is there an explination for how it works.
anyone like Augustine, Aquinas or anyone else try to explain it metaphysically?
is this the best field of philosophy to describe it.
Or has noone even tried to explain it.
thanks for any help
Catholictiger,
Afternoon. Bear with me this might be a long post. I am quoting from A Tour of the Summa by Mons. Paul Glen.
[Page 380] 76. The real Presence
-
In the Holy Eucharist, Christ is present WHOLE AND ENTIRE [body, blood, soul and Godhead or divinity] under the appearances or accidentals of bread and wine. The words, '“This is my body.” bring the LIVING CHRIST, God and man, truly present. This is Christ’s living body; therefore it has its blood, its soul, and the Godhead which assumed this body. The words, “This is my blood” bring Christ’s blood truly present. This is Christ’s living blood, therefore it is in his body, with the soul, and the divinity or Godhead which assumed this blood, and the whole Christ is present under the appearances of wine, and the whole Christ is present under both appearances together. For, if two things are really united, wherever one is the other must be. And Christ’s complete humanity [in its elements of body, blood, and soul] is really united with his divinity.
-
And the whole Christ is present under every part or quanitity of each species.
-
The whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is present in every particle of the Eucharistic species [every crumb, every drop], but Christ’s body has not its external extension or dimensions. Nor is Christ’s body measured, and “sized,” accrodign to the amounts and measurements of the species of bread and wine. The dimensions of the species are accidentals of the species; they do not become the dimensions of Christ. But the dimensions of Christ are present after the manner in which the substance of Christ is present, that is, complete in each particle, as bread is complete bread in each loaf, and slice, and crumb. The size of the sacred host is not the size of Christ; nor is Christ present in minature, or as cramped under a quanitity of species; he is present whole and entire. and in full stature, but that stautre is not EXTERNALLY measured or dimensional.
-
Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as a body is in A PLACE. For a body in a place is there according to its external dimensions, and these make the body commensurate with the dimensions of the place it occupies. But Christ’s body is not present in the Eucharist according to external dimensions. His body is present QUANTITATIVELY, not in the manner of the external accidentals or measurement and dimension, but according to the manner of substance, which is complete in any quantity, large or small, that exists.
-
Our Lord is not present in a MOVABLE way in the Holy Eucharist. Only a body that is LOCATED [that is, is in a place according to external dimensions.] can be moved from place to place. Hence, when the Eucharistic species is moved, Christ is not moved. If the sacred host be dropped, Christ does not fall down. If the sacred host be moved from right to left, from left to right, or raised or lowered, Christ himself is not thus moved about. Christ is not subject to local movement, even though the sacramental species are so subject.
I am sure the regular Summa goes into detail, but this seemed to give a concise explanation.
God Bless.
Little One0307’s post above pretty much sums up the metaphysics of it.
It’s really not that much different than the way it was taught to me in 2nd Grade. In the Eucharist, Christ is wholly present under the appearances of bread and wine.
Ordinarily, appearances are all we know. Appearances are the only way we know through sense perception. We never come into direct contact with any other substance–not the computer keyboard, not the food we eat, not the pew we sit in. All we know are appearances: the touch, the feel, the taste, the smell, the sound, the sight.
None of those things are the thing itself. None of those things are the actual thing perceived. They are the appearances, and they are ordinarily a pretty reliable guide to reality.
In the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine is changed to the substance of Christ.
But the appearances of bread and wine remain. They do not inhere in Christ; he has his own appearances, though we cannot perceive them. They do not inhere in the bread and wine; they are gone. They inhere in no substance whatever.
But Christ is present whole and entire behind those appearances, in a manner which is indivisible. Break the Eucharist wafer, you do not break Christ. Distribute a thousand communion hosts, he is not multiplied: he remains one.
My dear friend ,
You have some great explanations but I’ll offer my own understanding if you want.
The Most Holy Trinity is infinite Love and that infinite Love is present everywhere and anywhere , even in any most infinitesiaml place , in it’s entirety. So take any small space or group of spaces or all space and the infinite Love which is God is present everywhere or anywhere in its entirety. Jesus being God is present everywhere and anywhere in His enntirety ni the same manner. When the bread and wine is consecrated it simply becomes that which was already present there – the entirety of God in all or each part. That’s how I view it. Hope it helps.
God bless and Love you 
John
That’s certainly not true. Besides appearances (sensory knowledge), we know many things… like the fact that appearances are not all that we know. For example, we also know that we know, we know that we exist, we know that God exists, we know that substances exist and that they ground the being of appearances (accidents), etc.
Christ is not present in the Eucharist in the same way as He is physically present in Heaven. We are referring to different realities here.
