the all knowing, all powerful, all loving, almighty…could lower Himself to become of all things, human, then it isn’t that far a stretch to believe He would lower Himself to become bread and wine…food to nourish those same humans.

I was not the one who used marriage as an a analogy. Yes this is very much about transustantion which i have faith. But please, I am not offering scientific proof only that these issues of matter and spirit are in the realm of study by even very good catholics to day among others. Yes Jesus meant what he said this is my body and do not think carnally the spirit gives life . Now, what is it is proven someday that he knew exactly what he was saying that spirit contains matter. Gee at one time the church claimed geocentric over heliocentric but of course they cahanged with new discovery guided by the hand of God. Think how much the Mother church has modified or changed positions based on science. I am first a man of love and faith but I do love in these times and I must wonder wonder and wonder. What am i saying wrong only saying think. Imagination is greater then knowledge. I choose to imagine God bless Dr Thomas

Why not it is God, and the trinity serves all well perhaps he sends the spirit. ??? God bless Dr Thomas

No offense taken here Dr Thomsas but was curious as to why you were not aware of all my lolally Catholic quotes; then by allowing for reason and science and philosophy to assist us but prove nothing in the realm of faith. We accept Faith and Reason not Faith , pure free gift of GOD, which cannot be proven by reasoin but can be shown to be reasonable.
The row with Copernicus and Galileo was not about SCIENCE but about the BIBLE “The sun stood still in the sky” according to JOSHUA 10;13 which was contradicted by C and A. The Church learned by accepting the Science to re-read that Joshua quote properly and in the 29th and into the 21st century learned how to read Genesis and even the NT properly. The NT is so riddled with contradictions on facts that no one could take it all on face value, but if one learns how, can read it as WRITTEN BY THE WRITERS which is the LITERAL SENSE, the “literal sense” is NOT what it seems like on the face of it. Enemies still blast us foir being against Science even though the Church has an Observatory in the VATICAN and in AZ and has an Academy of Scientists. It is now working with Adult Stem Cell Research to counteract the blind-closed-minded which kills embroyos sometimes to milk the Tax Payer for immoral research that is not needed. Same goes for illiterate in their Faith Catholics who flatly deny science and other disciplines to teach animal excrement “science” to try to make out to be an idiot Creator!

Of course I was aware of those quotes, and right they are. I am only exploring a different way to look at John 6 and real presence in the eucharist. The chuech has it all. Now can in the future is it possible that energy spirit the soul could be proven to contain measurable matter. This study is on going. It does not destroy faith but gives it more credence in the words of Jesus . Anyways, I am off to the hospital to bring the eucharist to those beautifull loving people of faith. God bless. Dr Thomas

You seemed above to think the Church “changed” which it does, can and must when faced with new verifiable data. However there is absolutely no way NATURE will be contradicted Dr T A spirit by drefinition does not, cannot have matter in it, it is non-material in essence and composition. I am impressed you are an EMC for the hospital on Sundays.  Your soul is safe, I just question your science!

Not even close. The body and blood of J C are present SACRAMENTALLY in the bread and wine which are now His Body and Blood but this does not make the host, aka the bread, and wine God as such. JESUS’ SACRAMENTAL PRESENCE IN THEM DOES NOT MAKE THEM GOD.  Needs careful reasoning to accompany the Faith dimension of the Sacrament. The Church is the BODY OF CHRIST but it is not God.

Need to be careful in what looks like hiding behind a term such as “sacramentally”, which as you use it seems to mean “symbolicaly”.  The eucharist becomes the perpetual B&B of Christ, yes - much like it was foreshadowed in the feeding on the mount, and represented by the passover feast.  Have you read such works as: The Fourth Cup by Dr. Hahn?

The believer has the grace of God in her, a share in the Divine Nature so the Trinity is there by adopting her as daughter as Peter says in his 2 letter. Not the same as the sacramental Eucharistic presence, but the sacrament of baptism makes the Trinity present. Distinctions are made to avoid making us God or deifying the sacramental presence in the Eucharist, Potoi1.

The word SYMBOL has a classical meaning which is not the same as the popular meaning. Same with MYTH and with REMEMBRANCE in Hebrew vs “memorial” in English.

HIS body and blood come into us, FOOD and KOINONIA, conmmunity, fellowship., communion are implied by the outward sign. Each of us and all are invited into the SACRIFICIAL MEAL which is indicated, not me myself but us ourselves. Different presence but reaffirms and renews, remkinds us of the need for conversion, and caring for each other and ready fir HIS RETURN IN GLORY.

I am not mk to set the record straight but as a trinitarian if jesus and the spitit bare present then what of the father????? pax Dr Thomas

The Doc is not an EMC I went to the hospital in the capacity of a eucharistic minister to bring communion. The science of matter , energy, spirit is not mine but more learned scientists in our wonderfull church who explore these subjects. Things change over time. Google to make it easy and ask does the spirit have a physical matter and read , however be warned it gives you aheadache but very intersting, heck we studied things like this in my theology, philosphy classes at Boston College and College of the Holy Cross over 20 years ago with some very fine Jesuits who were certainly men of faith, but some really smart men.  God bless Dr Thomas

We use different imperfect language humanly speaking to express the MYSTERY. All three are present, the WORD ALONE BECAME FLESH, as PHIL 2;6-11 jESUS did not CLING TO HIS DIVINITY, EMPTIED HIMSELF etc but in us as baptized all three travel together even if we separate their roles.

EMC is Extraordinary Minister of Communion Doc. Steer clear of the science if it continues to confuse you.

I am not a sciencetist however I reconize as a matter or curiosity the steps that are being taken in the subject of measurable matter energy and how it relates to spirit. Oh, you must have a strong faith and love of the strenth and power of the church to go there. Imagination is far greater then knowledge. I choose to imagine. We agree but you seem threatened by the concept. It is my love and faith in God that brings me to wonder wonder and wonder. Open your heart and mind and receive the spirit. I find, and I do not mean you there are a lot text book new converts to the faith who only rely on ewtn and scott hahn for there intellectual base, and they are great and good, however there is so much more. God bless, Dr Thomas

Enjoy your Science Dr T. I would brush up on my spelling first, not just typos which I make in my older years. I shall stick with Bible and Theology.

I am so sorry for the typos, I know I make them. My mind races ahead of my fingers. spell check is great. The Bible is great and theology great. My microwave still blinks 12 I type with one finger I still write long hand. I buy my glasses at the dollar store oh well .  God bless Dr Thomas

Humble man Thomas. Do not put communion in the microwave you might cook the SPIRIT out of Jesus in some weird scientific experiment!!!!!!!!

Now that is funny up here in Boston we like that . My kids got me the microwave i still heat stuff in the oven lol. Oh, if my sorround sound system goes down I need one of my younger friends or past students to set it up and of course help me program all the remotes again. Pax Dr Thomas

Proto,

mk- Do you consider the communion host God?

After it is consecrated by a validly ordained priest?  Absolutely.  I’m sure that Peter had the same conflict of thoughts about Jesus as a man that you are having about Jesus as bread and wine.  It seems easy for us to picture God as human because we have had 2,000 years of history to get to know Him in that way.  But imagine the first apostles who only knew of God in burning bushes and clouds of smoke, as a voice in the darkness or a vision in a dream.  God was “formless”.  He had being, substance, but no body or accidents.  Then one day a human child is born and they are told that the man they see before them is God.  Impossible! was their likely response.

Now He comes to us in the form of bread and wine…but His substance is indeed Him…Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.  It doesn’t look like God, no, but then I am sure Jesus did not fit the preconceived notion of what God looked like either.

The point is, we can’t make God fit OUR image.  We must accept the image that He presents to us, no questions asked.  This is what He told us, this is what we accept, this is what we believe.  This is my body.  Take.  Eat.  Do this as a memorial of me.  Whenever you do this, I come to you, in the flesh, in reality, in the present, the here and now.  Not as a spirit, but as food. 

