From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: The Real Presence
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:07:10 GMT

      Martin, I am not a philosopher. I cannot hold my
own with you in that field. However, I cannot understand 
why saying that the word 'this' in the two sentences refers
to something not by what it is but by showing it commits
me to a school of philosophy. Suppose Christ had said
"Look at this. This is my body."  What does 'this' mean
in the first sentence? It seems to me it stands for some
phrase like 'what I am holding in my hand', or 'what I
am pointing to', or some such. To say 'look at this'
does not say much about the nature of what this is. 
It seems no more than to say that if one looks in the
indicated direction one will have certain unspecified
sensory impressions. It does not say that these are caused
by a 'thing' or 'several things' or a 'subject' or an
'object' or any other kind of reality. 
      That is what I take 'this' to mean in Christ's
statement "this is my body." No more. However the
whole sentence does seem to say that when you look
at "this", when you have those various sense impressions
, that you are in fact looking at "the body of Christ."
The sense impressions certainly don't change. What you
are looking at does. 
      That is all I think the Church means to commit
herself to. Perhaps the T word does historically mean
more that. But I do not think the Church means to commit 
herself to Aristotelian categories.
      It seems to me that any interpretation which says
(a) consecration does not change what appears to our
senses (aided or not), that is the empirical reality;
(b) that before consecration it is correct to say
'this is bread' but not 'this is Christ's body';
and (c) that after consecration it is correct to say
'this is Christ's body' but not 'this is bread';
is an OK interpretation according to the Church. Even
with all the Aristotelian overtones in the word
'transubstantiation' I don't think the Church means
to commit herself or us to more than (a), (b), and (c).
She feels the t word expresses a-c aptly. But I believe
we are quite free to conceive of it in any catagories
that preserve a,b, and c.
     In particular, why not conceive of it as an optical
illusion? I do not say that that is the best way or only
way or the correct way. Only that it is *a* way that 
would preserve (a), (b), and (c), and therefore that a
Catholic could hold and say he was totally orthodox.
For myself, my belief in the real presence consists
of no more than affirming (a), (b), and (c). I have no
philosophical account of it of my own to offer.
I have a problem with the idea that there is anything
to bread or any purely physical phenomenon beyond the
complete description of how it interacts with the rest
of the world (actually I would have to qualify that a little)
So what 'departs' if anything upon consecration leaves me
puzzled. I choose to profess a blessed agnosticism on that
point. 
      My main point is that the Church does not seek to
explain "how" or to impose Aristotelian ideas as de fide.
The distinction between trans and con does not involve
all that. It seems to me that consubstantiation (as 
rejected by the Church) would be a theory that allowed
one to say "this is still bread" or even "Christ's
body is present, but so is the piece of bread".
      I hope we don't argue on this one, Martin, because
I haven't the philosophical equipment to do so. Indeed,
I will leave you in possession of the field here.
    Steve.

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic