Archbishop Chaput: Pope Francis cannot contradict John Paul II on Communion

[JimG]

If bread is defined, at least in modern English, by its effects(ie the senses) and not its causes…then for modern man the bread and wine are in fact more than mere sensory “appearances” and a Latin world view (based on causes) becomes incomprehensible.

There must be a better way we can communicate the reality of the real prese certain than these formulations which no longer make the sense they once did.

Sure, the real presence is always difficult, but is was never meant to be additionally difficult on this level as well.

Understanding the real presence has always been difficult, but the difficulty now is the same as it has always been. The substance is changed. The accidents of bread and wine remain. Accidents or appearances are what are perceptible to the senses. But actually, all of physics and chemistry is based on what we can perceive through our sense perceptions, alone or amplified with scientific instruments. Our sense perceptions never touch the thing itself, only its appearances.

 

[Thomas_White]

For Aquinas, substance has form and matter, and form and matter are not “accidents” (incidentals) of a substance. It is the other way around. It would, for example, be the color of an object that is “accidental” to it. How is it that what is accidental to bread and wine (its color) is changed by transubstantiation? This is a difficulty concerning what is easily expressed by language, and no one is doubting that consecrated blood and wine are the body and blood of Christ. I regret mentioning this in an attempt to make a point concerning development of doctrine. But when I said in the comment that not everyone understands this mysterious spiritual process, I suppose I anticipated nonsense like the following: “THERE IS NO MORE BREAD AND WINE”.

 

[JimG]

For Aquinas, substance has form and matter, and form and matter are not “accidents” (incidentals) of a substance. It is the other way around. It would, for example, be the color of an object that is “accidental” to it. How is it that what is accidental to bread and wine (its color) is changed by transubstantiation? This is a difficulty concerning what is easily expressed by language, and no one is doubting that consecrated blood and wine are the body and blood of Christ. I regret mentioning this in an attempt to make a point concerning development of doctrine. But when I said in the comment that not everyone understands this mysterious spiritual process, I suppose I anticipated nonsense like the following: “THERE IS NO MORE BREAD AND WINE”.

I’m not sure I understand your comment. Of course the color or appearance is not changed by transubstantiation because the accidents of bread and wine remain, but they do not inhere in any substance. Sorry to put the discussion off track.

 

[Ginny89]

For Aquinas, substance has form and matter, and form and matter are not “accidents” (incidentals) of a substance. It is the other way around. It would, for example, be the color of an object that is “accidental” to it. How is it that what is accidental to bread and wine (its color) is changed by transubstantiation? This is a difficulty concerning what is easily expressed by language, and no one is doubting that consecrated blood and wine are the body and blood of Christ. I regret mentioning this in an attempt to make a point concerning development of doctrine. But when I said in the comment that not everyone understands this mysterious spiritual process, I suppose I anticipated nonsense like the following: “THERE IS NO MORE BREAD AND WINE”.

Nonsense to you, perhaps, but a simple expression of catholic faith in the eucharist all the same. We do not adore bread or wine, alone or along with Christ. Just Christ. For the whole substance of the bread and wine becomes Christ at the consecration. We do not believe what our senses tell us (bread and wine) but what faith tells us: (that, in fact, THERE IS NO MORE BREAD OR WINE but Christ alone).

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m not sure I understand your comment. Of course the color or appearance is not changed by transubstantiation because the accidents of bread and wine remain, but they do not inhere in any substance. Sorry to put the discussion off track.

Not sure you understand the Aristotelian concepts of substance, form and matter (act and potential), and accident, which Aquinas appropriates for his philosophy. “Accidents” are the potential properties of a substance (e.g., its possible color). But this is off track, so let’s let it go.

To be honest, I find that certain types of innocuous comments result in the revelation of another’s mode of thought. Not saying so relative to your comment, of course. But it can be instructive.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Understanding the real presence has always been difficult, but the difficulty now is the same as it has always been. The substance is changed.

