Fr. Thomas Joseph White changed my life. His work "The Light of Christ" was a game changer for me. I crept around the Angelicum looking for him one afternoon and unfortunately he didn't appear! I am joyfully looking forward to this discussion!

Simply put, this is THE BEST short presentation on transubstantiation that I have ever seen! Fellow Catholics (and interested others), this is A MUST WATCH.

I heard a Baptist pastor discussing the nature of the Eucharist in a video. He said "I know that Jesus said this is my body, but that depends on what you mean by the word 'is'". I nearly choked on my coffee...

Beautiful episode. I love the response Fr gave about consubstantiation. Dr. Gaven is my favorite, true to Aquinas, Thomist.

at 35:00 rn, really glad you brought up consubstantiation, I was hoping you would

Great questions, great guests, great show! Thanks for putting this together Suan.

I love Fr. White's response at 32:48. Please have him on again Suan. This was a wonderful talk, Gavin at his best again!

This topic has been on my mind. Jacob Power and I talked about this before on Discord, we ended up with more questions than answers about the Eucharist, Transubstantiation, and the philosophy behind it. I’m very glad you brought Gaven Kerr (My favorite Thomist), and Fr. Thomas Joseph (who had a lot of impact on me before becoming a Catholic convert). I can’t say anything more except I agree with Jacob Power, perfect timing Suan!

I'm thankful for this video . I really needed to know about this issue . I hope you can show us more of this .

Ive been thinking about this topic a lot and it shows up in my inbox, perfect timing suan

Fantastic discussion!

So good! To all three--Suan, Fr White, and Dr Kerr--thanks for this!

What a great episode. I’m so glad Fr. Thomas addressed Calvin’s response to consubstantiation and how it really is a low view of the Eucharist. And then the last question took a lot of brilliant philosophy and made it very practical. I woke up from a nap grumpy that my head was hurting too much to go to tonight’s vigil Mass as I had intended. Then came across this video and as a result will go to Mass tomorrow with a deeper understanding of the Eucharist. Thanks for this episode.

Nice meeting you earlier this week in Wichita Suan! Great discussion here, it was a good follow up from your talk at ToT. Keep up the good work, praying ya bro.

You should have Jonathan Pageau on your podcast, or go on his!

Beautiful work :)

I hope you study Fr Brian Mullady

Thanks#

Granted it would be a somewhat strange and possible macabre discussion, but I would have liked to hear more about what it might even possibly be like NOT to have the accidents sustained.

Hi Suan :)

Would it be correct to say that there is no necessary relationship between any substance and any of its accidents? So any substance could possibly have any accidents.

If Jesus did not die on the cross, then would what He said at the last supper be meaningless?

Question: Will the Mass be valid with only one consecration, that of the bread or wine alone?

This is sort of helpful. As a Protestant in RCIA, transubstantiation is the biggest thing standing between me and the Catholic church. As laid out here, I can see how Catholics think it's consistent with the Bible. But the apostles had absolutely no concept of Aristotolian ontology. I can't understand why the church decided to retroactively add this philosophy to the Bible over a millennium later. I know Catholics will retort that real presence is in the earliest writings and I would even agree with that. Paul uses sacramental language in 1 Corinthians. But I think Calvin made sense of this in saying that christ is truly present in an immaterial way. It's not _merely_ a symbol but also not changing substance in a complicated Aristotilian way. Why was it so necessary for the church to be this specific on the topic and inject a realm of philosophy completely foreign to early Christianity? Why didn't the church simply affirm the sacramental nature and reject that the Eucharist is merely a symbolic act as the Baptists say it is?

How about what Jesus said "This is my body "This is my blood" You guys crack me up! It's simple, why do you have to make it so complicated?

I don’t understand why the metaphorical interpretation isn’t considered the most straightforward and satisfactory interpretation of the Biblical data. No Aristotelian categories required.

There is one thing that doesn't seem to make sense. If the body of Christ is not locally present where the host is, then why are we looking at the host or touching the host as if Christ was locally there? If Christ is not locally present where the host is, then it seems there is no more reason to look in the direction of the host than in another direction when we are at Mass. Furthermore, if Christ is not locally present where the host is, then it seems there is no real change in the consecration except the annihilation of the bread. Think about it: before the consecration, there is the body of Christ in Heaven, and the bread with its accident on the altar. After the consecration, there is still the body of Christ in Heaven, and only the accidents of the bread on the altar. So it seems that the only thing that changed was the annihilation of the substance of the bread. Christ body is still in Heaven, and not on the altar. What could be the relation between the body of Christ in Heaven and the accidents that remain on the altar? Simply saying that Christ is "substantially present" doesn't help if you cannot explain exactly what that means and how it resolves the above difficulties. If the substantial presence is not a local presence, then we don't understand at all what it is, and we don't see how we can avoid all those problems I mentioned.

Everyone has their god. There are so many named gods from different cultures and places on the planet. There is only one god, the sun, Sol. Without Sol all would not exist. Good luck in your own god.