The thing is, sometimes we get so hung up on what we “think” we know, that we stop seeking.  But God cannot be grasped in an afternoon or an altar call.  It’s not that you are wrong when you say that God is everywhere, that we must have a personal relationship with Him, that He alone can save us, or that Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God Himself, but that you stop there.  You aren’t open to the possibility that maybe you’ve missed something.  Maybe He is trying to show you something else.  You fight it so hard that you miss it altogether.  I’m sure the Jews did the same thing…It must have been killer to be asked to abandon everything you believed and believe something so foreign, so new.  “What??? NO LAW?!?!...Perish the thought”  and yet that is exactly what God was asking them to do.  To continue on the journey, to walk a little further, to climb a little higher.  If God can be present as a man, if God can be present in the written word, why can’t He be present in a piece of bread?

HermitTalker- Why would it be necessary for Christ to be present sacramentally in the bread if He is already present and working in the believer?

It’s not that it is necessary.  It’s just is what it is.  We are both material and spiritual.  Right?  Doesn’t it make sense that His presence would also be spiritual and material?  Are we not bodies AND souls?  Would God just ignore our physical selves?  I think not.  I think the Eucharist is an absolutely perfect way to address both of our natures.  We eat the bread and drink the wine, and we are nourished both physically and spiritually because we are taking Our Lord, directly into our bodies.  Why should God be present in the Word as well as in our Spirit?  Because the word addresses the physical and the Holy Spirit addresses our spirits.  Why would you want to limit God to only one way of being with us?  Why can’t He be present in all sorts of ways, one of them being food that nourishes our bodies and souls?  I think it’s brilliant…and no man could have thought it up.  It must be divinely inspired, because it is too fantastical to be believed otherwise.  But so is God becoming man.

Why would it be necessary for Christ to be present sacramentally in the bread if He is already present and working in the believer?

It’s not that it is necessary.  It’s just is what it is.  We are both material and spiritual.  Right?  Doesn’t it make sense that His presence would also be spiritual and material?  Are we not bodies AND souls?  Would God just ignore our physical selves?  I think not.  I think the Eucharist is an absolutely perfect way to address both of our natures.  We eat the bread and drink the wine, and we are nourished both physically and spiritually because we are taking Our Lord, directly into our bodies.  Why should God be present in the Word as well as in our Spirit?  Because the word addresses the physical and the Holy Spirit addresses our spirits.  Why would you want to limit God to only one way of being with us?  Why can’t He be present in all sorts of ways, one of them being food that nourishes our bodies and souls?  I think it’s brilliant…and no man could have thought it up.  It must be divinely inspired, because it is too fantastical to be believed otherwise.  But so is God becoming man.

This is an excerpt of a portion of a posting that I did on another web site.  I’m not sure if I can improve on it:
One of the primary characteristics of the Eucharist is that the Real Presence is not sense perceptible.  In the Eucharist we have the hidden Christ, the wholly interior Christ Who can only be seen with eyes of faith.  This is completely in line with the ways of mystical contemplation.
When Christ joined the two disciples on the road to Emmaus His encounter looks like a Mass.  He started with the Scriptures, complete with an exegesis of the parts concerning Himself.  This was then followed by the breaking of the bread.  Once Christ was recognized He disappeared.  This and the Ascension appears to me to be like the withdrawal of sensible consolation that takes place whenever God desires to lead the contemplative deeper into their mystical journey.  The life of mystical contemplation is the work of the Holy Spirit, as was Pentecost. 
At Pentecost the Church needed to develop an interior spiritual life, so as to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit.  St. Peter came to his understanding of the Church’s mission to the Gentiles via an interior trance with the sheet coming down with the unclean animals on it.  The sensible consolation of Christ’s presence had to be withdrawn by the Ascension so that the Apostles could give the Holy Spirit their undivided attention.  Christ went back to the Father to prepare a place for His bride, while the Holy Spirit was sent to prepare the bride for her Bridegroom.
With the Eucharist having the Real Presence in a non sense perceptible form, the Eucharist is completely compatible with every stage of mystical contemplative prayer.
It is my view that a proper understanding of the Eucharist requires that a person has some kind of interior spiritual life.  The same goes for Transubstantiation, and the male priesthood. This interior spiritual life needs to be grounded in sound religious instruction.

Proto, you have a wonderful way of bouncing back terse replies after receiving fulsome and voluminous responses.  Case in point: mk’s 455 word answer to your 7 word question.  I wonder, did you even read mk’s work?  I expect it was provided to you in a sincere attempt to share the faith.  Yet all you could muster was a reiteration of Col. 1, 27, accompanied by some wild speculation about “the 4 divine natures!”

Just as an aside, I find that your use of scripture, while punctillious regarding chapter and verse, fails to arrive at an understanding of the true nature of revelation and of God.  You apparently have catalogued every paradoxical saying of 4 evangelists and 21 apostles in attempt to construct a literalist triangulation of the godhead.  Believe me, you’re not going to understand what’s happening on the playing field without a program.

On a more fraternal level, dry literalism results in a stunted and perverse understanding of those things which underlie scripture - and inhibits the faith response that Jesus is really looking for.  He has so much to give you.  Take it on his terms, not on what you think.  In Christ,

Proto,

Tradition says that St. Luke and St. Mark were actually among disciples who walked away from Christ because the Eucharistic teaching was too difficult for them (Jn 6:67). St. Mark was later converted by St. Peter, and St. Luke by St. Paul. The result being two of the Gospels we have today. It is not an easy teaching. But the first Christians all believed it. This is why the Romans called Christians cannibals and persecuted them for it. This is why we have first and second century writings from the successors of the apostles all confirming this interpretation of scripture. Do your research, and do it honestly by reading the writings of the first Christians. When you pray on it with an open heart you will realize that God gave us a gift beyond all comprehension, and it will change you forever.

The body and blood of Christ exist as metaphor in the host.  You go on for a dozen paragraphs, but what you are describing is a metaphor.

Are you saying the Uncle is incorrect, that the molecular substance of the host is not bread, and the wine is not fermented grapes? 

Keep re-drawing the line in the sand….

Dear Mr. Shea:

Coming on the well-nigh four years of having to endure the hinted-at political rhetoric, I was pleasantly struck by your reader’s son’s transcending association of the phrase “change we can believe in” with transubstantiation. Nicely done! And well done on you for relating it!

But moving from quip to quibble, I am - Sorry! - less than persuaded by your Summa-crunching friend’s response to your reader’s uncle’s comment that “it could be proven to still be bread and wine at the molecular level, after consecration.” His response? “The Church has always taught that it remains bread and wine “at the molecular level.””

Really? The Church has always taught this?

I have long thought, being of an Aristotelian bent, that we can’t read or deduce the substantial forms of things - or at least the substantial forms of most of the things to which our intellects are adequate - from the molecular level. The implied reductionism in claiming otherwise is rather far, I should think, from the heart of the Catholic tradition on the Eucharist - a tradition drawing deeply from the well named Aristotle.

A further quibble: Does it make sense to speak of the molecular components of things as accidents of these things?

In any case, the point I would wish to emphasize is that if all we had from which to draw our conclusions as to the substantial form of a thing were its molecular components, we would usually be in no position to say “it” is bread or wine and not something else. Clearly, if we also knew the arrangement of its molecular components, we might narrow the possibilities, perhaps even to only one possibility (e.g. “this must be wine”). But then we would be relying on our prior grasp of the thing’s substantial form and its particular or peculiar correlation with “this” arrangement.

But the waters are even deeper, I’m afraid. The logos of bread or wine is not found in nature. It is sourced in the human mind. Bread and wine are, let’s say, socially constructed realities. (Please don’t take me to say that ultimately wheat and grapes are too.) What does “substantial form” mean in their regard? On a strict account, bread and wine do not have substantial forms. (Hence, the physical sciences, I dare say, will never produce a satisfying explanation of either bread or wine!) Then not only cannot the knowledge of molecules lead us to the substantial forms of things, bread and wine are wholly lacking in the forms of this sort to be found.

I am, like you I’m sure, open to correction. And I do wish to finish by expressing my appreciation for your post.