If you are talking about our **understanding **of the Eucharist, as opposed to the Eucharist in itself, then understanding has fairly clearly changed and developed over the ages.

Your explanation below was only developed from around C11 becoming mainstream in C13, and was based on secular “science” of 2000 years previous (Aristotelianism). So forgive me for not agreeing that the difficulty has always been the same.

For example, where in NT times did anyone explicitly say the bread was no longer bread, the wine no longer wine? Did Jesus ever say anything that explicit? If he did Protestants would be agreeing that the bread is no longer bread.

My understanding is that this concept only started coming to the fore in C11 and mainly under the influence of the new Aristotelian philosophy which gave such a view good philosophic explanation.

Accidents or appearances are what are perceptible to the senses. But actually, all of physics and chemistry is based on what we can perceive through our sense perceptions…

Which is why our definitions of things since the enlightenment is based on effects (if looks like a rose, smells like a rose…then it is a rose) not from causes inferred by the mind (Aristotle). The bread IS bread for modern man so long as it still looks and smells like bread.

This obstacle to understanding the Real Presence did not exist for 1000years.
This is why I say it is even harder for us now, even than in medieval times. At least in medieval times the “scientists” accepted Aristotle by and large.

 

[JimG]

If you are talking about our **understanding **of the Eucharist, as opposed to the Eucharist in itself, then understanding has fairly clearly changed and developed over the ages.

Your explanation below was only developed from around C11 becoming mainstream in C13, and was based on secular “science” of 2000 years previous (Aristotelianism). So forgive me for not agreeing that the difficulty has always been the same.

For example, where in NT times did anyone explicitly say the bread was no longer bread, the wine no longer wine? Did Jesus ever say anything that explicit? If he did Protestants would be agreeing that the bread is no longer bread.

My understanding is that this concept only started coming to the fore in C11 and mainly under the influence of the new Aristotelian philosophy which gave such a view good philosophic explanation.

Which is why our definitions of things since the enlightenment is based on effects (if looks like a rose, smells like a rose…then it is a rose) not from causes inferred by the mind (Aristotle). The bread IS bread for modern man so long as it still looks and smells like bread.

This obstacle to understanding the Real Presence did not exist for 1000years.
This is why I say it is even harder for us now, even than in medieval times. At least in medieval times the “scientists” accepted Aristotle by and large.

Jesus did say “This,” (referring to the bread) “is my body.” Which would infer that what was once bread is now his body. If we are now to believe that the bread, along with its appearances, remains after consecration, then we no longer believe in transubstantiation, but consubstantiation. That would be a change in doctrine, not a development, and consubstantiation is not Catholic belief. We believe that the bread is transformed into his body, but only the appearances of bread remain. But Jesus does not “take on” those appearances; they do not inhere in him.

 

[Thomas_White]

Jesus did say “This,” (referring to the bread) “is my body.” Which would infer that what was once bread is now his body. If we are now to believe that the bread, along with its appearances, remains after consecration, then we no longer believe in transubstantiation, but consubstantiation. That would be a change in doctrine, not a development, and consubstantiation is not Catholic belief. We believe that the bread is transformed into his body, but only the appearances of bread remain. But Jesus does not “take on” those appearances; they do not inhere in him.

Yes, Jesus said (referring to the bread), “This is my body.” Where is the inference?

I realize it is not easily understood, but the consecrated blood and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ while remaining bread and wine. This is a mystery, and, I think, one beyond the limits of human reason and language.

 

[Ginny89]

Jesus did say “This,” (referring to the bread) “is my body.” Which would infer that what was once bread is now his body. If we are now to believe that the bread, along with its appearances, remains after consecration, then we no longer believe in transubstantiation, but consubstantiation. That would be a change in doctrine, not a development, and consubstantiation is not Catholic belief. We believe that the bread is transformed into his body, but only the appearances of bread remain. But Jesus does not “take on” those appearances; they do not inhere in him.

