Another Question About Transubstantiation

[Gorgias]

It’s not dimensive quality but dimensive quantity.

Whoops! Typo – I was thinking ‘quantity’, but typed ‘quality’. Good catch!

Does this not include all natural, normal parts and members of the human body?

In substance, not in accidents.

 

[fide]

The substance of the Body of Christ is the substance of the entire Body of Christ. The “substance” of a thing is what makes the thing the thing - thus, the substance of His Body is what makes His Body, His Body. Every part that you could list, is part of that specific and particular body. Thus, as St. Thomas wrote,
“the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by real concomitance . And therefore those accidents of Christ’s body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament”.

Thus, as Fr. Harden wrote above:
“Christ is present in the Eucharist not only with everything that makes Him man, but with all that makes Him this human being. He is therefore present with all His physical properties, hands and feet and head and human heart. He is present with His human soul, with His thoughts, desires and human affections. He becomes present in the Eucharist by means of transubstantiation.”

Right?

 

[Hope1960]

It’s not dimensive quality but dimensive quantity. Dimensions belong to the accident of quantity not to the accident of quality. As you can see, Aquinas speaks of dimensive quantity, not dimensive quality.

The whole body of Christ including all its parts are substantially present in the eucharist. In the first article of question 76, Aquinas addresses the question ‘Whether the Whole Christ is Contained Under the Sacrament?’
Aquinas answers in the affirmative. See the reply to objection 2 where Aquinas says that by the power of the sacrament the entire body of Christ with all its parts is present or contained under the sacrament which is apparent from the very form or words of the sacrament, namely, ‘This is my body’, i.e., not this or that part of Christ’s body but the entire body of Christ.

The substance of Christ’s body is his entire body with all its parts and it is to this that the substance of the bread changes into in transubstantiation at the consecration at Mass. Dimensive quantity is an accident of substance which extends the material parts of a substance from one another locally in space. The power of the sacrament as Aquinas says terminates at the substance of Christ’s body and so the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ’s body but the dimensive quantity of the bread does not change into the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body or any of the other accidents of the bread which is evident after the consecration of the bread. Nevertheless, as Aquinas says in article 4 of question 76, the whole dimensive quantity and all of the other accidents of Christ’s body are substantially present in the eucharist, i.e., not in the proper manner of an accident (visibly) but after the manner of substance (invisibly).

So, in English…we do eat Jesus’ hair, fingers, toes,etc?

 

[fide]

We consume the entire resurrected and glorified Lord Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[Richca]

Yes, the entire Christ is substantially present in the eucharist, i.e., the entire body of Christ with all its parts, Christ’s soul and divinity. Are not our fingers, toes, and hair parts of our body? At the Last Supper, Jesus said ‘This is my body’, not This is my flesh or This is my heart, etc. The priest at Mass pronounces the same words as Christ did at the Last Supper in the consecration of the bread and wine. And when we go to communion, the priest says ‘The body of Christ’ to which we reply ‘Amen’, i.e, so be it.

We eat animals and many of the parts of their bodies. Jesus designed the eucharist that we really do eat his flesh and entire body but under the appearances of bread and wine as human beings have a sort of natural repugnance of eating visible human flesh. However the flesh and body of Christ is not the flesh and body of a mere man but the flesh and body of a God-man, the incarnate eternal Word and Son of God, it is Life-giving. In the eucharist, we also exercise the theological virtue of faith which is meritorious and very pleasing to Jesus for we trust in his word as being the word/Word of God. And without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).

 

[Gorgias]

Every part that you could list, is part of that specific and particular body. Thus, as St. Thomas wrote,
“ the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by real concomitance .

OK, but… you know what ‘concomitance’ means, right?

We would say that the Eucharistic bread is the ‘body of Christ’ and the contents of the chalice are the ‘blood of Christ’. But, Christ – present in the Eucharist – is indivisible, and therefore we say that the “blood, soul and divinity” of Christ is present in the host 'by concomitance, and likewise the “body, soul and divinity” of Christ is present in the Precious Blood.

So, they’re present because we’d say that the presence is there “by concomitance” – that is, by the indivisibility of Christ – whereas we’d say that the body of Christ is present in the Eucharistic bread differently… wouldn’t you say?

So, in English…we do eat Jesus’ hair, fingers, toes,etc?

Nope. You can’t divide Jesus in the Eucharist like that. We eat his “body, blood, soul, and divinity”. And it’s present – indivisibly – and in sacramental mode, not in the normal physical mode.

Are not our fingers, toes, and hair parts of our body?

That’s a cute way to put it, but it obscures the question. Better to just say “Christ’s body is present” – which is correct – than to say “I’m eating Christ’s fingers, toes, and hair” – which, ostensibly, leads to theological inaccuracies.

 

[fide]

Gorgias - It seems that you are obscuring the meaning of the word “Body”, saying
"Better to just say “Christ’s body is present” "
while disallowing the reality of Body. To say His Body - but then disallowing any parts that make up His Body, is confusing and contrary to the reality of Real Presence.

concomitance | kənˈkämədəns |
noun (also concomitancy | -tənsē | )
the fact of existing or occurring together with something else.
• Theology: the doctrine that the body and blood of Christ are each present in both the bread and the wine of the Eucharist.

 

[Gorgias]

To say His Body - but then disallowing any parts that make up His Body, is confusing and contrary to the reality of Real Presence.

Nah. It just eliminates the confusion that talking about “parts” in the context of Christ’s sacramental presence tends to raise up.

