Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This would be easier to grasp if people actually understood that what we perceive in our consciousness is as much "substance" as what we sense with our sensory system.
No, this is objective and has nothing to do with perception. The *substance* of Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is present in the *form* of the consecrated Host, whether one perceives it or not.
Paul warned that "anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself". The obvious implication being that it is indeed possible to eat without discerning (i.e. believing, knowing, distinguishing, understanding, caring, perceiving, etc.).
The terminology of "form" and "substance" comes from Aristotelian metaphysics.
I would not use the word "transformed", since the *form* of bread and wine remain. It is the *substance* of the bread and wine that changes into the *substance* of Christ's Body and Blood. That's why we use the term "transubstantiation" and not "transformation".
I think it's this word -- "substance" -- that this LDS-raised gal finds confusing. When speaking of something that has a corporeal form (bread, wine, a body, blood), I have always thought of "substance" as meaning something along the lines of something's chemical properties. When trinitarians speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being "one in substance" I can't make sense of how three different individuals can all be of the same substance, particularly since one of them is a resurrected being and the other two supposedly are not. If, however, a trinitarian explains that by "substance" they are actually referring to the non-physical qualities that make all three persons of the Trinity equally divine, i.e. their non-physical "nature," then I can go along with the idea that they are "One God." It's for this same reason that I have a hard time understanding how substance known as bread can be changed into the substance known as Christ's resurrected body. Maybe it's that you just can't teach an old dog (i.e., me) new tricks. I just can't conceive of God in neo-platonic terminology.
This would be easier to grasp if people actually understood that what we perceive in our consciousness is as much "substance" as what we sense with our sensory system.
Except that what we sense with our sensory system is not "substance" at all; instead, our sensory system usually perceives the accidents of something rather than its substance. That is the whole point of the concept of transubstantiation (Remember transubstantiation? The topic of this whole thread? ): what our sensory system perceives (that is, the accidents of the bread -- in other words, the shape, color, taste, smell, etc.) does not change. Instead, what changes is the substance: despite still looking and tasting like bread, the Eucharist is not really bread at all, but is instead the body of Christ.
I think it's this word -- "substance" -- that this LDS-raised gal finds confusing. When speaking of something that has a corporeal form (bread, wine, a body, blood), I have always thought of "substance" as meaning something along the lines of something's chemical properties. When trinitarians speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being "one in substance" I can't make sense of how three different individuals can all be of the same substance, particularly since one of them is a resurrected being and the other two supposedly are not. If, however, a trinitarian explains that by "substance" they are actually referring to the non-physical qualities that make all three persons of the Trinity equally divine, i.e. their non-physical "nature," then I can go along with the idea that they are "One God." It's for this same reason that I have a hard time understanding how substance known as bread can be changed into the substance known as Christ's resurrected body. Maybe it's that you just can't teach an old dog (i.e., me) new tricks.
Our terminology comes from Aristotelian metaphysics. The definitions of these words are very precise.
"A substance is the underlying reality that accounts for a thing existing by itself and not in another thing."
It has nothing to do with the chemical composition or appearance, but is basically the *essence* of the thing. The "substance" is what distinguishes a consecrated host from an unconsecrated host, even though our senses perceive them identically even at the microscopic level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I just can't conceive of God in neo-platonic terminology.
In fairness, no human terminology could ever do God justice as we cannot truly conceive of Him in His fullness at all. But we do our best
I think it's this word -- "substance" -- that this LDS-raised gal finds confusing. When speaking of something that has a corporeal form (bread, wine, a body, blood), I have always thought of "substance" as meaning something along the lines of something's chemical properties. When trinitarians speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being "one in substance" I can't make sense of how three different individuals can all be of the same substance, particularly since one of them is a resurrected being and the other two supposedly are not. If, however, a trinitarian explains that by "substance" they are actually referring to the non-physical qualities that make all three persons of the Trinity equally divine, i.e. their non-physical "nature," then I can go along with the idea that they are "One God." It's for this same reason that I have a hard time understanding how substance known as bread can be changed into the substance known as Christ's resurrected body. Maybe it's that you just can't teach an old dog (i.e., me) new tricks. I just can't conceive of God in neo-platonic terminology.
