Replies

Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

An example of a "tradition of men" would be Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which isn't found in the Bible.

Classical Greek philosophy would not be a good example of a bad human tradition, since the great Greek philosophers served truth, i.e., they served Jesus, implicitly.

Your philosophy is vanity, built on man's failed wisdom...

St. Paul believed that the Greeks were worshipping the One, True God, albeit with imperfect knowledge.

Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

The Greeks had reasoned to the existence of God, but were ignorant of Christ, through no fault of their own. Then Paul preached Christ to them.

St. Thomas and the other Scholastics sythesized Aristotelian philosophy and Christian Revelation to create the perennial Scholastic school of philosophy.

Every man is a philosopher, either good or bad. One cannot remain philosophically neutral. While the Church does not hold up a particular school of philosophy as binding on the conscience of Catholics, Scholasticism is the predominant philosophical school within Catholicism, and has withstood the test of time.

Nonsense. What this shows, probably on my part as well as yours, is a certain intellectual laziness in not mastering the vocabulary. This is not "empty" philosophy, no more than learning the specialized vocabulary of the physical sciences is "empty philosophy."

It's a matter of knowing the concrete meaning of words.

In any case, it's pretty obvious, even to people quite innocent of the abstractions of Scholasticism, that Christ's Eucharistic Body, while it is His Body, is not merely a physiological body; just as Christ's Resurrected and Glorified Body, while it is His Body, is not merely a physiological body.

And they are the same.

That might be the most fruitful way to explain it. Christ's Resurrected Body transcends the physical laws of time, space, matter and energy. He walks through locked doors. He appears, and disappears. He levitates in the air. He could be two places at once. He could be a million places at once. And His Resurrected Body is brilliant, just as ours will be at our own Resurrection: Matthew 13:43 - “The just shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

A Body which could be in a million places and still be one Body, is in fact present under the appearance of a million consecrated hosts, and is still one Body.

You may not believe it, but it's not unthinkable.

Say that Christ weighed 175 pounds. Yet He could rise up to the clouds as if He had no weight at all. He could appear to Saul on the road to Damascus, perceived as a flashing light from heaven and a Voice. Was the resurrected Christ, really and substantially Christ?

Real: but no merely physiological. Do you see?