St. Thomas' Toughest Teaching w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, OP

[@yussefgalibfrangiefiol7133]

Merry Christmas from Puerto Rico, Father Pine....within that instantaneous change lies the fundamental truth of our faith.

[@jamesmartello1]

Merry Christmas and a blessed New Year in 2022! Thank you for everything you do for us!

[@rosarypursuit6903]

Merry Christmas James.

[@dargosian]

"Christ is only in one place, okay. He's in Heaven. Where is that? I don't know. Alright?" Burst out laughing, Fr. Pine you're always very entertaining! Merry Christmas, and thanks for breaking this down. The Eucharist is the coolest, but also the most confusing part of Catholicism; second to the Holy Trinity if we talk about the whole of Christendom.

[@antoniomoyal]

That's why it is a mystery. This is about trying to reason as far as we can

[@marzena3396815]

Please study the Eucharistic Miracles...It's on You tube..... You will understand......

[@dargosian]

@@marzena3396815 I love Fr. Mark Goring's readings of Eucharistic miracles, they are my favorites! But it's not that the bread is the body, but how that is possible that is confusing to me. As "A ML" said above, it's about trying to reason as far as we can, which is why I also like Fr. Pine and Aquinas.

[@CatholicK5357]

Even though it can never fully be understood, I love hearing scientific analogies on the subject since it only increases the mystery all the more.

[@sheryllanderson1394]

Beautifully said. And really hard to understand. But this is why I am Catholic. I do believe in the real presence.🙏

[@soroushfetkovich5084]

God bless you dear father for your in depth explanation !

[@katherinemcmillan5228]

To not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is to call God a liar and I cannot do that.

[@antoniomoyal]

I was introduced to hylemorphism precisely trying to reason transubstantiation out. The best thing I could ever do. Since then I'm following Aquinas 101

[@brunot2481]

@YAJUN YUAN From that you admittedly say Protestants only believe what they can understand, which is simply contradictory to their very definition of faith.

[@brunot2481]

@YAJUN YUAN Search and study anything you can about “fiduciary faith”.

[@Enya111Bayting-pz2zv]

I pray for you father fine....GOD BLESS YOU.

[@RevolutionDrummer47]

These teachings always make me think of St. Augustine when he said "If you understand God, it is not God." There are mysteries we have to believe and hold in faith, even if we can't humanly explain it. We need to have belief and trust, without necessarily understanding it completely.

[@helenapawl1049]

Merry Christmas everyone 🎄 ✝️ ❤️

[@tamarakonczal6350]

I do appreciate how it is hard to grasp in that we humans reason by analogy and comparative experience. (it sure is for me). We are limited by our tools of understanding, expecting any change of a thing by God to be exactly like all the other changes that we have experienced in life. So we subconsciously expect that God would play by the rules of our experience. ... "This saying is too hard" said many in the crowd of followers. But this equates to making God in our own image rather than bowing before His omnipotence and incomprehensibility. This is the lesson that Job's accusers had to learn. There is a place where our limited reason comes to its end, and only spiritual light in our souls can begin to perceive what he has revealed.

[@raphaelrobles8104]

This is crazy talk, which is why human wisdom is inferior. If I just went my entire life believing only what I understand, I’d miss the opportunity to receive God. Faith is a blessing. Praise the Lord.

[@annemcgoff8495]

Wow, I need to listen maybe 10 more times. I understood your burning log analogy, but the word “ accidents “kept throwing me off. Thanks for your explanation. I’ll keep trying 🙏

[@pl8154]

In my opinion, Aristotle's philosophy of Hylomorphism is critical for a better understanding of the Eucharist. There is good reason that Aquinas admired and referred to Aristotle so frequently in the Summa, where Aquinas calls him 'the Philosopher'. The Eucharist defies our inductive reason which is rooted in our experience in the material world, but not our deductive reason which is not limited by our material experince and includes the immaterial mind of Intellect and Will. If we remain limited to Induction as the source of our Knowledge, we are only clever animals capable of understanding particular, material objects of thought and our mind becomes a kind of 'feedback loop' trapped within itself. When we use induction as it is meant to be used, as the first knowledge of things as things, and allow this 'rational intuition' to fully engage our higher immaterial Intellect and Will, we become fully Human, not merely clever animals but Man made in the Image of God, capable of Universal Reason.