Depending on His mercy, your brother in Christ,

Michael Lee Ross

The read and wine contain real substance as Jesus said. It is spirit that bring life. It is quite remarkable that someday soon we will be able to show that spirit soul energy containes trace elements of very finely split atoms. This would be in the realm of physics that is above my full understanding .  When we call the spirit into the host along with the priest it is those elements that become properties of the Eucharist. Jesus meant what he said this is my body this is my blood. My faith is strong and always will be but there are some brilliant Catholic theologians and scientists working on particle matter. God bles. Dr Thomas

The bread and wine are not metaphors but contain the real presence of substance in the Eucharist transending from the pirit which contains elements of all three parts of the trinity. God bless Dr Thomas

Yes Scripture is our guide as the devine inspiration of God. However, you must always understand that the people who interpet the good book at the time lived in a greco/hellenistic/Roman world. They were not far removed from the intellectual thought af those like Aristotle. Remember us Roman Catholics do not study in a vacum. We have never been scriture and faith alone but bring all our god given talents and intellect to bear most lovingly in eyes of God. Pax Dr Thomas

Proto,

If the host that is consecrated is now Jesus why does it not manifest any of the characteristics of Christ such as awareness, consciousness and verbal communication?

Why would Jesus need to be present in a piece of bread if He already promised to be in us (Col. 1:27) and present where 2-3 are gathered in His name? If you read the gospel accounts you don’t find Jesus saying that He is literally present in bread or wine.

First, Bread and Wine are not aware, do not have consciousness nor do they communicate verbally.  We have already said that the accidents remain bread and wine.  Second, you say that Jesus is present where 3 or more are gathered…Does He verbally communicate at that time?  If you and Matt B. and I were to gather and pray would an invisible Jesus begin to verbally speak to us?  Third, it’s not a matter of either/or.  As with many things that Christ gave us, it’s a both/and.  Why should His presence where three or more are gathered mean that He cannot be present in any other way? 

Lastly, if you read the Gospel accounts, that is EXACTLY what you will find Jesus saying.  Repeatedly.  But not if you have already decided what it is that He has said before reading it.  It is not the Catholic Church that is saying He is present in the bread in wine.  It is Jesus.  The Church only responds.  When you speak to Atheists and show them Jesus’ words and they scoff at you, it is the exact same thing that you are doing here.  Refusing to open your mind and heart, let Jesus speak to you, and believe.  You are no different than they are.  You have attempted to create God in your own image.  You are telling God what He is and is not capable of doing.  You are telling God that He isn’t fitting into your mold.  But that is not Who God is.  God does not take His marching orders from us.  We take them from Him.  No matter how difficult they are to understand and accept.  “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.”

Proto, it is the spirit that gives life do not think carnally flesh and blood are of no avail. The beauty of the trinity all parts containe each individual and the same in one. Jesus in John 6 meant what he said. Could the spirit contain atomnomical particles of the other as it transends to the host. Read up on the current science being developed by not on only catholics but also so called non beleivers. God bless, Dr Thomas

The host is God. Jesus said nothing about substance. Quibbling about molecules, and matter and spirit and atoms are absolutely irrelevant to the core issue of Eucharist. The Catholic Church does NOT believe in transubstantion nor in substance and accidents as dogma. The CHURCH USES GREEK PHILOSOPHY from a certain place and time with which to show the reasonableness of the FAITH that THIS IS MY BODY/BLOOD. Very few people today have the slightest idea what was meant by substance and accidents. Some posts on here are totally confused about the language the Church actually uses to EXPLAIN THE REASONABLENESS OF THE MYSTERY and the explanation is NOT part of the Mystery. 
The MYSTERY is a matter of Faith. Most of this discussion is making a mystery more of an irritating distraction. Start a new topic about Science and Mystery or Philosophy that makes sense no longer in a post-Aristotelian world but served its purpose. It always struck me as idiotic that we had to teach ordinary people Greek philosophy, of which they had absolutely no knowledge, at a time when modern science raises all the molecular, atom, neutron, proton realities, to explain that MATTER and SUBSTANCE are not really capable of handling. NOW we raise objections or new questions about the PHILOSOPHIC explanation of a Mystery which is making the Mystery much more removed from its simple statement of faith. THIS IS MY BODY and BLOOD.

Sorry bif you do not understand, My faith is very strong and many others who strive for knowledse. Jesus beinf God meant what he said. Think, just imagine if it is more then a matter of faith and the substance is real. Oh, I still love my church and love to read scrirture. Do you wish to burn me at the stake for using the brain that was given me by God. Remember we are not sola scritura i suspect proto is a protester who grasp of history stops her on the steps of our beautifull country. Remember proto the world was once considered to geocenric until it was proven to be heliocentric. Imagination is greater then knowledge. and science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. Yes the host is God and with God all is possible we are just merely humans interpeting the devine inspiration of God throught our feeble understanding of scripture. God bless, Dr Thomas

Correction above THE HOST IS NOT GOD. corrects an earlier post from someone above. The nonsense about “transcends” and spirit and matter are raw nonsense Dr Thomas. I repeat that MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY and its use of PRE-CHRISTIAN GREEK PHILOSOPHY cannot be parsed today to add or subtract anything from the Mystery. science can tell us that matter is porous but that cannot explain how Jesus came through a locked door on Easter evening. Neither can we explain scientifically how the bread becomes Jesus’ BODY and the wine His Blood. We can show its reasonableness as I said but that does not “explain” the Mystery. We are on two different planes in diffderent realms, the physical and the supernatural. How could Jesus ascend to heaven when we need huge engines to break through gravity and reach outer space. Why did HE not disintegrate, suffer from lack of oxygen and implode? Not at all a scientific question. HE is GOD-MAN and transcends time, space and matter.

Luke was a GREEK could not have been there to walk away from JESUS. MARK is John MARK and would have known Jesus. No evidence I ever read puts him among the deserers in JoHN 6. What is it?

Proto, the scriptures were never meant to be read in isolation, but as part of the living tradition of the Church.  As protestant communions drift further and further from that “living vine,” and rely more and more on literal interpretations of scripture, their witness becomes more and more absurd.  Look at any reasonably nuanced work of non-divinely inspired literary work and you find innumerable departures from literal denotation.  Imagine how rich and varied is divine communcation!  God’s word is not about regulating our lives, it’s about conforming us with our deepest hope and desire: communion with God.  I’m coming to the bottom of the combox so let me just say: Greeks are Christians too!  Thanks!

Sorry have no idea what this post says Matt. The philosophy we borrowed from the Greeks came from their geniuses, four hundred years before Christ. Aquinas used Aristotle as his vehicle for expressing his theology in the 13th century when Islamic scholars brought it to Europe in Latin translations.

You go and receive and hopefully you are contrite and and have an open heart, love and faith to receive the gift if the Holy spirit., For me the eucharistic part of the sacrament of the Mass is most moving. Perhaps you could have this to if you believe. Open your arms wide open your mind and spirit and feel the good. It is quite personal to each of us. God bless. Dr Thomas

It is the spirit that enters the host and makes it the real presence. Then the bread and the wine become one with the trinity . Jesus meant what he said this is my body my blood eat and drink, John 6 read it.  Do not think carnally it is the spirit that gives life, but real substance.

The spirit goes to the host and as trinitarians all parts are present a lot of faith and some newly discovered science. Remember we are talking transubstantion. Change in the eucharist so focus on that. If you do not believe Jesus went back to the father after death then why you here on this site. This is a Catholic site. God bless Dr Thomas

I am making my final post on this topic. Some posts do not contribute to fsith building. At a certain point some folks push their lack of faith and others reveal their ignorance. As with the two ddisiples on the way to Emmaus I RECOGNIZE HIM IN THE BREAKING OF BREAD and could care less about all the science and even the philosophy. FAITH is enough for me.

ah ha I knew it . You are one of the sola fidei and sola scritura, sorry but not part of our universal traditions. God bless. Dr Thomas

Sorry Dr Thomas but your ignorance, lack of knowledge of simple facts, refusal to listen and personal attacks are mainly reposnsible for my decision.

