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

[Thomas_White]

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.

I don’t think this is exactly what you said. There is a reluctance to acknowledge the obvious, which is that bread and wine when consecrated become the body and blood of Christ–that is, they remain bread and wine as (literally) the body and blood of Christ. It is thus the substances themselves that become the body and blood of Christ. The appearances remain unchanged.

However, this is most likely “semantics”, a different way of expressing the very same thing. But I would note from more than sixty years of experience that in every way the Eucharist (and more recently the wine), remain in substance bread and wine to the senses. This is more than appearance. In other words, the consecrated bread and wine become, as bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ.

This is not particularly difficult to express in words, but nevertheless it may defy comprehension since we are so used to thinking of body and blood in their literal meaning. The consecration is a transformative process and not consubstantiation. I believe if all this is doubted, so consequently is the real presence. In plain English, it is a fact that consecrated bread and wine do not literally become body and blood, as those terms are commonly (and correctly) understood.

 

[Ginny89]

I don’t think this is exactly what you said. There is a reluctance to acknowledge the obvious, which is that bread and wine when consecrated become the body and blood of Christ–that is, they remain bread and wine as (literally) the body and blood of Christ. It is thus the substances themselves that become the body and blood of Christ. The appearances remain unchanged.

However, this is most likely “semantics”, a different way of expressing the very same thing. But I would note from more than sixty years of experience that in every way the Eucharist (and more recently the wine), remain in substance bread and wine to the senses. This is more than appearance. In other words, the consecrated bread and wine become, as bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ.

This is not particularly difficult to express in words, but nevertheless it may defy comprehension since we are so used to thinking of body and blood in their literal meaning. The consecration is a transformative process and not consubstantiation. I believe if all this is doubted, so consequently is the real presence. In plain English, it is a fact that consecrated bread and wine do not literally become body and blood, as those terms are commonly (and correctly) understood.

Wow. You just cited your 60 years of “experience” as authority for claims about the nature of a 2000 year old mystery.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think this is exactly what you said. There is a reluctance to acknowledge the obvious, which is that bread and wine when consecrated become the body and blood of Christ–that is, they remain bread and wine as (literally) the body and blood of Christ. It is thus the substances themselves that become the body and blood of Christ. The appearances remain unchanged.

However, this is most likely “semantics”, a different way of expressing the very same thing. But I would note from more than sixty years of experience that in every way the Eucharist (and more recently the wine), remain in substance bread and wine to the senses. This is more than appearance. In other words, the consecrated bread and wine become, as bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ.

This is not particularly difficult to express in words, but nevertheless it may defy comprehension since we are so used to thinking of body and blood in their literal meaning. The consecration is a transformative process and not consubstantiation. I believe if all this is doubted, so consequently is the real presence. In plain English, it is a fact that consecrated bread and wine do not literally become body and blood, as those terms are commonly (and correctly) understood.

Well done, you have put this in a well balanced way respecting both the continuing presence of the bread and wine (in a sensual way), the real presence of Christ and the non sensual presence of flesh and blood well.

It is of course all about semantics, but semantics are very important when educating cultures whose native language and conceptual way of thinking is the reverse of that of educated Greeks and scholastics of up to 3000 years ago.

It is interesting that in more recent reapproachements with the Lutherans there seems to be a growing acceptance on both sides that there never really was a substantial difference of opinion on the Eucharist … rather a recognition of talking past each other much as is happening here.

But we are off topic so no more from me.

 

[Richca]

I don’t think this is exactly what you said. There is a reluctance to acknowledge the obvious, which is that bread and wine when consecrated become the body and blood of Christ–that is, they remain bread and wine as (literally) the body and blood of Christ. It is thus the substances themselves that become the body and blood of Christ. The appearances remain unchanged.

However, this is most likely “semantics”, a different way of expressing the very same thing. But I would note from more than sixty years of experience that in every way the Eucharist (and more recently the wine), remain in substance bread and wine to the senses. This is more than appearance. In other words, the consecrated bread and wine become, as bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ.

This is not particularly difficult to express in words, but nevertheless it may defy comprehension since we are so used to thinking of body and blood in their literal meaning. The consecration is a transformative process and not consubstantiation. I believe if all this is doubted, so consequently is the real presence. In plain English, it is a fact that consecrated bread and wine do not literally become body and blood, as those terms are commonly (and correctly) understood.

