The real Real Presence

[Philip]

Hmm, I saw you suggesting that I read Aristotle, and while doing so may well be a good thing to do, it is not my opinion that anything written by Aristotle should be required reading for the understanding of any doctrine in the Bible.

Understanding Aristotle may not be necessary Scripture, it is absolutely necessary for understanding the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine was written using Aristotle's metaphysics.

I'm almost certain that Jesus wasn't taking it for granted that His disciples, and all those who would take Communion in the years to come, would have read Aristotle, so I doubt His words would have meanings that would be lost on someone who hadn't read Aristotle, if you know what I mean.

Again, Aristotle is needed to understand the Catholic explanation of transubstantiation.

If you want me to further understand these seemingly complex doctrines, perhaps you could either explain it to me, or refer me to a web site that would?

I will look for one for you.

However, your explanation gives me something to work with. Here's the problem that I see: what use is it for you to say that something is physical if there is no evidence of it in the physical realm? "It still tastes, feels and looks like bread, but it's really not anymore." Huh? Maybe you are using a different definition for the word "physical" than I am. The first definition for physical on m-w.com is this:

This is why I brought up Aristotle. Catholics use Aristotle's metaphysics. You can not force your understanding of "physical" on the Catholic teachings. The emphasis you are placing on empiracal testing is not compatable with the metaphysics of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature

I would disagree with this definition. Any miracle is not subject to the laws of nature.

 

[Christy4Christ]

I am not sure if this will help. Here is an in depth explanation from The Catholic encyclopedia.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

 

[HoT-MetaL]

Aristotle shouldnt have ANYTHING to do with it. Plato perhaps, a lot of Pauline theology meets up with Plato (The whole spirit-earth thing)....

At the end of the day, God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. We should confess our sins one-to-another, and have communion, whenever, wherever.

Afterall, thats what the disciples did, thats what Jesus did.

What im trying to say is, even if i dont believe transubstination, I can accept it. But that doesnt change where or when or who we should have communion with.

God Bless, metal.

 

[TSIBHOD]

The use is to make a distinction between things that are physical and those that are metaphysical. The association to the empiricism of science is a novel shift of meaning the word went through, and applying the modern understanding to the classic theology is anachronistic.

So you are saying that transubstantiation is "metaphysical"? The definition of that word, if you look it up on m-w.com, is:

a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : SUPERNATURAL

So, are you saying that it is "physical," or "supernatural"? I don't have a problem with something that is "transcendent," to something that is in "a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses"; that being, the "spiritual." If you say that it is "physical" as defined in the dictionary, then you have my arguments to reckon with. And let's not argue with the semantics here. Use modern English definitions, since that is what we are speaking.

Here is a site to look over. This site also covers Eucharistic miracles. It's a pretty informative site.

Christy, I had a brief look at that site, and from what I saw, it is advocating a position that the Eucharist is physically (defined correctly) the body and blood of Christ -- which again, runs back into my aforementioned arguments.

Physical, in our language, means something that is discerned by our senses. So, is transubstantiation discernible by our senses or not?

 

[Philip]

So, are you saying that it is "physical," or "supernatural"?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Consider Christ's Resurrection. It was both physical and supernatural.

If you say that it is "physical" as defined in the dictionary, then you have my arguments to reckon with. And let's not argue with the semantics here.

You are using a colloquial dictionary. We are discussing philosophical terms. The definitions you are using are not 'technical' enough to address the matter at hand.

Use modern English definitions, since that is what we are speaking.

We are useing modern English: Consider this definition of accident:

ac·ci·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-dnt, -dnt)
n.
1. a.An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3. Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something. ​

Notice the third definition. Aristotle's use of 'accident' is still a modern, if speciallized meaning.

Here is an entry for substance

sub·stance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sbstns)
n.
1. a. That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
b. A material of a particular kind or constitution.
2. a. Essential nature; essence.
b. Gist; heart.
3. hat which is solid and practical in character, quality, or importance: a plan without substance.
4. Density; body: Air has little substance.
5. Material possessions; goods; wealth: a person of substance.​

Definition 2a corresponds to Aristotle's definition.

Physical, in our language, means something that is discerned by our senses.

More correctly, 'physical' can mean something that is discerned by our senses. However, this is not how the word is used in the discussion of transubstantiation. It seems that you are trapped by empiricism. While there is nothing wrong with that, you can not expect everyone to agree with your philosophy.

So, is transubstantiation discernible by our senses or not?