This is not a personal attack. I suspect you are not Catholic. are You?  God bless Dr Thomas

A principal way to read scriptures acutely is to conform your life to Christ.  This includes the Jesus who asked Paul, “Why do you persecute me?”  As St. John writes, if you want to know Jesus, “keep (his) commandments.” Obedience plays a key role in conforming your life to Christ, who “though he was a son, learned obedience from what he suffered.”  But how do you obey God, if everything he asks you needs to conform to your own understanding of him.  If in fact, your concurrence thoroughly conditions your acceptance.  Kind of solipcistical, no?  Besides, I don’t think contextualizing does a whole lot of good for protestant exegesis.  They only find what they were looking for.

You accused me of being sola FIDES not your fidei,  when I am very biblical and historic in my posts if you care to check. YOU presume that philosphy and science are important to this topic waw beyond their legitimate but limited use. Do not understand spirit, always lower case, use other words wrongly and pretend it seems to be God’s Defender of the Faith as HENRY V111 was until he got an itchy scrotum

Sorry for the typos I lost my glasses. However,are you Catholic? I guessnot? Gee poor Henry is not one of our favorites. God Bless. Dr Thomas

Gee Spirit as to spirit. Um I like it as an upper case it gives it more real presence. This about Transubstantion so faith science and philosphy are very important in the Catholic faith as well as scripture, history custom andtradition.  ARE YOU A CATHOLIC?  God bless Dr Thomas

Exegesis?  Isn’t that where somebody uses history and philology to convince you they have a faculty that hasn’t been granted them by the Holy Spirit?

Maybe the reason so many Catholics don’t know a lot about exegesis is because, instead of attending bible study to learn about the christian life, they’re attending Mass and living it.

Proto1 wrote:
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”
If you take the literal view, you would have to conclude also from verse 20 that the cup is a covenant. That would absurd. The metaphorical view helps us to avoid these kinds of conclusions.
**************************************************************************
The Blood in the cup, which is One with Christ’s Blood on the Cross, is the way that the old covenant was redeemed and the New Covenant was ratified.  In Judaism covenants involved the use of blood, usually that of an animal sacrifice. God’s covenant with Abraham was sealed when the flaming torch passed between the pieces of the animal sacrifice that Abraham offered.  During the Passover it was the blood of the lamb on the doorposts and lintel that was the sign for the destroying angel to spare the occupants of the house. Likewise in Ex. 24,1-8 Moses sprinkled blood on the altar and on the people.

The covenant between God and Israel was a blood covenant.  This blood covenant was broken by the continual disobedience of the Jewish people . Only blood could redeem this broken covenant, someone had to die.  Christ died to save both the Jewish people, and the world from its sin.  Christ had to first redeem the old covenant on the Cross in order to be able to offer the New Covenant to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

Proto1 wrote:
Matt B- get serious. Anyone who wants to understand the faith needs to understand the Scripture and studying them (which is what is exegesis is) leads to an understanding of the mind of Christ. It is in the Scripture that we understand Him since the Scripture alone is the primary source of His life and teachings.
*********************************************************************
If this is so then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? At the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15,28-29, it is the Holy Spirit and apostolic teaching authority that is cited.

Proto,

What is never said in Scripture is that Scripture is the primary source of His life and His teachings.  That is inferred.  I’m not even saying it is incorrect.  I’m just saying it is not explicitly in Scripture.  Also, what IS explicitly in Scripture is that if we do NOT eat of this Bread, we will die.  Not implicit, but explicit.  Lastly, Saying that it is not in Scripture and then showing one passage where it isn’t is not the same as proving that it is never in Scripture.  Again, it is not either/or, it is both/and.  One question you guys never seem to be able to answer is “What Scripture did Peter use?  Paul?  Luke?”  All they had was the Old Testament and they used the same books that Catholics use.  It wasn’t until after the fall that books were dropped. So you don’t even use the same Scripture that Jesus Himself used, and Peter and the others didn’t use any New Testament.  So how is it logical to say that Scripture is more important than the Eucharist?  Peter and Paul and the rest DID however, receive the Eucharist.  Often.  So they didn’t read the New Testament, they did receive the Body and Blood of Jesus under the species of Bread and Wine.  Tell me again how Scripture is more important?

O Pro, I thought you’d quote me that blurb from Paul to Timothy about “all scripture being useful.”  But when you’re talking about spiritual milk you’re confusing the thing with the image of the thing.  Study of scripture cannnot replace obedience to God’s commands as a way of knowing the Christ.  In fact, wrongheaded scriptural study can lead people astray.  In order to obviate this very serious difficulty, God appointed authentic teachers who teach with authority.  It’s not so important to be able to recite scripture chapter and verse.  However, it is important that the law of God be written in one’s heart.  One who has internalized the gospel message and lives it is a better teacher than any paltry exegete.

Oh, and Proto, perhaps you would like to explore Lectio Devina, an ancient form of praying with Scripture.  Rather than simply memorizing passages and using them to prove points, you “experience” Scripture, you experience God through Scripture…You don’t read or interpret it, but rather you “pray” it.  Scripture is not a textbook.  It is not a source of “information”.  It is alive.  It breathes.  I wouldn’t sit and stare for hours at my husband, repeating his words and memorizing every hair on his head.  I would converse with Him.  Commune with him.  It’s the same with Scripture.  It’s not words on a page that are to be memorized and used to win debates.  They are meant to be a means of talking WITH God.  When we pray, we speak to God.  When we read Scripture, He speaks to us.  But only if we are listening.  If we are too busy treating the text as so much data, then we miss the whole point of the beautiful gift of His Word.

Pro,

Do you think you could put aside your ego long enough to do an experiment?  Can you put all your preconceived notions about what you think you know aside, and try something?

Scripture was interperted in a creco/ roman world taking into account all the teachings custom and traditions available to fully understand. Pro it is not scripture alone nor faith alone. It is all that gives us the fullness of the faith. You embrace it all in order to study. ARE YOU A CATHOLIC?  God bless. Dr Thomas

Thomas,

I believe that Matt B is indeed a Catholic, tho I could be wrong.  It happened once back in 1972…kidding…

I think you are misunderstanding his point.  I believe he is trying to say that whether or not we can ever explain satisfactorily HOW transubstantiation is not important.  It is enough to know THAT it happens and perhaps focusing on the science of it actually ends up distracting from the beauty/mystery of it.  It encourages materialists to dissect and prod and poke something that is better adored and worshiped and lauded.  See?  On the other hand, we are discovering new and wondrous things every day in science and it all points to the magnificence of God.  I don’t think that if we can someday explain it scientifically, we will in any way make it less real.  Some people like to philosophize, some to focus on science and some are perfectly content to sit back and “rest” in the Lord.  Who has the better portion?  Only God can say.  I think, personally, that as long as the focus is on the Eucharist, it doesn’t really matter what venue you use to comprehend it.  Tho I agree with Matt B. that sometimes it’s nice just to let it “be”.  I mean, I don’t enjoy a sunset anymore because I know that it is a ball of gas.  Of course, I don’t enjoy it any less, either. (sorry if I mucked that up Matt B.)

Pro,
I didn’t mean to imply you were an egoist.  Of course a Catholic’s ego can get in the way.  It often does.  What I meant was, can you try and become empty, not think too hard, not try to “make it happen” and just let God speak to you?  If so, then I’d like you to try something.  But it won’t work if you go into it thinking you already know the “answer”.

Proto1 wrote:
GregB- Christ sent the HS to empower the disciples to preach the gospel and show that it is true. The HS was also involved in the issue of circumcision and its relevance to the gospel. It is as you say apostolic and binding on all Christians. What does this have to do with knowing the Scriptures? Jesus Himself taught that we are to have His word abiding in us John 15:7 and to have His word richly dwelling in us. Col 3:16.
Does going to mass fulfill this command to have the word of Christ dwelling in you? I know many Catholics who go to mass faithfully that I don’t find this to be the case. How about you?
**************************************************************************
I thought that you were the one who said that we could only go by Scriptures.  If that is so, then why weren’t the Scriptures alone sufficiently empowering for the apostles?  Could it be that a living, and lived faith requires more than the Scriptures only and actually requires the Holy Spirit?
I don’t believe in once saved always saved.  I believe in the parable of the wheat and the weeds.  Interesting thing is that people can be both wheat and weeds. When we sin and disobey God we become weeds.  When we are obedient to God and follow his commands we become wheat.  The Church Militant contains both the elect and the reprobate, and sometimes it can be hard to tell which is which. This is why the Catholic Church has never dogmatically taught that we can know for sure who is in Hell.  Only Christ can read the heart and the whole of a person’s spiritual life.  The Scriptures alone were not enough to bring about the conversion of St. Paul.