[@commercialrealestatephilos605]

Merry Christmas Fr. This is why a traditional liturgy is so important. The mass must be oriented towards God not self

[@adventureinallthings]

This went WAY over my head. I got lost ten times , nay , 20 times , nay 30 times. Fr Pine may have explained it in mandarin for all the sense I could make of it ( not a criticism of him, just relating my experience )I just don't have the bandwidth to understand this. I accept it but struggle with anything I cannot relate to or understand or make meaningful to me. I don't get why Jesus wants us to eat him ? I fully accept it and always approach the Eucharist in a serious and reverential manner but honestly don't really understand why it's important for Jesus that we do this, in this very particular way. At least I'm glad that Fr Pine has said it not easy. I'm accepting it from trusted Church leaders the way I accept E=MC2 from scientists , as in, I trust them , as I really could not articulate either thing myself.

[@thstroyur]

"I don't get why Jesus wants us to eat him ?" Two reasons that come to my mind are 1) intimacy, and 2) sanctification ('you are what you eat'); as for the metaphysics, since I myself am a substance dualist, I see these common naturalistic prejudices we have about transubstantiation on par with those regarding our own experience of being conscious: if it's strange that a piece of bread and a sip of wine would turn into the flesh and blood of Christ, isn't it just as mysterious that the living, God-breathed flesh and blood of a human being would turn into an inanimate corpse upon death?

[@ignatii_ars]

Brand Pitre's talk "The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" really elucidated this to me. I think you would like watching it. The saints have also talked a lot about this, and it's kinda easy to find their thoughts on the internet. Also, I love one sermon by Bishop Sheen on the Eucharist, though I don't remember the name of it.

[@adventureinallthings]

@@thstroyur thanks for the reply, in relation to intimacy, I'm afraid that one does not help me much as I've never eaten anybody I wanted to be intimate with. " You are what you eat " ok I can relate to that a bit better but not much as I guess it kind of makes me think if I ate nothing but the host I would eventually become God , so that does not do much for me either. Just so you understand, I don't have any trouble with believing God does this or any other miraculous thing ( he is God afterall ) but it's more the ' why ' ' why this very particular way ' ? I can understand why God might want to create human beings or the universe, not completely of course, but sure, I can imagine and understand reasons why he'd create. With the host, It's just very odd and bizarre to me, I'm not put off by it or anything but I struggle to find the meaning in it despite wanting to relate to it and to feel something stronger about it. But not understanding does not help with this 🤔

[@thstroyur]

@@adventureinallthings "I'm afraid that one does not help me much as I've never eaten anybody I wanted to be intimate with" And I'm afraid I knew you'd say that. My point wasn't that you make yourself intimate with others by eating them - my point is that our relation with God is unique, because God is uniquely central to existence itself. The Incarnation itself was also an act of intimacy: God wasn't obligated to put on flesh to interact with us His creatures upon His creation, but He did so anyway for our sake - how many people do you know that did something like that? "if I ate nothing but the host I would eventually become God" I didn't say as much - you just jumped to that conclusion; if you ate nothing but limes, maybe you wouldn't get scurvy, but you'd not necessarily get all your nutrition and therefore be healthy, r8? Plus, what about exercising, etc.? "Just so you understand [...] But not understanding does not help with this" Yeah, I get the 'Why would God do this like that?' situation - but that's a bottomless hole, right there: why would God make the Universe so that we have to process food as we do and then excrete the excess like waste, etc.? I think the two things I mentioned capture the basic idea without an infinite tangent: God endeavors to meet us where we are, _qua_ humans. He wants us to be more godly, in spite of our animal nature - so He accomodates the latter to His purposes. Animals have to eat and drink, lest they die; but Life ultimately comes from God only, not merely the foodstuffs in His creation - so perhaps you can see the intersection here...

