Replies

Whether Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or you are more correct about the Eucharist than Thomas is not the question I have addressed since I came onto this thread. I did not cite Thomas to argue for the truth of his teaching. I referred to him to clarify what his teaching is.

I do not much care what his opinion was.. it was not infallible... simply one mans fallible position...

Wonder how he would have explained all the "real physical" blood in those "Eucharist miracles" ...not real , not true ...just substance

BTW did you answer if that substance is physical or spiritual ??

He did, in his inimitable way. See posts 178 and 376.

You say you don't care. Maybe you don't. But you selected and posted an article which began with a lot of assertions about what the doctrine is. And many of those assertions are false. Maybe you don't care, but I would care if I found I was saying things about other people, and the things weren't true.

If you really wonder what Aquinas thinks about the apparitions, go to the relevant part of the Summa. He deals with the question directly. If you like, I'll get you the URL.

I did not answer the question because I haven't decided if physical and spiritual exhaust the possibilities. If you've actually read what I wrote in this thread you know I won't say physical. My gut (but acquired) reflex is to say, “Real!”

Certainly spiritual would be way closer than physical, so if I had to choose between the two I'd go with spiritual, and I'd clarify that substance is not perceived by the senses AND that the spiritual is Real, but the physical not so much.