Back in 1972 how and what. Well at least you get it .I love the eucharist and all the beauty and mystery of mother church. the faith is so full. I was only trying to deal with transubstantion the science is beging to deal with energy matter as it can relate to the spirit and soul. I still receive with an open heart and joy. But imagine if sme day quantum physics and paticle matter captures substance in the spirit our soul which coulkd be our energy departing are being, our aura so to speak. Many years ago some of the jesuits of Boston College and the College of the Holy cross hosted a symposium with MIT to explore such matters and of course real presence and transubstantion was a great topic of discussion.

lol Thomas, I meant I was wrong once back in 1972…so I could be wrong again.

I think that when you speak of our energy matter departing our being tho, that you border on some heresy (can’t remember the name of it now) that says that our Body and Soul are separate things.  We are BodyandSoul, not body and soul.  We aren’t bodies with souls, or souls with bodies.  Dualism.  That’s it I think. The heresy I mean.  I think that is what Matt B is warning about.  (Not dualism per se) The idea that when you try to bring the supernatural down to the natural level, you run the risk of cheapnening it.  I was just reading John 6 over (re my experiment request of Proto) and came across the line “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail.”  The footnotes say that it supernatural knowledge that gives us revelation and that we mustn’t confuse the two.  So while we are BodyandSoul, God is Soul.  Spirit. Noncorporeal.  And the laws that govern the two worlds are not the same.  So we need to be careful that we don’t turn the faith into something akin to dissecting a frog to see how it “works”...

Not meant to be dualist. There is God of one substance in three. The science is not my thoughts only some very learned people trying to understand the beauty and mystery of the real presence in the eucharist. We think of god as all that seen and unseen, there is the human nature of the son and the spirit , Three but one. What isJesus knew and meant that the spirit is what binds all togeather and the spirit had measurable matter. It would really knock the wind out of literalists and secularist.No I am quite orthodox and have a deep spiritual connection with the church and all it’s teaching. Even if the things i bring up are never fully revealed it by no means diminishes my love and fith. I find so wonderfull that in any event all men seek to understand God even atheists argue and want to know. Please, I put out some of the current science and philosphy just find another way of looking at the real presence. here in Boston, B.C., Holy Cross, and M.I.T have symposium once in awhile to explore the bounds of religion and science and those matters of faith. God bless , Dr Thomas

Proto, back in “the day” non-Catholics were not admitted to the holiest part of the Mass, when the Consecration takes place.  Holy Communion was known as “the Mysteries,” because the uninitiated could not participate or even understand.  Martyrs died rather than reveal these Mysteries.  Knowledge only came with sacramental grace and divine revelation.  “Mass” comes from the word “Misa” which means “sent.”  The uninitiated were “sent out” when the liturgy of the Eucharist was celebrated.

So I’m not surprised that you have a hard time comprehending.  You have to believe in order to see.

Proto,

“If anyone wishes to come after me”, he said, “he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Lk 9:23).

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

“Be still, and know that I am God.

“Speak Lord; your servant is listening”

So are you saying that no, you cannot put aside your own biases and let God speak to you?  Are you saying that this is not what God wishes and not what the Scriptures are for?  That you should not become empty and let God do the speaking but rather you should work hard and try to “make it happen: ourself?  Really?  Is that what you are claiming?

Proto,

If anyone wishes to come after me”, he said, “he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

“Be still, and know that I am God.

“Speak Lord; your servant is listening”

So are you saying that no, you cannot put aside your own biases and let God speak to you?  Are you saying that this is not what God wishes and not what the Scriptures are for?  That you should not become empty and let God do the speaking but rather you should work hard and try to “make it happen?  Really?  Is that what you are claiming?

for whatever reason the comment I am trying to post keeps getting put into moderation…claims I might be spam.  Have no idea why…

Lets try this:

Proto,

.If anyone wishes to come after me”, he said, “he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
3.Be still, and know that I am God
4.Speak Lord; your servant is listening

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

3.Be still, and know that I am God
4.Speak Lord; your servant is listening

So are you saying that no, you cannot put aside your own biases and let God speak to you?  Are you saying that this is not what God wishes and not what the Scriptures are for?  That you should not become empty and let God do the speaking but rather you should work hard and try to “make it happen?  Really?  Is that what you are claiming?

I spilled a little amount of THE BLOOD OF CHRIST on my shirt at Holy Communion. What must I do with my shirt? May I wash ?

Regarding “emptying” or kinosis, an excellent example of this would be Christ’s abandonment on the cross.  “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” Phil 2,7 The emblem of this sacrifice is found in every Catholic church.  Unfortunately, too many of our separated brethren want to see the glory without the guts.  This sacrifice too is intended within the Eucharist: God present, from life to death to resurrection.  Saints spent their entire lives pondering these imponderables.  I wonder when it passed from the protestant communions?

Yes Matt,

Exactly.  Emptying oneself to become filled with Him, His word, His love.  If we are filled to the brim with everything else there is no room for Him.  Not only are the Gospels filled with this message, but as you point out, it is THE message.  The Way.

And Proto, there’s more scripture in the average Mass than in a month of sunday bible studies at your dissenters donut dunking club.  Moreover, the gem of scripture is found in its natural setting in the Mass - as opposed to being hawked on the black market of self-interested speculators.  “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.”  Matt 11, 12

Proto,
One more for ya…

“He must become greater; I must become less.”

Thomas,

No, I know you don’t believe in dualism. I was just pointing out that it is a fine line and you must be very, very careful with how you phrase things when you start delving into the depths.  Ironically, Proto accused MattB of gnosticism, but that that’s closer to what I am talking about.  Nothing Gnostic about what Matt B. is saying.  The idea that everything can or worse, should, be “known”.

Proto said -
[—-
Irenaeus- John 6:67 says nothing about Luke or Mark walking away. Luke was not a direct disciple of Jesus. I agree we should research but our research must start with the Scripture. It is the Scripture that is the foundation and not the writings of the fathers. Not even all the fathers agreed on what they wrote about and in some cases do not agree with some teachings of Rome.
—-]

That is true, scripture does not say this. However, scripture is only a subset of Tradition put to writing. The Tradition handed down to St. Hypolitus and St. Epiphanius claim St. Luke was a Greek Jew among the 72 disciples. They claim St. Luke was a Greek Jew just as Ss. Phillip and Andrew were. And those two Greek named apostles were those whom the Greeks came to speak with on inquiring about Jesus (Jn 12:20). Why? Because they were Greek as well as Jewish, and probably acted as interpreters for Jesus. However, unlike Ss. Phillip and Andrew, St. Luke withdrew on the teaching of the Real Presence. Only to be later converted by St. Paul. The early Christian St. Epiphanius also assures us that St. Mark was another counted among the 72 disciples who also withdrew.

Can we be 100% certain on this tradition? No, because like you said there is disagreement among the fathers. Mostly, because some of the fathers were trying infer directly from scripture without knowledge of this particular tradition, while others knew of it.

I only shared this story to illustrate to you that the hardness of this teaching even confounded two of the Evangelists before they came to understand. Research and understand what the early church was saying before you dismiss it. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a student of St. John and appointed Bishop of Antioch when St Peter left for Rome. Read his epistles and you will see that he too believed in the Real Presence.

Proto1 wrote:
mk- are you telling me that before God speaks to me or anyone else that they must put aside their bias’? I’m aware of my bias’ but its impossible to put them aside unless you have some very good reasons to reject them.
The idea of someone having to somehow “empty” themselves and “let God do the speaking” is not a biblical concept. That’s why I asked you about what Jesus and His apostles did when they were preaching the gospel. If you know the NT well you will know that kind of thing is foreign to Scripture. They never asked anyone to do this kind of thing. Its impossible to do so.
********************************************************************
Christ emptied Himself to take on our humanity.  We are asked to be other Christs.