Amen. Simple and clear. The mystery of our faith is precisely that we are required not to trust our senses but the words of Christ that it is him and not bread and wine that we partake, though as an aside I do note the tendency in some to default to this “defence” of “you are too stupid to understand why I am claiming an uncatholic doctrine as catholic”.

Constubstantiation is Lutheran. No Apostolic churches believe that after consecration (whether by the Holy Spirit as the East emphasizes or by Christ himself as the latin church emphasizes) there is ANY more bread or wine in the Eucharist. It is an act of faith that we basically say, no matter what my eyes, nose and tongue tell me, because YOU have said it Lord, I believe that that is you, and only you. We have no way of explaining how what looks and tastes like bread and wine to us is not bread or wine but WHOLLY Christ but we believe it all the same as a matter of faith. It is to the protestants that one must go to find ideas about there being bread and wine in the eucharist.

 

[JimG]

Yes, Jesus said (referring to the bread), “This is my body.” Where is the inference?

I realize it is not easily understood, but the consecrated blood and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ while remaining bread and wine. This is a mystery, and, I think, one beyond the limits of human reason and language.

This is not Catholic belief or doctrine. If doctrine has changed, when was it announced?
\

 

[Ginny89]

Just so that it is clear that catholic belief does not accept in any way that “bread and wine REMAIN” in the Eucharist, readers may want to read the article of the catholic encyclopedia on the history of catholic belief about the Eucharist. newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

This here is particularly pertinent (I have divided it into paragraphs for ease of reading):

The application of the foregoing to the Eucharist is an easy matter. First of all the notion of conversion is verified in the Eucharist, not only in general, but in all its essential details. For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men.

**That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a **conversion of the total substance, ****is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii).

Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther’s doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ. Thus, too, the theory of Impanation advocated by Osiander and certain Berengarians, and according to which a hypostatic union is supposed to take place between the substance of the bread and the God-man (impanatio = Deus panis factus), is authoritatively rejected.

So the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation sets up a mighty bulwark around the dogma of the Real Presence and constitutes in itself a distinct doctrinal article, which is not involved in that of the Real Presence, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in that of Transubstantiation. It was for this very reason that Pius VI, in his dogmatic Bull “Auctorem fidei” (1794) against the Jansenistic pseudo Synod of Pistoia (1786), protested most vigorously against suppressing this “scholastic question”, as the synod had advised pastors to do."

So that the bread and wine CEASE, DEPART and are replaced by Christ, that the ENTIRE substance of bread and wine is converted to Christ such that only the APPEARANCES if bread and wine remain are authoritative Catholic teaching. It has always sounded like nonsense to humans to believe that what the senses perceive is not the reality of the Eucharist but that is catholic religion. There IS no more bread or wine. These depart at the consecration and make room for Christ himself, body, blood, soul and divinity.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

For example, where in NT times did anyone explicitly say the bread was no longer bread, the wine no longer wine? Did Jesus ever say anything that explicit? If he did Protestants would be agreeing that the bread is no longer bread.

In other words you agree that up until C10 the faithful did not also have to contend with the almost as difficult a notion that bread was no longer bread.

As I say this is a philosophic side consequence of the particular secular “science” (Aristotle) used to explain what Jesus actually said (This is my Body). It is perfectly conceivable that a different philosophy may one day be used to “explain” which does not deny the labelling of the bread as indeed bread.

Given that nobody except erudite philosophers of Aristotle intuitively understand and agree with this philosophy anymore it seems time we move away from the sort of expressions that seem to deny that a rose may not be a rose in addition to the already difficult doctrine of the real presence. The real absence is not really part of the Apostolic teaching.

 

[JimG]

The faithful from the beginning have had to contend with the teaching that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, into the entirety of Christ. That has been the doctrine since the beginning. Fathers of the Church have consistently warned that the senses cannot be trusted as to the nature of the Eucharist. The Church has never taught that the bread and wine are intermixed with Christ.

Regardless of scientific or philosophical systems, the teaching remains: the whole substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus. The Church has never taught consubstantiation.

A rose is still a rose, because the Eucharist is the only instance in history of a substantial change not being accompanied by the corresponding accidental properties.