It is not an easy subject; perhaps philosophy is not be best field - can’t really say myself.
God Bless
Actually he is present as he is in heaven in the Sacrament. Christ cannot be present in the Sacrament without being bodily present. The below is taken from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott.
The Body and the Blood of Christ together with His Soul and His Divinity and therefore the Whole Christ are truly present in the Eucharist. [De Fide.]
The body of Christ is present under the form of bread and the blood of Christ under the form of the wine ex vi verborum, that is by the power of the words of consecration. Per concomitantiam [by concomitance], that is, on account of the real connection between the body and the blood of Christ, His blood and HIs soul are also present with the body of Christ under the form of bread, as He is a living body [Romans 6:9]. [Concomitantia naturalis], AND ON THE GROUND OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION HIS DIVINITY is also present. [concomitantia supernaturalis.] Similiary, under the form of wine besides His blood Christ’s body and soul and Dinivinity are also present by concomitance.
St. Ambrose “Christ is in this Sacrament [talking about the Eucharist] because It is the body of Christ.”
He is present to Us as He is to the blessed in heaven. How this works, we don’t know, maybe it has to do with Him being omnipresent. But we can take it to the bank, why, because God revealing through His Church will never deceive or lead us astray.
God Bless.
Actually he is not present in the same way. That claim doesn’t make sense. If it were true, if we could look with our eyes at Jesus in heaven, we would see an enormous pile of wafers and wine, but those are certainly not the proper accidents of Jesus’ glorified body. That is the way in which Jesus is present on Earth, not in Heaven.
On this point see Summa theologiae, III, qu. 76, art. 7. Jesus’ body present in the Eucharist is not visible to (present to) any kind of sensory vision - only the accidents of the bread and wine are, since they are truly present. His substance, on the other hand, is visible to the supernaturally infused intellectual vision of the blessed, but it cannot be seen except by means of faith to the intellect of those on earth.
For general metaphysics of the Eucharist see Summa th., III, qu. 75-77.
Perhaps I should have phrased that better. But my next sentence attempted to clarify. All knowledge of the outside world begins with sense perception. And sense perceptions are by definition, appearances. Aquinas, if I recall correctly said something like, “all knowledge begins in the senses.”
In other words, we are not angels. Our intellects do not work by intuitive knowledge. Perception of the outside world is brought to us by our senses, and from that we integrate knowledge, and our intellect abstracts sense knowledge into concepts and ideas. Then we can philosophize. But sense perception is the beginning of how we know.
I’d be interested to know where he said it, but in any case, that thought is very different from your original one.
In other words, we are not angels. Our intellects do not work by intuitive knowledge. Perception of the outside world is brought to us by our senses, and from that we integrate knowledge, and our intellect abstracts sense knowledge into concepts and ideas. Then we can philosophize. But sense perception is the beginning of how we know.
IIRC: It is true, according to Thomas, that we rely on phantasms derived from the senses in order to know the external world. But our knowledge is not limited to knowledge of the external world, and our knowledge of our selves as knowers precedes and grounds any intellective cognition - the proper operation of the human person - which is that operation by which the soul properly grasps both judgments in their truth-directedness, as well as the nature of the intellective soul itself as an entity that is naturally ordered towards apprehending the truth. This very fundamental kind of knowledge does not rely on any phantasm and does not begin in the senses.
Well the intellect, as a faculty of the spiritual soul, abstracts from the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut to the immaterial idea. Even if one is reading Aquinas or Aristotle or a math or physics book full of abstract ideas, those ideas get from the printed page to the intellect via the senses first. Even such an intellectual exercise as pure self-reflexion on one’s own thoughts would seemingly have no beginning point without (name removed by moderator)ut from the senses. There are those who like the idea of pre-imprinted ideas, but I am not one of them, although I do think that the intellect must of its nature be conformed to reality by the Creator in order to perform its function.
Is that true? I think not. Those ideas came from the intellects of Aquinas or Aristotle, before being expressed on the printed page so as to be available to your sensory and intellectual faculties, didn’t they?
Even such an intellectual exercise as pure self-reflexion on one’s own thoughts would seemingly have no beginning point without (name removed by moderator)ut from the senses. There are those who like the idea of pre-imprinted ideas, but I am not one of them, although I do think that the intellect must of its nature be conformed to reality by the Creator in order to perform its function.
I think you’re disagreeing with Thomas here. This is not about imprinted ideas. It is about the reditio completa (complete return) of the intellective soul to itself, through which it knows its own essence, which essence is not grasped in dependence upon any corporal organ. If you can, take a look at De veritate, q. 1, art. 9.