[@mauriciomachado7929]

For me, one of the toughest ones is the teaching on angels or separate substances: I cannot wrap my head around the idea of something that exists as a species, not an individual (for it has no matter by which to be individuated within a certain species), has intelligence and will and acts individually, all that while belonging to a "kind" (?) of things that are each a separate species and behave more or less the same. That's a tough one to chew. (Or perhaps I've seriously misunderstood it)

[@CatholicismRules]

Replying so I get to see what people say

[@myfakinusername]

This has a very ''quantum physics'' vibe to it haha

[@gabrielviana008]

I think this is the kind of concept that we just can understand because of the theological and philosophical concept and his logic, but actually seeing it is very difficult, just in the light of the faith

[@rosarypursuit6903]

I think, the answer to it is simple. Bread and wine, the accidents, are the same. But it is not the same. Now, substantially, it is Jesus. Now, I believe how that works precisely isn't possible to understand without divine infusion of knowledge, so it simply has to be accepted with faith. Faith- by design, is the theological virtue by which God infuses us with the belief in all that God has revealed to us. This is a supernatural virtue and something that we cannot develop ourselves, but can pray for, and practice so that our inner soul-chalice of Faith grows larger, so God can infuse more Faith into us.

[@tamarakonczal6350]

God is Being itself and the author of ALL existence in all its manifestations. In a sense, the Eucharist is a new kind of existence, though some might want to limit God in how he decides to act. One thing I think about a lot is this: we are physical/spiritual beings and finite/localized as well. We cannot be everywhere. God through the Eucharist can be omnipresent to all of us, simultaneously, in our entirety (physical/spiritual) via the Eucharist.

[@arthurdevain754]

In the Old Law, a family, led by the father, would bring a lamb to the one Temple to be sacrificed. The lamb that was to be sacrificed was the most "perfect" lamb that the family could afford. The Zimmerman family would approach the Temple carrying the "Lamb of Zimmerman" to be sacrificed. The Klosky family would bring to the Temple the "Lamb of Klosky" to be sacrificed. The Bergfeld family would bring the "Lamb of Bergfeld" to be sacrificed. John the Baptist identified Jesus as the "Lamb of God." Under the Old Law the sacrifice HAD TO BE consumed (Ex. 12:8-10). Consumption was part of the sacrifice. So it is in the New Law. If, may the good God forbid, a Priest should have consecrated the Sacred Species and then suddenly die at the Altar, another Priest must come in to consume the Host and the Chalice to fulfil the Sacrifice. Reception of Holy Communion is our way of assisting in the completion of the Sacrifice.

[@gregoryvess7183]

Aw yeah, I was hoping he would address the fact that Christ isn't locally present in the Eucharist eventually! Thank you, Fr. Gregory!

[@LostArchivist]

For me it helps to remember the Incarnation and Resurrection. In light of these and the fact that Christ is God and Man, it does not seem that odd that He can also be in the form of bread and wine that He may nourish us with Himself. This makes sense as Communion as the name of the sacrament suggests is what God desires with us, and the Most Holy Eucharist is a foretaste of the eternal perfection of this in Heaven. Also that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, thus it is by Him that we make our way to Heaven, He is the door, He is Jacob`s Ladder, without Him there is no way between Heaven and Earth. And as Life, He is perfect food as He upholds all Creation and sustains it, so it is fitting He would seek to. It is also fitting for Him as the Lamb of God, to fulfill the Passover, the lamb must be eaten, so to avoid eternal death, we must recieve our part and portion. He is also the true Manna from Heaven and so our sustanance in the desert. And as God is Our Father in Heaven, He feeds us as we when we obey Him are children of God in Christ. And likewise because He is the Word of God and He said they become His Holy Body and His Precious Blood, as all things were made through Him and reflect the goodness of God by varying ways, He is Lord over these as the Wisdom of God, He simply says it and as He is Truth, so it becomes such. The owner makes the rules. Nature does not bound the Lord He bounds nature, all causality can be traced back to and ultimately points back to God. It may be that we do not know it in a natural way, simply because there is no natural way here that leads to it, it is supernatural as it is God Himself indwelling in Creation as only He can. It is closely tied to the Incarnation, I believe. We can say some things, but ultimately it is a divine action at its heart and so must in some aspects utterly transcend nature. With all supernatural actions at some point we must say, it is because God is God, because how can the clay comprehend the potter? We may know as God allows us, but if He does not; at that point, even if this point seems to vary through history, we must trust Him. And this is precisely what He asks of us. At some point the answer the seeker recieves from God is simply `Because I love you` since God is love and creation itself is an act of love. All the paths and ways of true knowledge and true wisdom must at some point, some sooner others later, merge with the Divine Wisdom that is Divine Love, the Most Holy Trinity.