Some references for those who wish to pursue the matter further:

Transubstantiation-for-beginners
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/transubstantiation-for-beginners

A substantial change.
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-substantial-change

Beware the term Real Presence
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/beware-the-term-real-presence

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The faithful from the beginning have had to contend with the teaching that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, into the entirety of Christ. That has been the doctrine since the beginning.

This is not in denial here Jim.
What I challenge you on is your personal view that believers have also had to contend with the “real absence” (of bread and wine) as well.
You cannot prove that because it is a relatively recent addition to Church teaching and is really only required if we explain the real presence using Aristotelian Philosophy.
And given that modern science no longer accepts that philosophy I reasonably conclude the faithful are now required to believe a nonsense (that bread is not present) that Christians did not have to assent to in the first 900 years anyways.

You don’t get it, that’s fine.
I am sure others who have always struggled with the “real absence” will hopefully understand they do so with good reason. And it does not mean they do not believe the consecrated bread is not Jesus truly present.

Fathers of the Church have consistently warned that the senses cannot be trusted as to the nature of the Eucharist.

Given that its patent that we cannot see Jesus in the Eucharist do you really think people need to be warned that the senses fail to see Jesus. But it is another thing to say that the senses also fail when they see bread. They do not fail. We see and taste bread. Bread by any modern day common use of the word is there.

The Church has never taught that the bread and wine are intermixed with Christ.

This is irrelevant to the point being made which seems to be lost on you.

Regardless of scientific or philosophical systems, the teaching remains: the whole substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus. The Church has never taught consubstantiation.

The truth of that statement is as only as good or helpful as our agreement on the word definitions.
We moderns do not use the word “substance” in the way that Aristotle and the Greek scientists once did sorry. Therefore the above statement, while true, is simply irreleveant and self-contradictory to most moderns who define “substance” as that perceived by the senses (ie effects not causes). Under this definition of “substance” bread certainly remains present.

A rose is still a rose, because the Eucharist is the only instance in history of a substantial change not being accompanied by the corresponding accidental properties.

Clearly you do not understand the truth behind the well known romantic dictum “a rose is a rose” nor that of " if it smells like a rose…" because you just contradicted it . You need more than empty rhetoric or mantras to give your views weight sorry Jim.

As I say, most people today don’t understand of care for arcane ancient Aristotelian “science”. You may as well be speaking Latin and say that all Catholics must assent to Latin phrases even if they don’t understand them.

You are caught in a time-warp if you think the teaching of Jesus can only be assented to through the mantras of ancient science that were only adopted in C13 and which today have no more currency or practical use than Egyption hieroglyphics.

As I say, to force such “real absence” teachings on the faithful is no longer helpful as it places an additional difficult burden of comprehension that even the disciples did not have to face re the already difficult Eucharistic teaching Jesus gave them originally.

I get it that you don’t.
There is nothing more to say really.

 

[Ginny89]

While the fathers mostly spoke simply about the bread and wine being “transformed” or “changed” into Christ, which is enough to convey that they are no longer bread or wine having been transformed, I found interesting these more direct statements of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 A.D.)

**Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but – be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.(22 [Mystagogic 4], 6)

Having learned these things, and being fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the apparent Wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so… (22 [Mystagogic 4],9)**

It seems to me the ancients understood well the distinction between mere appearance and the reality and knew that despite what the Eucharist looked, smelled or tasted like, it was NOT bread or wine but Christ and this was part of their belief long before the terms transubstantiation or accidents were employed by the church yo explain the Eucharist. The Eucharist is NOT what the senses tell you, but something else entirely.

It is easy to say the same thing without using the words accidents or substance: The Eucharist is NOT in reality what it seems to be in appearance. Same difference. Accidents is just a fancy way of speaking of appearances and substance is just a fancy way of speaking of the real nature of a thing. Catholics have always known that bread and wine are apparent only but never real in the Eucharist.