No, it is not. According to Catholic doctrine, the accidents (attribute that is not essential to the nature of something -- taste, chemical makeup, etc.) of the bread and wine remain unchanged. However, according to Catholic doctrine, the substance ( Essential nature; essence) does change.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Philip, you say that miracles are not subject to the laws of nature, but that is because they are in fact supernatural events. A miracle is "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs" (m-w.com). However, while miracles are supernatural things, they can have an effect on the physical world. It is the effects of miracles, rather than the miracles (divine interventions) themselves, that we usually sense. If our spiritual eyes and ears are open, we can sense (spiritually) the supernatural side as well. But the natural man would only see the physical effects of a miracle.

Okay, now to respond to something you said. . . .

The two are not mutually exclusive. Consider Christ's Resurrection. It was both physical and supernatural.

Hmm, I must not have stated what I meant clearly. Allow me to revise my question. Is transubstantion "physical" and supernatural, or merely supernatural? Remember that "physical" means testable in the physical world. I am aware that you may have other definitions of the word "physical," but it seems that your definitions are part of a specialized theological vocabulary with which I am not familiar. So please just stick to my definition, while talking to me.

It seems that you are trapped by empiricism.

Actually, I just think that physical things should show up physically. Is that is too much to ask?

According to Catholic doctrine, the accidents (attribute that is not essential to the nature of something -- taste, chemical makeup, etc.) of the bread and wine remain unchanged. However, according to Catholic doctrine, the substance ( Essential nature; essence) does change.

So, the ultimate reality of it is changed, but not its physical form? That might be pretty close to what I believe (although you confuse me with irregular word definitions, so I'm not sure). However, I have seen many times people say things like, "It is the same body and blood that were sacrificed for us on the cross that we take part in today." Are these people wrong? Because if they are not, then that physical body and blood would be discernible in the bread and wine. If the bread is not changed in its "accidents," then it is not a physical change.

When you say it is changed in "essence," do you mean that it is a change that takes place in the spiritual world?

Spiritually, Jesus is a Lamb. Is He not really a lamb? No, I believe that He is. A lamb is a visible sign to us of an invisible truth. God speaks in physical terms sometimes to convey spiritual truths. It is obvious that Jesus was not really literally a lamb, but He really is a lamb spiritually. I do not mean in the sense that His spirit is that of a lamb, but that even more real than the physical reality of His flesh and blood on Earth, He was a lamb. That is the sense in which I believe the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood. But this does not mean some physical change that we can't detect. It means something in the spiritual world.

Communion is like baptism in the sense that it isn't important in and of itself, but that it is essential to show us something that is happening in the spiritual realm. We are the body, and we are one bread, just as we eat of one bread.

I Corinthians 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread.

But the most important part is that the spiritual side does in fact happen. If the spiritual is not there, then we would be better off to not engage in the physical representation of it.

 

[Basil]

It seems unproductive to analyze God's Holy Mysteries this way. It is faith in what Christ said ("this is my Body . . .this is my Blood) as witnessed to us by His Holy Spirit that makes us accept communion. Some do not believe. Go your own way in peace. You don't have to believe in Christ's gift. God will not make you believe.

In Orthodoxy we normally accept the unexplainable by faith. We come to Christ as children accepting what he gives us without trying to understand the imcomprehensible, unfathomable truths of God. Accept our limitations and rejoice at God's unending splendor. We do study and strive to understand God, but the Eucharist will never satisfactorily be explained by human wisdom, which is foolishness to God. Not through Plato, Aristotle, transubstantiation, or consubstantiation. This is all silly.

 

[Philip]

Hmm, I must not have stated what I meant clearly. Allow me to revise my question. Is transubstantion "physical" and supernatural, or merely supernatural?

Can you give me an example of something that is merely supernatural.

I am aware that you may have other definitions of the word "physical," but it seems that your definitions are part of a specialized theological vocabulary with which I am not familiar. So please just stick to my definition, while talking to me.

It is the language of standard philosophy.

Actually, I just think that physical things should show up physically. Is that is too much to ask?

Yes, I think it is. I think it places too strict a limitation on the term 'physical'. I do not believe that the physical world is limited to what we can detect with our senses. I do not accept empiricism.

However, I have seen many times people say things like, "It is the same body and blood that were sacrificed for us on the cross that we take part in today." Are these people wrong?

No, they are not wrong. The Body and Blood sacrificed for us at the cross was the Body and Blood of Christ. The Body and Blood present in the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, it is the same Body and Blood.