Proto,

I gave you numerous passages.  It’s the entire message of the bible.  Become slaves, become little, die to yourself, give up your life for another…all of these are asking us to become less important so that He can become more important.  How in the world is Jesus supposed to be in you if you are completely full of yourself? 

So the answer is no then?  You are not able to put Jesus first?  You are in charge?  He’ll just have to adapt to your preconceived notions, not the other way around? So be it.  Can’t say I didn’t try.  I’d sure be curious to know where you find that concept in Scripture!  lol

Oh I see , well I am far from gnostic, but now that you mention there was a gnostic gospel with my name. This of course was not with my approval. I find those of the gnostic school interesting but a bit self absorbed. What if Jesus knew at the time that spirit contains paticles of his body and blood that would settle the question of those non believers that dubt transubstantion. No matter what is revealed in the futue my faith will never be less. My love will never be less. It is my deep faith which brings me to know more and to reason, and it is this reason anfd knowledge that brings me ever so closer to my faith. Well, hospital duty again and onenursing home bringing the real presence of Jesus to those that are bed bound and can not get out. God bless, Dr Thomas

I approve of this message. There is far more scriture in our Mass compared to the one Sunday service of the protester. They just do not know. Pax.  Doc Thomas

The blood of the wine has been made real by the sacrafice of Mass. If you spill aliittle on your shirt I would say you may was your shirt. It is the spirit that brings life you cannot destroy the spirit it goes on. God bless. Dr Thomas

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. (Philippians 2:5-7)

Proto1 wrote:
GregB- nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to empty ourselves but we are to imitate Christ in our lives.
******************************
You might want to look at Gal. 2,20:
“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ Who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

Wow with all this scripture swordsmanship it is quite fun. Just a question howmany of you blogging now are cradle catholics or converts to the faith LOL ??  God bless Dr Thomas

Lol Thomas,

I’m a revert…raised Catholic, left, came back 20 years ago. 

The thing is there is absolutely no place in Christianity for ego.  That is the crux of the entire Faith.  We give ourselves to God.  We lose ourselves, to find ourselves.  Proto says it’s impossible to put aside your ego…well of course it is.  For us.  Like the Camel through the needle however, what is impossible for us is quite possible for God.  We fail because of original sin…but we succeed because and precisely because we humble ourselves as Jesus did, become nothing so that we can become everything in Him.  If we can’t leave our ego at the door, then we probably won’t get in at all.  Can we do it perfectly?  Of course not.  But we must try…

Proto,

That’s why “emptying” yourself would not be an appropriate term.

You’ll have to take that up with Our Lord.  It came straight from Scripture…You might not “take it that way” but that is because you don’t believe that to let God fill you you must first become an empty vessel. 

Either way, it’s clear you are not willing to try the “experiment” as it would mean being open to a new idea.  Clearly, you’ve made up your mind and are not willing to let God speak to you, let alone me.  If you ever change your mind, let me know.  It does not good to “read” Scripture if you already “know” everything, tho, does it?

God bless you, you are right and we need to put are ego’s aside I am happy to see and know that so many here love scripture and the fullness of the church. Welcome back . Pax, Dr Thomas

Proto, all men seek God. The people here all surrender themselves to the lord. I do always in the most spiritual way. You should be more Christian and kind and not so padantic these people who i know truly love their God and church. Oh, it is sola fidei,  but once again I am just an older guy with dollar store glasses lol. God bless. Dr Thomas

Proto,

I’m not going to get into a Scripture war with you…if you can’t understand what is meant by emptying yourself, meaning to humble oneself, then there is nothing more I can add.  I gave you Phil 2…it can’t be any clearer than that.  We must be like Christ, Christ emptied Himself.  Look empty up in the dictionary.  I’ll let you figure it out.  I’m not into parsing words to death.  If you are unable to put your ego and preconceived ideas aside to read Scripture, then I can’t help you, only God can.  If you honestly think that you are to approach Scripture already knowing what it means or is saying then you don’t need God and you certainly don’t need me.  You have all the answers.  Personally, I let God speak to me, to tell me what HE wants me to know.  I don’t read Scripture and tell God what it means.  I also do not believe as you do, that every thing we believe or know about God can be found ONLY in Scripture.  I asked you earlier and you never answered (because you guys never do)What did Peter use for Scripture?  What did Paul use?  What did ANY Christian use for the first three centuries?  Why don’t you use the same Scripture that Jesus used?  When you can answer those questions we can move on.  Because NO WHERE in Scripture does it say that the only Eternal Truth to be found or known MUST be in Scripture.  That is a false syllogism.  You know, like all rabbits have whiskers, all rabbits are mammals, therefore all mammals have whiskers?  All Scripture is Truth is not the same as therefore All Truth can only be found in Scripture.  Sheesh!

Author MARK SHEA warned PROTO1 to stop his activity and asked the rest to not bait him.

Yeah Hermit,

For awhile there he was actually staying on topic…the Eucharist and Transubstantiation.  Which is why I invited him to “try an experiment” which of course ended up in him hijacking the whole thread…again.  Mea Culpa…unless he is interested in returning to the topic at hand, I’ll let it go.

Proto,

That is called Oral Tradition.  If you accept it then, you should accept it now.  Either way, unless you want to discuss Transubstantiation or the Eucharist, I’m afraid this conversation must be done.

Proto - your theory of “spontaneous inspiration” is an interesting one.  I’d like to know what happened to Maccabbees etc, which were considered canonical until the Luthiferian Redaction.  Was that a reverse process to what you describe for Luke and Acts?  Also, what was the basis for Luther’s selection of 66 canonical books, instead of 73?.  I understand it has something to do with the Septuagent version.  Am I correct?

I am a Catholic convert. Before I became Catholic I studied Western religion for over a decade, basically as a hobby.  I used to debate atheists on forums.  I was once asked by a professor to consider coming to his University to get a PhD in Religion.

I only go into all that to give some background on this statement:

I find that “scientific” atheists live in a world of accidentals with absolutely no substance.

@Russell Brown: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” - Were you trying to make a point with this assertion? If so, what?

RB; The quote repeated above by DAVID M makes absolutely no sense. There can be no EVIDENCE for the supernatural. We can show reasonable arguments for it. There are lots of issues in the physical world either which we accept but have no evidence for them. We can experience a wind but have no evidence to show someone else that it passed through our yard, we can show leaves blown down. IF we believe that GOD “invented” human sexuality we can also believe that HE suspended it for the Virgin Birth of JESUS. But we absolitely cannot prove that rationally.

@HermitTalker: The quote makes sense. But it fails to address the question: when can something ‘be asserted’ without ‘evidence’? There certainly is evidence for the supernatural, it seems to me. It seems you are arbitrarily and unrealistically restricting the meaning of ‘evidence’ in your claim to the contrary. (And probably that’s the mistake Russell was making too.)

Excuse me if I misunderstood you Russell. “Evidence” implies experience via the five senses. There was no evidence of the Virgin Birth or of bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ. Some said fakery, devil at work and anything else. Some got the gift of belief. Externally it looked the same to the senses.  Physically medical miracles can be shown to have been not natural or miraculous but not all are convinced since they could not experience the “evidence” as in “I did not see the bone heal” “It could have been the medicine”  “It could have happened naturally.”  “She faked paralysis” or “He pretended.”  Jesus raised LAZARUS to life and His enemies plotted to kill him immediately. DUH!!

It seems to me that there is evidence for the supernatural in the face of scientific nihilism.  The *meaning* which religious value and belief impart to seemingly inert matter, and indifferent attitudes and behaviors, constitutes *sense*.  When someone says “it just seems right!” the idea they’re communicating is that reality has been lifted from dumb clay to the “supernatural.”  Everybody alive has experienced this, I hope.  It’s the difference between being alive, and death.