You aren't alone, Katz. Few can accept that the only substance that exists is an amorphous field (quantum foam) that manifests to our sensory system and its extensions as various spherical standing waveform "events" we recognize as "substances." It is all the same field or substrate.
"A substance is the underlying reality that accounts for a thing existing by itself and not in another thing."
It has nothing to do with the chemical composition or appearance, but is basically the *essence* of the thing. The "substance" is what distinguishes a consecrated host from an unconsecrated host, even though our senses perceive them identically even at the microscopic level.
Okay, I'm sincerely trying to make sense of this. In a prior post, you mentioned, "the *substance* of Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity." Can you explain this further, particularly with respect to Christ's body and blood? I can understand what the substance of His divinity would be, because if I use the word "essence" instead of "substance," it more or less makes sense, but I don't get what you actually mean when you speak of "the substance of His body and blood." What is the substance (or essence) of His body and blood?
You aren't alone, Katz. Few can accept that the only substance that exists is an amorphous field (quantum foam) that manifests to our sensory system and its extensions as various spherical standing waveform "events" we recognize as "substances." It is all the same field or substrate.
Yeah, Mystic. That helped a lot. But then I guess most people wouldn't understand what Joseph Smith said when he taught that "there is no such thing as immaterial matter." As he put it, "All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." This spirit matter always existed and is co-eternal with God. It is this spiritual matter that makes the Holy Ghost. This spiritual matter is also called 'intelligence' or the 'light of truth'." Is this another way of stating what you've said or is it saying the opposite? This is all above my head. Anyway, I've got to leave for an appointment with my hairdresser. Maybe it's the weight of my hair that's causing the problem.
Okay, I'm sincerely trying to make sense of this. In a prior post, you mentioned, "the *substance* of Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity." Can you explain this further, particularly with respect to Christ's body and blood? I can understand what the substance of His divinity would be, because if I use the word "essence" instead of "substance," it more or less makes sense, but I don't get what you actually mean when you speak of "the substance of His body and blood." What is the substance (or essence) of His body and blood?
The substance of Christ's Body and Blood (or of anything, for that matter) is its underlying reality. The reality that we cannot necessarily perceive with our physical senses.
The "substance" of Christ's Body and Blood is that which truly distinguishes Christ's Body and Blood from any other given thing.
Yeah, Mystic. That helped a lot. But then I guess most people wouldn't understand what Joseph Smith said when he taught that "there is no such thing as immaterial matter." As he put it, "All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." This spirit matter always existed and is co-eternal with God. It is this spiritual matter that makes the Holy Ghost. This spiritual matter is also called 'intelligence' or the 'light of truth'." Is this another way of stating what you've said or is it saying the opposite? This is all above my head. Anyway, I've got to leave for an appointment with my hairdresser. Maybe it's the weight of my hair that's causing the problem.
It is saying essentially the same thing using different words that only seem contradictory to the ones I used. Your mind works fine just enjoy your trip to the hairdresser.
Katie, stop and think about this statement for a minute, and consider the fact that remarks like this aren't going to make people want to engage with you.
Actually, it was a question, not a statement. We all say things like this when we run out of patience. It happens to the best of us no matter how hard we try not to. I will take your advice under consideration in all of my future posts. Thanks for the reminder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
): what our sensory system perceives (that is, the accidents of the bread -- in other words, the shape, color, taste, smell, etc.) does not change. Instead, what changes is the substance: despite still looking and tasting like bread, the Eucharist is not really bread at all, but is instead the body of Christ.
But then I guess most people wouldn't understand what Joseph Smith said when he taught that "there is no such thing as immaterial matter." As he put it, "All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." This spirit matter always existed and is co-eternal with God. It is this spiritual matter that makes the Holy Ghost. This spiritual matter is also called 'intelligence' or the 'light of truth'." Is this another way of stating what you've said or is it saying the opposite? This is all above my head. Anyway, I've got to leave for an appointment with my hairdresser. Maybe it's the weight of my hair that's causing the problem.