Because if they are not, then that physical body and blood would be discernible in the bread and wine. If the bread is not changed in its "accidents," then it is not a physical change.

It would not be an empirical change.

When you say it is changed in "essence," do you mean that it is a change that takes place in the spiritual world?

I think you may be constructing a dichotomy that I do not accept. What do you mean by 'spiritual world'? How is it separated from the 'physical world'?

Spiritually, Jesus is a Lamb. Is He not really a lamb?

I would say that Christ is figuratively a lamb, not spiritually.

Communion is like baptism in the sense that it isn't important in and of itself, but that it is essential to show us something that is happening in the spiritual realm. We are the body, and we are one bread, just as we eat of one bread.

It is more than a sign of what is happening. God works through the physical elements.

But the most important part is that the spiritual side does in fact happen. If the spiritual is not there, then we would be better off to not engage in the physical representation of it.

I do not believe that it is just a physical representation. The physical and spiritual portions are the same. Again, I think you have a dualistic idea of physical and spiritual that I do not accept.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Can you give me an example of something that is merely supernatural.

Sure. Revelation from God (at least, it often comes in supernatural-only ways).

It is the language of standard philosophy.

Well, then I don't like philosophical language. To say that something is physical, but not physically detectable. . . . Sheesh. Are you sure you don't mean to use a word like "ethereal"? Anyway, let's quit the argument over that word. If you want to use your definition, that's fine, but I refuse to, as that seems to me to make the word useless. So for our conversation, let's try a different word, like "material." "Relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter."

The Body and Blood present in the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, it is the same Body and Blood.

Well, I don't understand the stuff that you say about "essence" yet. You don't believe that the accidents change, but what is it that you do believe changes?

What do you mean by 'spiritual world'? How is it separated from the 'physical world'

I think I chose the wrong word there. Replace "spiritual" with "nonphysical." As for the difference between spiritual and physical -- well, the spiritual world consists of spirits and souls, and of generally anything that does not have material substance. The physical world consists of matter. Ahh, a really good definition from m-w.com on the word "matter." <a : the substance of which a physical object is composed b : material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy > Physical objects are composed of matter, namely, of substances that occupy space and have mass, etc. Spiritual things are basically anything else, I guess. You could also say "corporeal" and "incorporeal."

It is more than a sign of what is happening. God works through the physical elements.

When men were circumcised, it was not because that itself would save them. It was because it showed that they were saved. It is like a spedometer on your car. If it says 40mph, that fact is not what is making you go 40mph, but the fact that you are going 40mph makes your spedometer read so.

In the same way, material baptism (actually dipping in the water or having it poured, or whatever) is to show a spiritual baptism that is taking place. Your spiritual baptism is not dependent upon your material baptism, but vice versa. Communion is the same way. You are not part of the body because you take communion, but you take communion because you are part of the body. It is because you have eaten Christ's flesh and drunk His blood that you take communion, in order to show something that you are doing spiritually. Now, I know you don't agree with this view, but I just didn't want you to be confused about my beliefs here.

 

[Philip]

Sure. Revelation from God (at least, it often comes in supernatural-only ways).

Then how do you detect it? How do you know it has occurred? Is there no physical aspect to the revelation?

Well, then I don't like philosophical language. To say that something is physical, but not physically detectable. . . . Sheesh.

Again, this only seems odd to you because you are working from an empical viewpoint. Let my ask this: Is an angel physical? Is the color 'red' physical.

Are you sure you don't mean to use a word like "ethereal"?

Quite sure.

So for our conversation, let's try a different word, like "material." "Relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter."

Okay.

Well, I don't understand the stuff that you say about "essence" yet. You don't believe that the accidents change, but what is it that you do believe changes?

IANC, so I do not accept transubstantiation. Please note that I always preface my comments with words like "Catholics teach...".

The essence is what actually exists independent of the observer. Accidents do not exist independently. Take color, for example. The color of the wine is an accident. It does not exist outside of our perception. The color is an accident that results from the interaction of our brain/mind with the physical world.

I think I chose the wrong word there. Replace "spiritual" with "nonphysical." As for the difference between spiritual and physical -- well, the spiritual world consists of spirits and souls, and of generally anything that does not have material substance.

Where does light fit? Is it physical or nonphysical?

The physical world consists of matter. Ahh, a really good definition from m-w.com on the word "matter." <a : the substance of which a physical object is composed b : material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy > Physical objects are composed of matter, namely, of substances that occupy space and have mass, etc.