I find this all very fascinating.  And reading about transubstantiation from all the comments (and the article itself) has pretty much convinced me, that: that’s what happens.  That said, I’m a Protestant.  And I’d also like to add, I know a great many Protestants who would read this and be similarly “convinced”.  So maybe we’re not “sheeps in wolves clothing” after all? ;-)  Which brings me to the reason why I am posting at all, that is, wow, there have been some very offensive things said about Protestants.  I don’t know if anyone here is aware that there will most likely be Protestants reading these articles, but there are.  And if I was going to convert to Catholicism, the negative comments about Protestants would certainly deter me!  Mind you, I am hoping that the majority of Catholics are not so anti-Protestant (as I can assure you that the majority of Protestants are not anti-Catholic) and that there are just a few people like this.  Or maybe I am wrong.  Maybe the majority of Catholics are anti-Protestant?  I don’t know.  But either way, I found the article and subsequent discussion fascinating and enlightening!  I am certainly going to think of Communion much differently from now on.  So thank you!

Kimberly, thank you for your honest consideration of what many consider an oddity of Catholicism.  I think the distrust between Catholics and Protestants stems from many centuries of doctinal and political differences - many time ending in bloodshed and persecution.  I for one would love to see these differences bridged, so that “all may be one, as you, father, and I are one.” (John Ch. 17)

I need to caution you, however, concerning the difference between Holy Eucharist, as celebrated by Catholic and Orthodox Christians, and the Holy Communion of Protestants - as this will undoubtedly be important to both groups:

The doctrinal qualities associated with the Holy Eucharist are not all shared by Protestant Communion.  While Holy Eucharist contains the real presence of Our Lord in a sacramental way, Communion as celebrated in non-Catholic churches does not.  Therefore, Protestants are correct to consider their communion in a symbolic, representational way.

The sacramental real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic host requires an entire sacramental system, including ordained ministers (bishops, priests) whose function is to administer those sacraments.  It also requires an apostolic foundation to that ministry, as well as an authentic teaching ministry founded on the apostles.

Most of these requirements are not found in Protestant denominations.  Therefore, the last ecumenical council of the Church declared these congregations to be “ecclesial communities” rather than Churches, properly understood.

I hope you’re starting to understand some of the things which separate Catholics and Protestants, but also that you’re feeling the great longing by which Christ ardently desires the unity of all Christians.  That unity is summed up in perfection in the Holy Eucharist.  I sincerely hope you’re on the way to experiencing it.

In Jesus Christ!

My dear Protestant fiend welcome. I assure you we are not anti protestant , but if we are attacked on the site we defend our faith and creed. That would be part of our commitement under our sacrament of confirmation. Note, I am not comfortable when some start with the scripture swordmanship at the expense of good Christian love and understanding. I am quite pleased that you have found some understanding in our love of the Eucahrist and the transendant effect that it has on us at Mass.  God bless, Dr Thomas

Some of us are critical of objections to our Faith and say so, most of the comments I see on the different NCR sites are written with antagonism, and when answered continue to be antagonistic.One has to learn to be respectful of the person, as Augustine says “Hate the sin and love the sinner.”

Hermit: “‘Evidence’ implies experience via the five senses.” - And what are the proper objects of the five senses? Color and figure, sound, figure and hardness, tastes, and smells. Not the ‘super-natural,’ sure, but also not the ‘natural.’ So the relation of ‘evidence’ -whether evidence of the ‘natural’ or the ‘supernatural’ - to the senses is never immediate, but is always mediated by the intellect.
Kimberly: There’s usually a lot of just bickering in these kinds of discussions. That said, hopefully all Catholics are anti-Protestant (theologically) - we better be! Of course, that doesn’t mean we don’t respect Protestants (i.e., our separated brothers and sisters) - at least we had better respect (and love) them! God bless.

DavidM; Nihil est in intellectu nisi prius est in sensibus is an old maxim Nothing is in our mind unless first in the senses. We allow of course for extraordinary acts of God as Joseph having dreams to accept Mary as wife and to move to and back from Egypt. BUT I repeat for the last time, there is no way our human senses can experience the bread becoming JESUS’ body or a broken bone being healed without someone raising doubts in her mind. Thanks for your psots on this topic.

I experience the presence in the most profound and spiritual way during communion. I do not know about gthe broken bone part I will leave that to the interssesion of the Holy Spirit. Pax, God bless Dr Thomas

Not on the same page Dr Thomas. A different level and form of experience for both of us!

Sorry, I thought this was about transubstantion and the real presence. I was trying to keep it simple to the experience of my senses. If you believe then I am sure you have arelevant experience to you personally’
. God bless. Dr Thomas

Yes it is but certain people dragged in molecules, atoms and neutrons and a specific type of “experience”  which has nothing to do with physics, the five senses, the normal way most people experience.

Oh, I see. Well first one must love and believe in the transending power and grace of the Eucharist. Then to imagine the spirit besides accident and substance is a natural curiosity in love of Knowledge and reason ./ I have sid before that does not take away from belief or make them less. I mentioned on occasion here in Boston the good Jesuits Of Boston College and Holy Cross along with M.I.T will have a symposium to explore these matters, and I mean matter so to speak. God bless, Dr Thomas

Wonderful confluence SJs and MITs together.  The first scientists of Western civilisation were Catholic bishops and monks.  I hope the Jesuits can get them beyond the merely physical.
By the way the Holy Spirit is the agent for bringing Jesus’ PASCHAL MYSTERY to the believer in the sacraments and prayer. There is no spirit lower case involved in the process of Eucharist or any sacrament. Our human souls, spirits of course are in us and our personhood - body-soul unit is “graced” by the Holy Spirit.

oh please pardon the typos, I still have my dollar store glasses and I am not a keyboard person. Not of my generation, still write long hand and use spell check and dictionarys. Oh, the good jesuits are quite spiritual, and the Cardinal is and old school Fransican. Peace and God bless. Dr Thomas

as I said before I’ll say it again:
This is brilliant! I work in biotech and this is an excellent piece of wisdom and science that I will use to defend my faith.

question said
[—-
Mark, do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Do you really believe it was “created in six days”? Do you believe that we are all in the same form that God made in those six days? Do you really believe God’s ultimate creation, mankind, is born in sin until s/he is baptized?
—-]

Catholics are not obliged to believe the world is 10,000 years old. Nor that it was created in 6, 24 hour days. Genesis was not written as a scientific text. The Catholic Church invented the scientific method many centuries later. We do not have a problem with evolution or the scientific theories about the big bang. We only have a problem when scientists go outside their discipline and try to answer questions which are rightly in the philosophical and theological domain. They are ill equipped to answer questions such as “What is the purpose of life?”. We believe as Catholics that all truth has its source in God. Be it scientific, theological or philosophical. The pope has said the evolution and creation debate is an absurdity, because they are not mutually exclusive, but complementary.

By the way. Do a little more research. The greatest contributor to science throughout the history of Europe has been the Catholic Church. We invented the College system and the scientific method. Some of the greatest scientists were priests, like Johannes Kepler, Gregor Mendel, etc. etc.

question said
[—-
I was asking Mark Shea, not all Catholics. Don’t answer for him please.
—-]

So what if you were? You were also talking about my Catholic faith. This is an open forum. Furthermore, when you ask provocative and demonstrably ignorant questions such as:

“Do you really hate science and humanity so much?” ....

Do you really expect Mark to respond? Each of your questions betrayed an intellectual laziness that just regurgitates the same old tired cut and paste anti-Christian propaganda found on atheist and humanist websites.

Question, Marks faith is the same as any true Catholic Christian. Therefore he will say the same as Irenaus.  And so will I.  So stop wasting bandwidth and get to the point.

question said
[—-
I was not talking about YOUR faith, I was asking Mark about his.
—-]

Once again your words betray an ignorance of the delineation between the spheres of science and theology. Asking if the earth is over 10k years old is not a question of faith. Maybe you should have re-asked one of your other questions that did have to do with faith.

Perhaps Mark will indulge you when you learn how to form a proper question. Apparently, you must have chosen your username by accident.

question said
[—-
I was not talking about YOUR faith, I was asking Mark about his.
—-]

Once again your words betray an ignorance of the delineation between the spheres of science and theology. Asking if the earth is over 10k years old is not a question of faith. Maybe you should have re-asked one of your other questions that did have to do with faith.