[@tamarakonczal6350]

"Praestet fides supplementum Sensuum defectui." (Faith providing supplement Where the feeble senses fail) - Pange Lingua (St. Thomas Aquinas) Leave it to the angelic doctor to explain our grasping of the Eucharist in five Latin words of song.

[@kelechukwuanozyk7605]

The Holy Eucharist is a mystery. Nobody can completely understand the body and blood of Jesus

[@gabrielviana008]

Video suggestion: How angels are different one from another in the hierarchy? Are they ontologically different or just are different based in his functions?

[@LostArchivist]

@@carolynkimberly4021 There may be a distinction in terms arch as relative head of certain groups of angels and arch as absolute heads of the angels. But according to certain Catholic traditions there are seven Archangels with St.Michael, St.Gabriel, and St.Raphael being the three ones we know the names of, some churches will name the others but we generally are suspect of these.

[@gabrielviana008]

@@carolynkimberly4021 thanks

[@aadamy]

Because we are a priesthood, we have to consume the sacrifice which is Jesus Christ the Lamb of God, under the new law? Is that one way of looking at it ?

[@Veritas1234]

The Catholic Church definitely stumbled during the Covid Pandemic. The Church essentially implied that the Eucharist is the source and summit..unless.

[@adventureinallthings]

I don't understand, what do you mean ?

[@Veritas1234]

@@adventureinallthings They shut down in the US due to the pandemic, at least for a few weeks. And to this day my parish does not offer the Precious Blood to parishioners. What the Catholic Church said was that the Eucharist is the source and summit, unless there are some unknowns out there, like maybe a virus we don't understand, and that protecting people from those unknowns is more important than the Eucharist. I don't think I can trust the Catholic Church to remain focused on Jesus and the Eucharist in times of uncertainty anymore. It's really hurt me deeply. In my opinion Bishops, Priests, and Deacons should have been going door to door, offering the Eucharist under the threat of possible death. But nobody was willing to do that it seems and it has changed my view of how these men truly see the Eucharist. It's exposed them honestly. When we needed the Body and Blood of Christ the most, the Church handed us a stone.

[@adventureinallthings]

@@Veritas1234 ok I understand the point you are trying to make now, I disagree and I doubt that here is a place to resolve such a difference so I'll just say God Bless

[@Veritas1234]

@@adventureinallthings If you are able to gather your words and charitably respond with your opinion, I'd be open to it.

[@Pietrosavr]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand it in terms of possession. I, Peter - 'soul', am in possession of my 'body'. My soul is not contained in my body, if I lose an arm or a leg I am not somehow made lesser, I am still me. If a demon possessed me, he would, I assume, possess my body not soul, he would take control of my body so that it was no longer mine. Likewise, when the Holy Spirit speaks through people he possesses them for some time, and the words that come out are not from the person but from the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Eucharist is simply Jesus Possessing bread and wine, thus they become his body. The accidents don't change, the appearance doesn't change, but the possession does. It is no longer inanimate matter, but the matter that houses our Lord, Jesus Christ. I personally don't see any discrepancy between the "substance change, while accidents remain" and a soul possessing physical matter, thus making that matter "transubstantiate" into the body belonging to the soul. Naturally the soul is non-local, so it's not like Jesus would be contained within the bread, nor am I contained in this particular body. I think we just have to divorce the idea that our body is us, it belongs to us, it is not us, our soul is us. This would also explain how Jesus could be in multiple places at the same time, his one soul simply possessed more than one body that are spatially separate. You know, it's the same as the idea that the samurai becomes one with his sword, the sword becomes the extension of his arm. Because the samurai has mastered the sword and has full control over it, it literally becomes a part of his body, not metaphorically but literally. The body is just atoms like the sword, what makes it ours is our superior control over those atoms.