There is much more to the physical world (using your definition) than that which consists of matter. In particular, there is energy, dark matter, dark energy, and probably much more that we haven't even dreamed of yet.

Spiritual things are basically anything else, I guess. You could also say "corporeal" and "incorporeal."

Is 'love' a spiritual thing? What about 'information'?

It is like a spedometer on your car. If it says 40mph, that fact is not what is making you go 40mph, but the fact that you are going 40mph makes your spedometer read so.

Bad analogy. These are two events that you would classify as physical. Neither is 'spiritual'.

You are not part of the body because you take communion, but you take communion because you are part of the body.

St Paul would disagree with you:

1Corinthians 10:17
Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.​

The words "because" and "for" are tied to the action of receiving the Eucharist. The result is that we are one body.

 

[TSIBHOD]

The words "because" and "for" are tied to the action of receiving the Eucharist. The result is that we are one body.

I know this is what you said last, but I want to comment on it first. It reminded me of a quote, I think by C.S. Lewis. Anyway, the gist of the thoughts were thus:

The word "because" can be used in two different ways. Suppose Grandfather is grumpy if he went to bed late the night before. I can say, "Grandfather is grumpy because he stayed up late last night." His staying up late caused him to be grumpy. However, consider the following statement: "Grandfather must have stayed up late last night, because he certainly is grumpy today." Here, it is not the "because," the grumpiness, that caused the staying up late, but rather vice versa.

Then how do you detect it? How do you know it has occurred? Is there no physical aspect to the revelation?

I can detect it because I believe that there are things beyond the physical. You detect spiritual things with a spirit. You detect physical things with a body. If it is something detectable with your body (perhaps with help of things like microscopes or other tools) then it is physical. If it is something that your body could never detect, like revelation of divine truth (the natural mind does not receive the things of God), then it is spiritual.

Feelings are spiritual things; not spiritual in the sense of "righteous" or "religious," as the word is often used nowadays; but spiritual in the sense of something in the spirit world. Demons are spiritual beings. So are angels. I don't know about demons, but angels are apparently able to be manifest in physical form sometimes (I think Abraham entertained angels unawares), but usually they have spiritual bodies. They cannot be detected without the use of one's spirit.

You asked if the color red is physical. The color red cannot exist except in a red object. The object would have to be physical to be red. If you couldn't see it, it would not make any sense to call it red. Colors are visible attributes, so they are as physical as the objects of which they are part. If you are talking about our hearts being made "white as snow," then that is not a physical color, but a spiritual color. That would be discernible by spiritual eyes. If you talk about our blood being red, that is a physical color, discernible by physical eyes.

You ask where light fits. It depends on what kind of light you are talking about. If you are talking about light that comes from the sun, then that is physical. It is part of our universe. Of course, there is also spiritual light, and spiritual darkness as well.

Finally, information is another thing that depends on how you are talking about it. If you are talking about recorded information, then that would be a physical thing. If you are talking about knowledge, then that is something of the mind, which is not a physical thing. One definition of "physical" from Princeton University is "involving the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit." Thoughts, emotions, memories and knowledge are all spiritual things. They are things that happen on the spiritual level, in the spirit, soul, mind and heart.

IANC, so I do not accept transubstantiation. Please note that I always preface my comments with words like "Catholics teach...".

I guess you are Orthodox, right? What do Orthodox Christians believe about this subject, and what is the difference between Orthodox beliefs and Catholic beliefs?

St Paul would disagree with you:

I'd like to do a nice study on this verse, and some others on communion. God gave me some thoughts on it last night, and I understand it better now then I ever have. But it is getting too late tonight (10:30 where I am), so I'll have to do that another time. Don't let me forget it.

 

[Curt]

This should make it pretty clear.

1 Cor 11:24-25
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBERANCE.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye DRINK IT IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME.
(KJV)

 

[prodromos]

This should make it pretty clear.

1 Cor 11:24-25
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBERANCE.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye DRINK IT IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME.
(KJV)

The word translated as "rememberance" means more then just "remembering" but to "make present" the event.

John.

 

[Philip]

The word "because" can be used in two different ways. Suppose Grandfather is grumpy if he went to bed late the night before. I can say, "Grandfather is grumpy because he stayed up late last night." His staying up late caused him to be grumpy. However, consider the following statement: "Grandfather must have stayed up late last night, because he certainly is grumpy today." Here, it is not the "because," the grumpiness, that caused the staying up late, but rather vice versa.

Not quite. In the second case the 'because' is the cause of the conclusion. It is why the verb phrase 'must have' can be used. There is not similar construction in the verse I cited.