No you have to look beyond the accidents. He is present… I cannot see why the De Fide doctrine is being questioned. Help me out on this one. I am going to look up the sources that you have recommended me, and perhaps later today we can continue this discussion. It is rather interesting.
I guess where we are not agreeing, is that I am not considering the accidental forms. I am not approaching it from the standpoint we can see Him physically, I am approaching this from the standpoing of His Presence. It is not the accidentals that matter, it is his presence. He is just present to us as he is in heaven. Leaving the accidentals aside, who do you still have, Jesus Christ truly present body and blood, soul and divinity.
So in a sense you are right as we do not see him as the blessed do in heaven, this is true. Yet however according to De Fide doctine he is just as present to us as he is to those in heaven, [and again leaving the accidentals aside.]
[NOTE: If I am repeating myself, it is late at night and my fingers are not typing what my brains wants to type and I apologize for the redundancy.]
God Bless.
" Actually he is not present in the same way. "
Thank you for that Betterave
As I remarked, in my opinion, this is a very difficult subject - to understand that is.
Of course. My point was simply that, lacking mental telepathy, I receive those ideas only by means of the senses.
I think you’re disagreeing with Thomas here. This is not about imprinted ideas. It is about the reditio completa (complete return) of the intellective soul to itself, through which it knows its own essence, which essence is not grasped in dependence upon any corporal organ. If you can, take a look at De veritate, q. 1, art. 9.
It’s been a long time since I’ve read Aquinas, so I won’t argue the point. Certainly I agree that the human intellect, unlike, say animal consciousness, is capable not only of consciousness, but of being conscious of one’s consciousness, that is, of self reflection.
As to whether a creature composed of an intimate union of body and soul, like us, would be capable of self reflection absent any sensory (name removed by moderator)ut whatever, is nearly a moot point, since we cannot avoid sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. In any case, it has no bearing on how we obtain knowledge of the outside world.
But this is not a thread about epistemology, but the Eucharist. In this one instance, the Eucharist, our senses perceive accidents which do not inhere in any underlying substance.
I think you are clearing adding something to the *de fide *doctrine which it doesn’t contain. The living Christ is present whole and entire, yes, but that does not imply that he is just as present to us as he is to those in heaven. This is not only because we cannot see Jesus’ proper accidents, but also because our intellects, while we remain on this Earth, are neither naturally nor supernaturally able to see or grasp our Lord’s presence under the species (appearances) of bread and wine. We believe it, we know it by faith, but we can’t understand it - that is, we can’t make it present to our understanding - as the blessed in heaven can.
But if that were necessarily true, then it would have to be true that they also would have to have received their ideas by means of the senses. But since an infinite regress is impossible, there must be a native faculty by which we grasp certain ideas, and the intervention of the written word is merely accidental to the intrinsic capacity of the intellect.
But this is not a thread about epistemology, but the Eucharist.
I think that’s a false dichotomy.
Dear LittleOne,
Here is the principle I was trying to think of to explain this: “the thing known is in the knower * according to the mode of the knower” (Summa th. I, q. 12, a. 4). Or more generally: “whatever is received into something is received according to the condition (mode) of the recipient” (Summa th. I, q. 75, a. 5). The condition or mode of the blessed in heaven is different from ours. Therefore Christ is present to them in a different way. (And again, Christ himself is also present in a different way, without prejudice to the de fide doctrine you mentioned.)*
Yes, that sums up the difference very nicely I think.
“A circumscriptive multilocation is according to St. Thomas metaphysically impossible. HOWEVER, Scotus, Suarez, and others, on the other hand, affirm its possibility.”
SO my question is, it could be possible that He is present to us as he is in Heaven???
No, I don’t think so. The possibility of circumscriptive multilocation would apply to things like the ‘bilocation’ reported of some Saints (like Padre Pio), where the individual is (allegedly) physically present - in exactly the same mode with his own proper accidents/appearance - in more than one location at one time. I don’t know the texts you’re referring to, but I don’t think Scotus or anybody else would have been suggesting this kind of thing could apply to the Eucharist.
AND I guess the clincher here is that it opens another question for me, God is Omnipresent, so if Jesus is God, and He is both God and Man, then would he Not in all His attributes and accidentals be present in places as well?
You open up some very fundamental metaphysical issues with this kind of question. But no; God’s omnipresence does not mean that he is identical to everything that he is present to, although all of creation does reflect/express, in millions of different ways, the infinite nature of the creator. But the being of Jesus, who is God and man, means that the infinite nature has been joined to a finite nature, and with that finite nature comes a proper location and proper accidental appearances which are also finite, that is, not omnipresent - and these finite attributes that are taken on through the incarnation do not pertain to the divine nature as such, although they have been hypostatically joined to it in the person of Christ.
God bless.