Bread and wine cannot exist as bread and wine without the substances of bread and wine being present. For the substance pertains to what a thing is. After the consecration of the bread and wine, the substances of the bread and wine are no longer present so that what looks like bread and wine according to the senses which perceive only what is sensible such as the accidents of substance, is substantially and actually not bread and wine but substantially and literally the body and blood of Christ hidden under the accidents of the bread and wine. In short, the bread and wine after the consecration are no longer bread and wine.

 

[JimG]

I can only repeat that it has never been, is not now, and never will be, the teaching of the Catholic Church, that bread and wine remain after the consecration.

That is why we have tabernacles and sacrariums.

Fr. John Hardon S.J., said this: “Transubstantiation is a fact of faith and all the twisted criticism of the Church’s doctrine as being Hellenistic or Aristotelian is learned naiveté. For the soul that believes, this is no Hellenism or philosophical terminology. It is the expression of truth. In Greek equivalents the words of institution institute a meta-ousiosis. The ousia or being of bread and wine become the ousia or being of what constitutes Jesus Christ - body, blood, soul and divinity.”

This thread is already far enough off track, but for anyone interested I do recommend the Fr. John Hardon S.J. Archives on the Eucharist. One might start here.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… In short, the bread and wine after the consecration are no longer … [present]

If the consecrated bread and wine still smell, taste, look, last and nourish exactly like a piece of unconsecrated bread next to it … what other form of “present” does one need?

If it smells like a rose, looks like a rose, wilts like a rose … surely it is a rose whether a pixie or an angel is supposed to be supporting or not?

That is what a modern englishman understands by “IS” “exists” “present”.
It cannot be gain-sayed.

Meant to say no more, but couldn’t help myself re your statement above.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I can only repeat that it has never been, is not now, and never will be, the teaching of the Catholic Church, that bread and wine remain after the consecration.

How can this be denied that the bread and wine still exist - I still see bread and wine?

What is your definition of “remain”, it seems at odds with the English language.
Most dictionaries associate it with “exist”.
Oxford states “Have objective reality or being”.

How do we together decide on what is objectively present - except by the senses?
I accept that by faith most Catholics accept bread is somehow not present.
However that is not something objective if that faith necessitates sense evidence is to be denied.
Non Catholics would not accept this, hence it would not be an “objective” fact - which in the English language is a necessary part of the definition of “to exist”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I can only repeat that it has never been, is not now, and never will be, the teaching of the Catholic Church, that bread and wine remain after the consecration.

For readers open to the fact that the doctrine of transubstantiation was 1000 years in the making and that the concepts required to even state the proposition were not available until around C9 the following historical observations may be of interest.

By C6 there were a variety of hypotheses advanced for understanding the transformation. Emphasis was on how Christ’s body was become present. There was little or no interest as to the final status of the natural elements themselves.

Those few who did lightly touch on these matters had a number of opinions. Popular was the two nature’s view. Just as Jesus was one Person with two nature’s, so too did he support both the presence in the Eucharist of both his divinised body and the earthly elements.

Those who held to a view that ultimately evolved into modern transubstantiation when Aristotle was later used…these initially held that the form (not the substance) of the elements was changed.

This goes to show that there were a variety of valid systems and concepts for “explaining” the Eucharist and not all of them necessitated affirming the real absence of bread and wine.

Clearly the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation does necessitate the real absence.
That does not mean we could never adopt a different philosophy (as has validly been taught in the past) which does not necessitate a denial of bread and wine remaining.

In the end it is a matter of semantics and how we define words in the language chosen.
English, I humbly suggest, is not a good medium for anchoring concepts that render well in Latin or Greek.

 

[Thomas_White]

Bread and wine cannot exist as bread and wine without the substances of bread and wine being present. For the substance pertains to what a thing is.

Substance has form and matter, in this instance those of bread and wine.

After the consecration of the bread and wine, the substances of the bread and wine are no longer present so that what looks like bread and wine according to the senses which perceive only what is sensible such as the accidents of substance, is substantially and actually not bread and wine but substantially and literally the body and blood of Christ hidden under the accidents of the bread and wine. In short, the bread and wine after the consecration are no longer bread and wine.

Consecrated bread and wine IS the body and blood of Christ.