Feelings are spiritual things; not spiritual in the sense of "righteous" or "religious," as the word is often used nowadays; but spiritual in the sense of something in the spirit world.

I disagree completely with this but will come back to it later.

You asked if the color red is physical. The color red cannot exist except in a red object. The object would have to be physical to be red.

This is absolutely wrong. A person can imagine seeing red without observing a red object. A person can hallucinate a red object. A person can view a white object through a red filter and see red. And none of this considers the problems brought up by solipsism.

If you couldn't see it, it would not make any sense to call it red.

Suppose I have a red apple. If I turn out the lights, does it cease to be red? Would it still make sense to call it red?

Colors are visible attributes, so they are as physical as the objects of which they are part.

My wife and I often disagree about the colors of certain things, especially the colors inbetween blue and green. Suppose I say the object is green and she says it is blue. Which color is part of the object?

If you are talking about our hearts being made "white as snow," then that is not a physical color, but a spiritual color. That would be discernible by spiritual eyes.

I think you are reading a bit too much into a similie.

You ask where light fits. It depends on what kind of light you are talking about. If you are talking about light that comes from the sun, then that is physical.

But this does not fit with your previous definition of 'physical'. Light is certainly not material in that it is not matter.

It [light] is part of our universe.

Angels, having been created by God, are part of our universe as well. Does this make them physical?

Finally, information is another thing that depends on how you are talking about it. If you are talking about recorded information, then that would be a physical thing.

I disagree. The material recording the information is physical, but the actual information itself is not physical. The information is nothing without an observer to interpret it. For example, take the letters you are currently reading. They encode information. The letters themselves exist and are physical, but the information they encode is not. Without you to read them, there is no information there. This is connected to my question about color.

If you are talking about knowledge, then that is something of the mind, which is not a physical thing. One definition of "physical" from Princeton University is "involving the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit." Thoughts, emotions, memories and knowledge are all spiritual things. They are things that happen on the spiritual level, in the spirit, soul, mind and heart.

This is a definition I can work with. But we must be careful since you are mixing two ideas of "spirit". In this definition, non-physical things exist only in the mind of an observer. "Spiritual" things like thought, emotions, memories, and knowledge are there only because a person is there to observe/support them. They only exist 'inside' a person. (Note that angels would not qualify as spiritual since they exist whether or not a person is their to observe them.) In contrast, "physical" objects exist whether or not a person is present to see them.

Now, let us turn to the Real Presence. Christ is physically present because He is present in the Bread and Wine regardless of the observer. It is not just a spiritual presence -- His presence in the Bread and Wine is not dependent on the recipient's mind. He is there without regard to the recipients thought, emotions, memories, and knowledge.

I guess you are Orthodox, right?

Correct.

What do Orthodox Christians believe about this subject, and what is the difference between Orthodox beliefs and Catholic beliefs?

We believe that Christ is physically present in the Bread and Wine. We do not attempt to describe how He is present. The purpose of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is to explain the process by which the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. We do not worry about the process. We just believe that it occurs.

 

[Philip]

This should make it pretty clear.

1 Cor 11:24-25
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBERANCE.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye DRINK IT IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME.
(KJV)

Read the second chapter of Leviticus. Add in the fifth and sixth chapters. Note the word 'memorial'. Do you think God intended the word 'memorial' to mean something more than just remembering Him.

The same concept is used in your quotation.

 

[TSIBHOD]

This discussion about "physical" reminds me of a quote from The Matrix: "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

You've made some good points about physical things that we can't observe. Thanks for reminding me that just because we don't see something (like a red apple in a dark room) doesn't mean it isn't there. Whether it is still red or not might be a question for a philosopher (kinda like, "If a tree falls in a forest. . . .").

On to what I consider the physical world. Paper is a physical thing, and so is the ink on it. The ideas that that ink portrays, as you mentioned, are not physical. My friend is physical; our friendship is not. Wheat in bread is physical and so is the smell of the bread; the "Real Presence" is not physical in any measurable way, it is not a "material" occurance. By all the ways we can chemically measure or observe the bread and wine, there is no change. Any change is one that we cannot observe (at least with our bodies). Do you agree?

Not quite. In the second case the 'because' is the cause of the conclusion. It is why the verb phrase 'must have' can be used. There is not similar construction in the verse I cited.

"I am saved because I believe in Jesus Christ."
"I believe in Jesus Christ because I am saved."