It is amusing that you demand an answer, when you dont know how to form a proper question. Apparently, you must have chosen your username by accident.

Hermit: Your reply to me ignored my point. “Natural” as such is no more found in the senses as such than is “supernatural.” Same (still) goes for “evidence” as such.

...same goes for “nihil in intellectu” etc.

David: I totally miss your point. I was trained in the Philosophy of Aristole and his teacher Plato and the Philosophy and Theology of St Thomas Aquinas whom as you know developed his system using their system as his “handmaiden. “

Mr Mark Shea of course will provide his own answer. But no one can tell how old or young the world is from the Bible. It takes a deeper understanding of Babylonian literature to show that the Bible is not a Science and thus totally useless for answering such questions. The BIBLE teaches FAITH/RELIGION/WHAT GOD INTENDED. It does contain history and geography but walk softly through the land mines that trip up our fundamentalist family who confuse MYTH, properly understood, not its popular meaning; and LITERAL meaning which is again NOT the popular meaning, related to the above background and MYTH.

My dyslexic ancestors tell me there is DOG in heaven, ONE DOG eerht sonsreP.  21 sebirT and neves of everything else - candles, and lamps which are too difficult to lleps sdrawkcab.

My 1st Amendment rights have been violated!

Wonderfull, this is the first time in over a week I have heard something intelligent and kind, almost a bit ecumenical. God bless and much love. Dr Thomas

Question:

Your moronic question was deleted because of its unique combination of ignorance, incuriosity and insincerity.  That you have taken the occasion of this discussion, which has nothing to do with the stupidity of Young Earth Creationism, to ask it only demonstrates that you are yet another atheist who cannot even imagine a Christian who is not a fundamentalist.  That, combined with your brainless remarks elsewhere in Register comboxes, demonstrates for me your utter insincerity in pretending to ask questions to find anything out.  You are, in fact, asking questions to keep from finding anything out.  Why should I engage in conversation with a liar who pretends to want to know something but who is, in fact, only looking for reasons to attack?  Now run along back to your little friends who worship, but never use, their intellects.

Oh, and the surest proof of your idiocy is that you imagine your first amendment rights create an obligation on my part to let you post here.  Grow up and start your own blog once you get out of your sophomore year in high school, dude.

couldn’t have said it better myself!

Hermit: I too have training in those areas. (I’m actually writing a doctoral thesis right now on Aquinas.) I think my point has been made clearly enough, so I won’t bother repeating it. I think it should be comprehensible to someone who is familiar with Aristotle and Aquinas.

...If there’s is something in particular you don’t understand, please feel free to inquire.

My studies in Aquinas began in 1957 in Latin in College, continued on for decades, a perennial student through Ph D work and still studying. Write me on hotmail.com please to explain wherein I miss your points. Do not wish to distract this site’s post-ers. hfbhermitage. Thank you David. Francis

David keep up the debate. Aristotle and Aquinas are central to Catholic intellectual thought, of course it is not all but certainly helps us. We have never been sola scriptura. We have the richness nd fullness of the faith with the Mother Church. It is truly a rich tradition. God bless, Dr Thomas

Sorry Dr Thomas you are off-center. The issue is not sola scriptura, or the use of Aquinas riding on Aristotle’S back as philosophical sub-structure for theology. You use words incorrectly such as Spirit and spirit and have no real understanding of what we mean by the use of substance and accidents as a means of making transsubstantiation reasonable. It has nothing to do with the belief as such,  no more than St Patrick using the shamrock explained the Trinity so people could believe it. It was an aid to try to help people believe.

Sorry my comments were not directed to you, I find any discussion with you not very spiritual or a vexation of the spirit. Have a nice day. Pax and God bless Dr Thomas

Second effort, the sending system messes with me regularly, mostly to tell me I typed the wrong word/numbers which rarely is the reason.
//////////////
David and by extension Dr Thomas. I re-read and thought more about your point David. We agree that all that we know in our brain comes from the senses. The medievalists said that fantasma convey the sense evidence to the mens the mind which says hot,  smelly, nice doggy.  Irrelevant to the discussion, we know today the science of how we see, even if we can never understand the eye as marvelous gift.  The word substance here is a special meaning for philosophy- literally, that which stands under, sub-stance. It means nothing like that in popular English, a substantial sum of money, CSI analysed the substance and declared it horse manure or rotten cabbage. Substance abuse is illegal drug use.  Faith as gift allows us to believe that the book, or teacher’s words about what happens in Eucharist via our ears and eyes is believed. Even if we are expert in Greek-medieval philosophy we cannot experience with our senses what happens to bread and wine when they become the body and blood of the Christ. We can accept a philisophic explanation as to how it happens, see that it is reasonable to believe but that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual gift of belief. The Holy Spirit, not my spirit or any spirit effects the change. HE does not have to get into the bread and wine to stir around and ransfer the substance to turn it into Jesus’ boy and blood. JESUS’ Body and Blood are there sacramentally, His actual body and blood soul and divinity stay in heaven. TRADIITON has absolutely nothing to do with the philosophic explanation, the Tradition is that we believe JESUS did it, said it and the Church has passed on that Faith.  The apostles and the entire Church passed on that faith before St Thomas Aquinas got into deep trouble for using Aristotle’s vehicle of philosophy to express the Mystery of Faith in the 13th century.

Trying this again. third time, they banned me earlier, some mess-up in their software. We agree that the five senses get the message to the brain that says ” nice Kitty.” The medievalists theorised fantasma to bring the sense experience to the brain but had no idea of the science involved.  The philosophic system Aquinas used to make the faith reasonable uses words and concepts no longer in use. Substace today is drugs, s. abuse, or a substantial sum of money and CSI determines the substance is horse manure or rotten cabbage.  TRADITION has abslutely nothing to do with that outdated philosophy it has to do with what JESUS said, what he apostles and the later Church believed.  We cannot experience the change from bread to JESUS’ BODY in the bresd of communion bread.  Faith is beyond human experience even if we can have a sense, or experience of joy and delight at Mass. Dr T; The HOLY SPIRIT does not have to get into the bread to play miracle with its substance AND tranfer that to the commjunion bread. HE IS GOD. Jesus actual body stays put in heaven, it comes to us sacramentally. peace to all for T’giving and Advent.

Hermit: I’m afraid I don’t see how what you have written speaks to the original point about evidence and to be careful to distinguish ‘brain’ from ‘intellect’. I will also say that the following claim is simply incorrect:
“The philosophic system Aquinas used to make the faith reasonable uses words and concepts no longer in use.”
I quote from the *current* universal Catechism (CCC 1376):
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

Sorry, the first line above should read something like: “...and *I caution you* to be careful to distinguish…”

I acknowledged that the use of transsubstantiation is proper BUT if you read the rest you will see no one today understands “substance” and “accidents” in that sense,  unless schooled in that use of language.  Lawyers are now writing their stuff in plain English. Physicians are talking today to patients and their families about heart attacks and broken parts instead of Greek and Latin terms for the diseases and breaks and attacks.  Many people confuse the physical brain with its higher use as intellect, they are not medically educated enough, as I am not to get the connection. As you are also well aware, one presumes, that many see the human body as purely an electric-chemical organism, more developed than our closest jungle cousins and dismiss any spiritual meaning to our mind, soul etc.  I had a tough time teaaching my students that the SOUL is the principle of life and skunks have them too. They only knew about the soul as going to heaven, if they had any formal religious beliefs. The world you seem to inhabit is not the one I was raised in and had to get out of to make sense to post-Christian, post civilised Americans.  EVIDENCE   ? your problem with my explanation.?

I’m still not sure what you’re trying to explain or what your point is. You seem to just be pointing out that most people have very little familiarity with metaphysics and that it can be difficult to teach metaphysics. Sure, I agree. My point has been that metaphysics *is* difficult and that Russell Brown appeared to be begging all sorts of questions about the “being of evidence” (“evidence” is a common word, but that doesn’t mean it is any easier to correctly grasp in its proper being than notions like “substance” and “accident”).

I spent my life trying to teach people it is “Sweat, not perspiration” a line I borrowed from an old friend.  PEACE.