[@joanmaltman9580]

Jesus is truely present in the Eucharist, and kept in a Tabernacle on the Altar. That was in true when I was growing up before Vatican 2. NOW where is my Lord. The Alter Rails enclosed the sacred area around the altar where Jesus was present in the Tabernacle and the red lamp glowed reminding us of the presence, body and soul of our Saviour.

[@chimene3851]

I feel like this is a right-side-brain concept that you’re trying to explain using the left-side-brain

[@sasi5841]

That's not how the brain works. The right and the left side dont work on seperate functions. They work on the same thing at the same time.

[@tamarakonczal6350]

@@sasi5841 indeed, a search on that concept will show that most modern brain scientists believe it's a myth.

[@chimene3851]

@@sasi5841 see “drawing on the right side of the brain” that’s what I’m referring to

[@rosemariekury9186]

This is like St.Augustine struggling with the concept of the Holy Trinity. A lot of us have to take this on faith, but we do have examples of the Holy Eucharist containing the body of Christ through the ages. I’d think with the internet availability on this it would make more people believe. But it does come down to Jesus saying this is true, so yes it comes down to faith.

[@acohan1]

My question is the eucharist is simply a recapitulation of the hypostatic Union between god the son and Jesus the man only in other species? . So same immaterial person of Trinity, different material. Or does the magisterium teach that it becomes true God and true man

[@jerome8950]

From the moment when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), God became man in the person of Jesus Christ and this hypostatic union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ is permanent and inseparable. Hence, in the consecrated Eucharistic bread we share at Mass, Jesus is fully and entirely present BOTH as God AND Man. He is present in His human AND Divine nature, not His human nature alone. After all, at the last supper, He said: "This is my body"; He didn't say: "This is my HUMAN body".

[@LostArchivist]

@YAJUN YUAN It isn`t that complicated from a certain perspective. Christ is the Bread of Life, the Bread come down from Heaven. He is food for the soul. He is simply giving us back what we lost in Eden. The complications emerge from the action of the Divine Lord in His fallen creation and that we are being lifted to a perfection that is above our current existential millieu. In other words, we can not fully concieve of it even on a good day, and we are sick, wounded, starving, blinded, and confused on top of that.

[@jerome8950]

@YAJUN YUAN it is true that the human Soul is a spiritual entity, not a physical entity. But that doesn't mean that food eaten via the mouth of the PHYSICAL body cannot have an impact on the soul which is SPIRITUAL in nature. When Jesus tells us to eat His flesh, He literally wants us to put His living body into our mouth (which is a part of the PHYSICAL human body) and consume it, so as to nourish and give life to our soul (which is a SPIRITUAL entity). That is why He gave His body to His disciples under the form of bread at the Last Supper so that by PHYSICALLY eating His body, they would be providing SPIRITUAL nourishment to their Souls. The Greek word for "eat" is "phagos" which can either mean literal eating or symbolic eating. But in John chapter 6, the Greek word used for "eat" was not "phagos" but "trogon" which means to LITERALLY put something in the mouth and chew and then swallow. The authour of the gospel of John chose this precise word ("trogon") to show us that Jesus wasn't talking about a SYMBOLIC eating of His body, but an ACTUAL and LITERAL eating of His body. Just because the soul is SPIRITUAL in nature doesn't mean that it cannot be positively affected by what happens in the PHYSICAL human body. A common example is the fact that the Bible says that "faith comes by hearing". In other words, a person needs to hear the word of God with his EARS (which is a part of his PHYSICAL body) before he is able to have faith (and as we all know, faith is a spiritual gift that is situated in the soul which is SPIRITUAL in nature).

[@jerome8950]

@YAJUN YUAN There is a problem with the Protestant perspective of "the real flesh of Christ was LITERALLY crucified but METAPHORICALLY eaten". Jesus is Passover Lamb of the New Convenant (1 Corinthians 5:7). Therefore, He had to LITERALLY die (on the cross) and also be LITERALLY eaten. Why would He give up His LITERAL body to be crucified and then give only a SYMBOL of His body to His disciples to eat? Why wouldn't He also LITERALLY give His body to be eaten? Each time the Jews observed the Passover, the Passover lamb was SACRIFICED and EATEN. God didn't instruct them to Sacrifice the Passover lamb ITSELF and then to go ahead and eat something else that SYMBOLIZED the Passover lamb, instead of the lamb ITSELF. No. It was the Passover lamb ITSELF that was sacrificed (and not a SYMBOL of it), and so it was the lamb ITSELF that had to be eaten (and not a SYMBOL of it). The Sacrifice of Jesus wasn't SYMBOLIC (It was Jesus Himself that actually died on the cross, not a SYMBOL of Him). If we now say that what the disciples ate at the last supper was only a SYMBOL of His body, and not His literal and actual body then it means that He has failed to meet the requirements for being the Passover lamb (because it would mean that He DIED but was not EATEN). The Passover lamb had to DIE (i.e sacrificed) AND BE EATEN, not just to die alone.