Both of those make sense, no? The first one has the effect first, then the necessary cause. The second one has the cause first, then the resulting effect. In the first, we I say that I am saved, what follow that with what caused it. In the second, I make a claim, and the "because" shows support for that claim. Since all who are saved believe, I am one who believes, for I am saved.

When you see "because," the the second thing proves the first statement. But the second thing is not necessarily the cause of the first thing; indeed, sometimes the opposite is the case.

Most statements with "because" can be inverted. "We need to go grocery shopping because we are out of food." "We are out of food because we need to go grocery shopping." In either case, if the phrase that follows the word "because" was not so, then the phrase preceding "because" would also not be true. To go respectively with the sentences above: "If we weren't out of food, we wouldn't need to go grocery shopping." "If we didn't need to go grocery shopping, that would mean that we weren't out of food."

Let's look at the scripture in question:

"Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread." (NASB)

This verse says that because the bread is one (not many breads), we, though we seem to be many, are really one body; because otherwise, we would not partake of that one bread.

Anyway, two possible interpretations are possible. You can say, "Since there is one bread," means that it is because there is one bread, we are one body. Or you can say that "Since there is one bread," means that because we are one body, we eat of one bread. IOW, if we weren't one body, we wouldn't be partaking of one bread. So, since there is in fact one bread, we must be one body.

The words "because" and "for" are tied to the action of receiving the Eucharist. The result is that we are one body.

Either one could be the cause of the other. You can't determine from this verse which one it is. Just to make sure this point is clear, let me demonstrate once again how the order of phrases doesn't make the interpretation clear as to which element is causal. Note that the construction below is similar to the verse at hand.

"Since I exercise, I am fit; for exercise causes fitness."
"Since I am fit, I exercise; for exercise causes fitness."

So you can believe that the fact is that we are one body, and the evidence of that is that we eat one bread, or you can believe that the fact is that we eat one bread, and that the evidence of that is that we are one body. In the former, being one body causes us to eat one bread, and in the latter eating one bread causes us to be one body. The verse makes good sense interpreting it my way. We are one body, and we wouldn't eat of one bread unless we were one body. Therefore, "since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread."

The last phrase really is to clarify the first, so it could be said, "Since there is one bread of which we all partake, we who are many are one body." This sentence can either be showing us that we must be one body, since otherwise we wouldn't partake of one bread; or it can be showing us that because we partake of one bread, we are one body, because partaking of the Eucharist causes us to be one body. Either interpretation is possible, so we must look to other scriptures to show us whether the Eucharist causes us to be one body, or whether being one body causes us to take the Eucharist.

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (ESV)

It is baptism that brings us into one body. The Eucharist does not bring us into one body, but rather, we partake of the Eucharist because we are one body. If we were many separate people -- rather than many members of one body -- then we would eat of many breads. However,

Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread. (NET)

 

[Philip]

This discussion about "physical" reminds me of a quote from The Matrix: "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

I should have though of that connection before.

Whether it is still red or not might be a question for a philosopher (kinda like, "If a tree falls in a forest. . . .").

There are philosophers who make entire careers out of questions like that. (And, the questions are more useful than one might think.)

the "Real Presence" is not physical in any measurable way, it is not a "material" occurance. By all the ways we can chemically measure or observe the bread and wine, there is no change. Any change is one that we cannot observe (at least with our bodies). Do you agree?

Agreed. I think Catholics would agree as well. The important part of the doctrine of the Real Presence is that Christ is truly present. We must guard against the idea that He is only present in some imaginary or symbolic way.

When you see "because," the the second thing proves the first statement. But the second thing is not necessarily the cause of the first thing; indeed, sometimes the opposite is the case.

Correct.

"Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread." (NASB)

This verse says that because the bread is one (not many breads), we, though we seem to be many, are really one body; because otherwise, we would not partake of that one bread.

Anyway, two possible interpretations are possible. You can say, "Since there is one bread," means that it is because there is one bread, we are one body. Or you can say that "Since there is one bread," means that because we are one body, we eat of one bread. IOW, if we weren't one body, we wouldn't be partaking of one bread. So, since there is in fact one bread, we must be one body.

I agree that the verse can be interpretted both ways. However, the textual context and historical commentary suggest that St Paul's statement is causative, not deductive.

Either interpretation is possible, so we must look to other scriptures to show us whether the Eucharist causes us to be one body, or whether being one body causes us to take the Eucharist.

Actually, I accept both statements. The Eucharist maintains us as one body after we are united in Baptism. But, it is also because we are part of that one body, the Church, that we are able to receive the Eucharist.