The senses necessarily perceive not only the appearance but also the form and matter of a substance. Accidents (incidentals, such as color) cannot exist in a vacuum. As noted previously, your understanding of substance, form, matter, appearance, accident, act, and potential is not that of Aristotle and Aquinas.

 

[JimG]

Consecrated bread and wine IS the body and blood of Christ.

The senses necessarily perceive not only the appearance but also the form and matter of a substance. Accidents (incidentals, such as color) cannot exist in a vacuum. As noted previously, your understanding of substance, form, matter, appearance, accident, act, and potential is not that of Aristotle and Aquinas.

In the instance of transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine in fact do not inhere in a substance.

“After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents.”

Source

“Bread and wine as such cease to exist and the full reality of Christ comes to be present under their appearances, which by remaining permit us to consume the divine gifts. The accidents of bread and wine thus remain without any substance in which they inhere, and the substance of Jesus Christ becomes present without any of His sensible accidents or characteristics.”

Source

 

[Ginny89]

If we want to understand how Aristotle’s and St. Aquinas’ understanding of accidents and substance relate when it comes to the Eucharist, we could do no better than turn to the great Thomist Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange
thesumma.info/reality/reality40.php

A few pertinent excerpts:

“By this change, then, of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, this body, itself remaining unchanged, becomes really present under the accidents of the bread, because these accidents lose the real and containing relation they had to the substance of the bread and they acquire a new, real, and containing relation to the body of Christ. This new real relation presupposes a real foundation, which is transubstantiation.”

“By this same line of reasoning **St. Thomas [914] explains the Eucharistic accidents, as existing without any subject of inhesion. **All other Eucharistic theses are simply corollaries from his teaching on transubstantiation.”

So: Only the accidents remain, losing any relation they had to the substance of the bread that no longer exists. As said early it only LOOKS like there is bread and wine. In reality, there is no trace of bread and wine.

 

[Ginny89]

In the instance of transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine in fact do not inhere in a substance.

“After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents.”

Source

“Bread and wine as such cease to exist and the full reality of Christ comes to be present under their appearances, which by remaining permit us to consume the divine gifts. The accidents of bread and wine thus remain without any substance in which they inhere, and the substance of Jesus Christ becomes present without any of His sensible accidents or characteristics.”

Source

Thank you, these are even better. I had not seen your post before I posted. I knew that the accidents of the bread remain without the bread but I did not yet make the (now obvious-seeming connection) that the accidents of Christ’s body are NOT in the Eucharist. Of course they are not. If they were our senses might be able to pick them up. Seems very obvious now. The Eucharist is Christ under the guise of an appearance of bread and wine so of course. Almost like he “takes off” his regular garments and “puts on” a garment of bread and wine, for us, in the Eucharist!

I wonder if what happens in Eucharistic miracles is that Christ allows some of his own accidents to come through and replace the Eucharistic accidents of bread and wine? Would make sense because once that happens, at least among the Eastern Orthodox, they say that such a thing (when the Eucharist becomes a visible piece of human flesh or blood as typically happens in Eucharistic miracles), is no longer the Eucharist. Of course they don’t use transubstantiation and are highly suspicious of Thomism in general, but I was thinking after reading your post that even for us, such a miracle would cease to be the Eucharist because it has the “wrong accidents”. Ie Eucharist=Accidents of bread and wine + Christ.

Thanks for making me think of that. I had not pondered it before.

 

[Ginny89]

A much more pertinent excerpt on form and matter from the article I linked, should have quoted it in that first post:

“How is transubstantiation possible? St. Thomas [910] has recourse to the Creator’s immediate power over created being as being. If God can produce the whole creation from nothing, He can also change the entity of one thing into that of another. Whereas in a substantial mutation there is a subject (prime matter) which remains under the two successive forms, here in transubstantiation there is no permanent subject, but the whole substance of bread, matter and form, is changed into that of Christ’s body. [911] These formulas reappear in the Council of Trent. [912].”

Only the form and matter of Christ’s body is in the Eucharist. The form and matter of the bread and wine is gone after the consencration.

 

[Thomas_White]

In the instance of transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine in fact do not inhere in a substance.

“After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents.”