(p.s., yes, that’s the definition. Look to Aquinas to see that he describes the presence of “blood, soul, and divinity” differently than “body” in the Eucharistic host (and “body, soul, and divinity” differently than “blood” in the context of the contents of the Eucharistic chalice). You seem to have quoted a definition without moving the discussion forward.)

 

[otjm]

Christ is present substantially in His resurrected body, not the body He had before the resurrection.\

Before the resurrection, he was in one place at a time. After the resurrection He was simultaneously in more than one (on the road to Emmaus, and in the upper room).

His resurrected body could pass through solids - he came into the upper room without going through a door. So He ate with the apostles (fish, on the shore) and yet his disciples walking t=right alone side of Him could not recognize Him (Emmaus) until He broke bread.

So His resurrected body was the same but not the same.

And if one researches some of the Eucharistic miracles, , one finds heart tissue , and bleeding Hosts,and wine turned to blood. No findgernails, no hair, but as He chooses, flesh and blood where before there was a Host or consecrated wine.

 

[drifter106]

I am 66 years old, cradle catholic…that thought has never entered my mind. If you are truly a catholic I find it hard that you would even think that…

God Bless!!

 

[fide]

I think you are obscuring something important - the scandal of consuming His Body caused deflections and abandonment of him in Jn 6, and it continues to do so today. He did not try to make it easy then, and I think it is a disservice to try to do so now.

 

[Richca]

Yes, the parts of Christ’s body are not accidents of his body nor of ours but they are substantial parts of the whole body and all together form the complete nature of the human body which together with the soul comprises the complete substantial nature of human beings. As I mentioned earlier, Aquinas addresses this point in the first article of question 76 where he says that the entire body of Christ with all its parts are substantially present by the power of the sacrament which terminates at the substances of the bread and wine.

The accidents or intrinsic accidents that are in the sacrament of the consecrated bread by real concomitance and after the manner of substance are dimensive quantity (article 4, size such as a large or small human body which in the eucharist is the dimensive quantity or size of Christ’s risen body such as being 6 foot tall - height-, width, and depth) and qualities such as color and shape or figure. Place is an extrinsic accident which Aquinas addresses in article 5.

 

[fide]

Thank you.

 

[Hope1960]

Gorgias - It seems that you are obscuring the meaning of the word “Body”, saying
"Better to just say “Christ’s body is present” "
while disallowing the reality of Body. To say His Body - but then disallowing any parts that make up His Body, is confusing and contrary to the reality of Real Presence.

concomitance | kənˈkämədəns |
noun (also concomitancy | -tənsē | )
the fact of existing or occurring together with something else.
• Theology: the doctrine that the body and blood of Christ are each present in both the bread and the wine of the Eucharist.

Isn’t concomitance what Lutherans believe?

 

[fide]

Hope - If Lutherans use the word, I presume they use it differently - perhaps to say that the substance of the bread remains, and the substance of Christ is “mixed in together”? I’m guessing. But - Thomas Aquinas certainly applies the word in the sense quoted:
“ the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by real concomitance . And therefore those accidents of Christ’s body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament”.

 

[Hope1960]

Christ is present substantially in His resurrected body, not the body He had before the resurrection.\

Before the resurrection, he was in one place at a time. After the resurrection He was simultaneously in more than one (on the road to Emmaus, and in the upper room).

But during the Last Supper He gave His non resurrected body to His disciples. My former priest said it was Jesus’ glorified body even before the resurrection, but I think he’s wrong.

 

[Hope1960]

guessing. But - Thomas Aquinas certainly applies the word in the sense quoted:
“ the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by real concomitance . And therefore those accidents of Christ’s body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament”.

It sounds to me like Aquinas is saying the same as Lutherans.

 

[Crocus]

Every particle under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist is Christ’s person totally. You can break the bread and it doesn’t change that. Bodies are also normally localized, but Christ is wholly present in heaven, is fully present at your parish, is fully present at a parish on the other side of the world, etc… again, neither divided nor localized in the same manner under the miracle of the Eucharist. The amount of Christ we receive is not restricted to the size of the host, either.

Every now and then, I hear something that is as good as a vision of eternity. Your response makes sense of the miracle of the Eucharist.

We exist in this plane, in touch with all that surrounds us.
Above, the stars and planets expand outward to all eternity.
Below, the smallest speck we see, divides inward to eternity.

I can’t express it the way I would like to. It is a great miracle that God places us at the centre of His creation and chooses to dwell there, in us.

 

[fide]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

No, Aquinas sees no bread at all after the consecration of the host, The substance of bread has been changed, and exists no longer but has been transubstantiated to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the resurrected and glorified Lord Jesus Christ.

Lutherans, I think - I’m guessing - believe in a real presence “in” the still existent bread of the host. They believe, I think, in a consubstantiation, and not as Catholics do, transubstantiation. Is this enough to help you see that the two are not the same? Catholic faith believes that Christ and only Christ is present in the host - not, as (I think) Lutherans believe, Christ AND bread. Note I am NOT Lutheran and am not to be trusted in speaking of what they believe!

 

[Hope1960]

No, Aquinas sees no bread at all after the consecration of the host, The substance of bread has been changed, and exists no longer but has been transubstantiated to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the resurrected and glorified Lord Jesus Christ.

Lutherans, I think - I’m guessing - believe in a real presence “in” the still existent bread of the host. They believe, I think, in a consubstantiation, and not as Catholics do, transubstantiation. Is this enough to help you see that the two are not the same? Catholic faith believes that Christ and only Christ is present in the host - not, as (I think) Lutherans believe, Christ AND bread. Note I am NOT Lutheran and am not to be trusted in speaking of what they believe!

Yes, I understand now.