[@jerome8950]

@YAJUN YUAN the church uses BREAD and wine during the Eucharist, and not a LAMB and wine because at the Last Supper, Jesus didn't give His apostles A LAMB and say: "This is my body". He did that with BREAD. But of course that is not to say that the Passover meal that Jesus had with His apostles comprised of ONLY Bread and wine. There was also a lamb that was killed and and prepared as a meal. The typical Jewish Passover meal consisted of several items, and these included the meat from a lamb (Exodus 12:3) and unleavened bread (Exodus 12:8). But it was the bread (and NOT the roasted meat of the lamb) that Jesus gave to His disciples, saying: "This is my body" . He did this because He was changing the old testament Jewish Passover observance and giving it a NEW Christian meaning. In obedience to His words: "DO this in memory of me", christians were now supposed to regularly come together to observe the "Christian passover" (now called the "breaking of bread" Acts 2:42) during which they would NO LONGER need to literally kill and eat the flesh of any animal because Jesus had ALREADY become the Passover lamb of the New testament, and they were ALREADY literally eating and drinking His living flesh and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. You are right to point out that the Jews in the old testament didn't drink the blood of the Passover lamb (they only ate its flesh). The simple reason was because God had already told them what to do with the blood of the lamb, and that was to apply it on their door posts (and not to drink it). But we christians have received a DIFFERENT set of instructions under the New testament. We have now been commanded to DRINK the blood of the Passover lamb (Jesus Christ) instead of applying it on our door posts. At the Last Supper, Jesus said: "Take this, all of you and DRINK of it, This is my blood" He doesn't say: "Take this, all of you, and APPLY ON YOUR DOOR POSTS, This is my blood". Earlier in John chapter 6, He said: "Unless you EAT the flesh of the son of Man and DRINK His blood, you would not have life in you " (John 6:53). He doesn't say: "Unless you EAT the flesh of the son of Man and APPLY HIS BLOOD ON YOUR DOOR POSTS, you will not have life in you". Jesus did not give His disciples ordinary bread and wine as SYMBOLS of His body and blood; the bread and wine He gave them had ACTUALLY and TRULY become His real body and blood (without losing the physical and natural characteristics of bread and wine, such as appearance, taste, smell, etc). After all, He says: "This IS my Body". He doesn't say: "This is a SYMBOL of my body" or "This REPRESENTS my body" or "Treat this bread AS THOUGH it were my body" One more thing. Jesus WAS NOT giving them His CORPSE to eat. In John 6, when He talks about "His flesh" , He is NOT referring to a piece of His DEAD BODY. He gives us His LIVING BODY as food, not His corpse. In the Eucharist it is the LIVING JESUS HIMSELF that we receive under the form of bread and wine. When Jesus said: "This is my body" , the Greek word used for "body" is "Soma" which is a body that is ALIVE. The new testament has another word for a corpse or dead body which is "ptoma". This was never used by Jesus at the Last Supper.

[@angelblessing7937]

Highly recommend the reading of the works of servant of God Luisa Picaretta, living in the Divine Will, I have come to understand how Our Lord can be present in every host and every heart and every tiny part of creation, Crown of Sanctiry by Daniel O' Connor, the grace is new and it's for now💯

[@joejackson6205]

I think the one element you forgot in your teaching is that Jesus is God with The Father and Holy Spirit. Being God He is Devine and Omniscient as is The Father and Holy Spirit. So, being Omniscient He is both in Heaven seated at the right hand of Our Father(locally) but also throughout the universe and in our hearts by our faith in Him, and the indwelling of The Holy Spirit. So, transsupstanciation occurs during the Eucharistic Prayer by the faith of the believers, even more so, than the actions or faith of the priest. Scientificly verified by many of the modern day Eucharistic Miracles. So, yes Jesus is in Heaven, but by His Divinity and Omniscience, He is also everywhere. Its a God thing.