The church’s condemnation of protestant ideas and similar ones about the bread or wine somehow continuing after the consecration whether only by itself or with Christ in some mysterious fashion also destroys any notion that there is any reality of bread and wine left after the consecration. How can something declared heretical and anathematized by an ecumenical council be claimed to be Catholic?

 

[JimG]

CCC #1375 affirms that “It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.”

CCC #1376: “The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

When one thing is changed into another thing, it means the first thing is gone and the second thing is now present. A change of one thing into another does not make both things present simultaneously. This is Catholic belief on the Eucharist. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus.

The doctrine does not depend on Aristotle, nor on Aquinas, nor on any scientific or philosophical system. No matter what your philosophical system, a change of bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood means just what it says. Bread and wine is changed into Christ’s body and blood.

Now, if you say, “the bread and wine must still be there, because that’s all we perceive,” I agree that that is all we can perceive. But that has been the doctrine all along: The perception of bread and wine remains, but only the perception. The reality is Jesus.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

CCC #1375 affirms that “It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.”

CCC #1376: “The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

When one thing is changed into another thing, it means the first thing is gone and the second thing is now present. A change of one thing into another does not make both things present simultaneously. This is Catholic belief on the Eucharist. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus.

The doctrine does not depend on Aristotle, nor on Aquinas, nor on any scientific or philosophical system. No matter what your philosophical system, a change of bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood means just what it says. Bread and wine is changed into Christ’s body and blood.

Now, if you say, “the bread and wine must still be there, because that’s all we perceive,” I agree that that is all we can perceive. But that has been the doctrine all along: The perception of bread and wine remains, but only the perception. The reality is Jesus.

As I say, if one considers a things 'substance" to be defined by its sensible effects as is the case today … then the above is as meaningful as hieroglyphics…in fact less so. At least hieroglyphics do not present the reader with an English language logical contradiction.

BTW the transformation is not technically a “change”. Must be a poor translation in the CCC (or a colloquialism). It is more properly called a transformation or conversion because there is no underlying continuous continuum (ie no “material cause” I believe).

But by all means get the last word in if you are that sort…

 

[Ginny89]

The doctrine does not depend on Aristotle, nor on Aquinas, nor on any scientific or philosophical system. No matter what your philosophical system, a change of bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood means just what it says. Bread and wine is changed into Christ’s body and blood.

Now, if you say, “the bread and wine must still be there, because that’s all we perceive,” I agree that that is all we can perceive. But that has been the doctrine all along: The perception of bread and wine remains, but only the perception. The reality is Jesus.

Yes. Even if the church got rid of the language of transubstantiation, accidents and substance today, she could NOT get rid of the truth these words were employed to convey: that, UNIQUELY, in the Eucharist, the appearance have nought to do with TRUTH. They tell us nothing of the true nature of the Eucharist. And this we accept in the attitude of little children, with humble faith, simply on the say-so of Christ. To insist that since we perceive bread and wine then there MUST be bread and wine, is to insist on the faith of St. Thomas who insisted that the truth was as his senses told him regarding the claim of Christ’s resurrection. The Eucharist is a miracle and a mystery. It calls for a simple yes. It cannot be understood through logic. It far transcends both nature and logic. It is accepted by faith. Even though we perceive bread and wine, in fact, this is only appearances kept for our own sake, so we can eat and drink what our senses perceive to be typical “food” to us, but the truth is Christ himself alone is what we receive.

 

[Thomas_White]

The faithful from the beginning have had to contend with the teaching that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, into the entirety of Christ. That has been the doctrine since the beginning. Fathers of the Church have consistently warned that the senses cannot be trusted as to the nature of the Eucharist. The Church has never taught that the bread and wine are intermixed with Christ.

No, it has never so taught. Upon consecration, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

 

[JimG]

No, it has never so taught. Upon consecration, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

This is exactly what I said: The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

This has always been the teaching. The Church has never taught consubstantiation. After consecration, the bread and wine are wholly converted into Jesus. They are no longer bread and wine, of which only the appearances remain.