Source

“Bread and wine as such cease to exist and the full reality of Christ comes to be present under their appearances, which by remaining permit us to consume the divine gifts. The accidents of bread and wine thus remain without any substance in which they inhere, and the substance of Jesus Christ becomes present without any of His sensible accidents or characteristics.”

Source

No, it is impossible for accidents to exist absent a substance. The body is necessarily of the substance (form and matter) and not in the accidents, which remain unchanged–which is rather obvious unless we believe Christ exists without substance and only in the color of the Eucharist.

Aquinas was quite diligent in his attempts to reveal certain mysteries (e.g., the existence of God) by the use of human reason alone, and in this endeavor he was typically not successful. The accidents remain was they were and as all can see, i.e., those of bread and wine.

 

[JimG]

No, it is impossible for accidents to exist absent a substance. The body is necessarily of the substance (form and matter) and not in the accidents, which remain unchanged–which is rather obvious unless we believe Christ exists without substance and only in the color of the Eucharist.

Aquinas was quite diligent in his attempts to reveal certain mysteries (e.g., the existence of God) by the use of human reason alone, and in this endeavor he was typically not successful. The accidents remain was they were and as all can see, i.e., those of bread and wine.

The accidents do remain as accidents or appearances of bread and wine, without however, inhering either in the bread and wine, which have been changed into Christ, nor do they inhere in Christ, since they are not his accidents or appearances. If I recall correctly, Aquinas says that the accidents (of the bread and wine) inhere in the one primary accident of Quantity.

In any case, Scholastic Philosophy, while helpful, is not sufficient to fully “explain” the mystery of the Eucharist. We only know that the bread and wine are changed into Christ whole and entire, body and blood, soul and divinity, not just in a spiritual manner but in a corporeal manner, so that he is wholly present in all his component parts. We do not however, perceive His accidents or appearances, but only the appearances of bread and wine.

 

[Thomas_White]

The accidents do remain as accidents or appearances of bread and wine, without however, inhering either in the bread and wine, which have been changed into Christ, nor do they inhere in Christ, since they are not his accidents or appearances. If I recall correctly, Aquinas says that the accidents (of the bread and wine) inhere in the one primary accident of Quantity.

What does it mean that the accidents remain as accidents (quality, not quantity) without inhering (exist permanently) in their substance, i.e., bread and wine?

In any case, Scholastic Philosophy, while helpful, is not sufficient to fully “explain” the mystery of the Eucharist. We only know that the bread and wine are changed into Christ whole and entire, body and blood, soul and divinity, not just in a spiritual manner but in a corporeal manner, so that he is wholly present in all his component parts. We do not however, perceive His accidents or appearances, but only the appearances of bread and wine.

It is helpful to recall that Scholastic Philosophy, including the writings of Aquinas, is not Scripture.

If bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, including in a corporal manner, and are perceived by the senses as bread and wine, how then would this differ from what I have said all along?

 

[JimG]

What does it mean that the accidents remain as accidents (quality, not quantity) without inhering (exist permanently) in their substance, i.e., bread and wine?

It is helpful to recall that Scholastic Philosophy, including the writings of Aquinas, is not Scripture.

If bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, including in a corporal manner, and are perceived by the senses as bread and wine, how then would this differ from what I have said all along?

My understanding of your contention is that the bread and wine remain after the consecration. The Church’s teaching is that only Christ remains, and that we receive him under the appearances of bread and wine, although the appearances as such do not inhere in his substance.

 

[Thomas_White]

My understanding of your contention is that the bread and wine remain after the consecration. The Church’s teaching is that only Christ remains, and that we receive him under the appearances of bread and wine, although the appearances as such do not inhere in his substance.

I believe this disagreement is largely one of semantics. We do agree that the consecrated bread and wine is the body and blood of Chirist, right?

 

[JimG]

I believe this disagreement is largely one of semantics. We do agree that the consecrated bread and wine is the body and blood of Chirist, right?

Yes, and that after the consecration nothing remains of the bread and wine except their appearances.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, and that after the consecration nothing remains of the bread and wine except their appearances.

If you define “remains” per the Oxford English dictionary you will discover that the way you have translated the Latin Aristotelian based teaching into English above is somewhat self-contradictory for 99% of ordinary English speakers and hence unhelpful.

This adds an additional burden on them re “understanding” the Eucharist.
Hopefully the English speaking Church will one day provide something better.

So yes, it is a matter semantics, but not a trivial one.