[@joejackson6205]

@Eucharist Angel then how do you explain the scientific analysis of modern Eucharistic Miracles? The autopsies of these Bloody Hosts reveal them to be human heart tissue, and not just that but heart tissue under great stress like happens during crucifixion. I suggest you look up some of these Eucharistic Miracles, there is a web site and computer cataloging of them, for which the young man who created it is being canonized. From personasl experience I will testify to you that the Eucharist is the Best Nutrition for The Holy Spirit Who indwells you. That i add part of what faith is a ll about. And no offence intended, but if you dont believe The Eucharist is the real physical body of Jesus, then isn't the name Eucharistic Angel a misnomer?

[@fredphilippi8388]

You seem to be explaining sacraments with reference to Aristotelian philosophy, -- which you left uncited -- and which is famous for its distinction between "substance" and "accidents." But what if Aristotelian philosophy is not the only legitimate philosophy, is NOT THE ABSOLUTE? Christians once made used of Platonism to explain Christian practices and beliefs. What if, in future, Christian theologians were to use Buddhism as philosophical framework? Cannot the sacraments be articulated in light of various philosophies, including Buddhism, in various historical times? I think so. In Thomas Aquinas' time, Aristotelianism was THE BIG THING in educational circles, brought into that modern world by ISLAM no less! Aquinas' genius was to use this new Islamic-related philosophy to Christian advantage as a master apologist. What if today a modern master apologist used Buddhism (which is widespread) as an articulation of the sacraments? I think we laity are ready for that. It would make more sense to us than 13th century "wisdom." But are the Dominicans ready? I think not. They wallow, self-assured, in 13th century moments of genius. They are in no position to move the Church forward with the same creativity Aquinas demonstrated in his time.

[@tamarakonczal6350]

Your argument suffers from the genetic fallacy

[@fredphilippi8388]

@@tamarakonczal6350 Which is ... what?

[@LostArchivist]

@@fredphilippi8388 The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that equates the validity or usually lack thereof of an argument or approach with its origin rather than the virtue its logic. Unless origin is relevant to the argument it is generally an irrelevant objection.

[@fredphilippi8388]

@@LostArchivist I consider origin relevant to the argument. Using Aristotelian philosophical principles and categories to explicate the meaning of the sacraments is one arguably legitimate way of doing so. I would argue it is hardly the ONLY way of doing so. Other philosophies -- like possibly my favorite, Buddhism, which is definitely a philosophy, not a theology, and definitely much more popular today than Aristotelianism -- would better serve the mission of explicating the sacraments in our times.

[@LostArchivist]

@@fredphilippi8388 That philpsophy declares we can rise by our own efforts, that we are reincarnated and that the supreme power behind existence is an impersonal force. These are directly antagonistic to the Faith, but where there is crossover, we happily point out the good. You may like the work of Thomas Merton, St.Johm of the Cross and the anomymous work, the Cloud of Unknowing. I would also recommend the works of St.Therese of Liseaux and St.Theresea of Avila. Maybe St.Hildegarde of Bingen if you want something more ancient.

[@RevDrCook]

No Change - have you talked yourself into believing the wine becomes blood and the bread becomes flesh.

[@thstroyur]

And have you talked yourself into not believing the wine becomes blood and the bread becomes flesh?

[@thstroyur]

@YAJUN YUAN And more specifically - John 6:35-65; in particular, verses 52 and 60 suggest the accidents _should_ change - as per the listeners' ken, anyway (so I guess it _must_ be the case Jesus is speaking only figuratively, huh?). But it doesn't matter "which part of John 6 makes me think" anything - the text quoted doesn't rule out transubstantiation, and even if you don't like Aquinas' theory, you still have to contend with whether the early Christians and Church Fathers held as a _doctrine_ that the Eucharist is _literally_ the flesh and blood of Christ, as opposed to merely assume you know better than firsthand witnesses...