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

[Thomas_White]

In accordance with the metaphysics of Aristotle and the philosophy of Aquinas, appearance cannot exist independent of a substance. If it were so, it would mean that the bread and wine, which are substances, would vanish and all that would remain would be their respective colors (“accidents”, something incidental to the substances) without form and matter. And this is impossible.

 

[JimG]

Regardless of whose philosophy we use, I believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist.

Bread and wine are converted into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. What appears to the senses as bread and wine after the consecration, is not bread and wine, but only their sensible appearances. Many of Jesus’ hearers also thought it to be impossible. He said it, the Church has always taught it. I am not going to argue against established doctrine.

 

[Richca]

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.

As the very word indicates, transubstantiation is a change of substance. In the eucharistic miracle, the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine changes or is converted into the substances of the body and blood of Christ while the accidents (or appearances or species) of the bread and wine remain. The accidents of the bread and wine which remain after the consecration are not the body and blood of Christ. The accidents of the bread and wine which remain after the consecration are the accidents of the substances of bread and wine. The body and blood of Christ as any human body or human blood does not have accidents pertaining to bread and wine. For example, the body of Christ does not look like a small round host nor does it taste like bread. As has said, the accidents of the bread and wine remaining after the consecration do not inhere in the substance of the body of Christ nor the substance of the blood of Christ. It is a divine and supernatural miracle that God keeps the accidents of the bread and wine remaining in existence after the consecration without a substance to inhere in. It is quite obvious to the senses that after the consecration, the bread and wine look and appear just as they did before the consecration. But something changes in the bread and wine at the consecration, namely, the substances of the bread and wine changes into the substances of the body and blood of Christ. If the accidents of the bread and wine changed after the consecration, then we would see the body and blood of Christ, the body and blood of Christ would be visible to the senses. In the substantial changes we observe in nature, the accidents change with the substance. For example, if we set fire to a piece of wood it turns into ashes. In the eucharistic miracle, God suspends by his almighty power the laws of nature. Transubstantiation is a supernatural miracle, a very great miracle indeed, which God performs at every Mass right before our eyes. What God can do with the things he has created, with corporeal matter, with bodies, is far above what we naturally observe in the workings of nature and the laws nature naturally follows. Belief in transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist is an exercise of the virtue of faith and without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).

The senses cannot penetrate to the substance of things. Matter is sensible due to accidental forms such as quantity or extension which are consequent to the substance of which matter is a part. Without the accident of quantity, matter would be insensible. Substantial forms are not sensible at all, they are known solely by the intellect.

 

[Richca]

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.

Your assessment of the faith of the Church fathers and of the Church itself regarding the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ since apostolic times and prior to scholasticism is not entirely accurate. The Church has always taught and believed as Christ himself said that the bread and wine after the consecration is literally the body and blood of Christ. Catholics always believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the eucharist but it took quite a few centuries of theological and philosophical thought to get the right terminology to express the Church’s faith in what it always believed. The right terminology and understanding of the Real Presence of Jesus in the eucharist culminated in the unprecedented synthesis of St Thomas Aquinas. Transubstantiation is nothing but what the Church and faithful catholics have always believed since apostolic times and according to the very words of Jesus himself concerning the Real Presence of Jesus in the eucharist, his body, blood, soul, and divinity.

An excellent book on the subject beginning with the apostles, though the fathers of the Church, the scholastics, the councils of the Church and popes, through modern times is:
The Hidden Manna - A Theology of the Eucharist by Fr. James T. O’Connor.

A quick note, not a few fathers of the Church taught that the nature, essence, or the elements of the bread and wine were changed during the consecration at Mass into the body and blood of Christ. The nature, essence, or elements of the bread and wine is nothing other than the substances of the bread and wine. The point is this, a real change takes place in the bread and wine for it to become the body and blood of Christ at the consecration at Mass.

 

[Richca]

As the very word indicates, transubstantiation is a change of substance. In the eucharistic miracle, the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine changes or is converted into the substances of the body and blood of Christ while the accidents (or appearances or species) of the bread and wine remain. The accidents of the bread and wine which remain after the consecration are not the body and blood of Christ. The accidents of the bread and wine which remain after the consecration are the accidents of the substances of bread and wine. The body and blood of Christ as any human body or human blood does not have accidents pertaining to bread and wine. For example, the body of Christ does not look like a small round host nor does it taste like bread. As JimG has said, the accidents of the bread and wine remaining after the consecration do not inhere in the substance of the body of Christ nor the substance of the blood of Christ. It is a divine and supernatural miracle that God keeps the accidents of the bread and wine remaining in existence after the consecration without a substance to inhere in. It is quite obvious to the senses that after the consecration, the bread and wine look and appear just as they did before the consecration. But something changes in the bread and wine at the consecration, namely, the substances of the bread and wine changes into the substances of the body and blood of Christ. If the accidents of the bread and wine changed after the consecration, then we would see the body and blood of Christ, the body and blood of Christ would be visible to the senses. In the substantial changes we observe in nature, the accidents change with the substance. For example, if we set fire to a piece of wood it turns into ashes. In the eucharistic miracle, God suspends by his almighty power the laws of nature. Transubstantiation is a supernatural miracle, a very great miracle indeed, which God performs at every Mass right before our eyes. What God can do with the things he has created, with corporeal matter, with bodies, is far above what we naturally observe in the workings of nature and the laws nature naturally follows. Belief in transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist is an exercise of the virtue of faith and without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).

The senses cannot penetrate to the substance of things. Matter is sensible due to accidental forms such as quantity or extension which are consequent to the substance of which matter is a part. Without the accident of quantity, matter would be insensible. Substantial forms are not sensible at all, they are known solely by the intellect.

 

[Richca]

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.

We believe that the whole Christ is in the eucharist, i.e., his whole body, blood, soul, and divinity. Consequently, the accidents of Christ’s body and blood are in the eucharist, but they are invisible. I will try and comment more on this later. Presently, read St Thomas Aquinas’ treatise on the eucharist in the Summa Theologica. He teaches that the accidents of Christ’s body are present in the eucharist and he explains in what manner.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Transubstantiation is nothing but what the Church and faithful catholics have always believed since apostolic times and according to the very words of Jesus himself concerning the Real Presence of Jesus …The nature, essence, or elements of the bread and wine is nothing other than the substances of the bread and wine.

I am sorry, this indicates whatever research you have done into the matter is not particularly deep and perhaps somewhat autodidactic.

The simple fact is the philosophic definitions and concepts used at the height of scholasticism simply were not available to the Church, let alone reflected on or evolved, until about C9. The words you name meant different things to different people and were mostly interpreted in Platonic (if even that) fashion not Aristotelian.
In any case the issue here is not the Real Presence but the “real absence.”

As I opine, if objective “existence” can only be posited on the basis of the evidence of the senses (which is how the Oxford defines “exist”) … then clearly the bread and wine remain according to this usual use of the English word. Esse (Latin), perhaps not so much.

 

[Thomas_White]

The simple fact is the philosophic definitions and concepts used at the height of scholasticism simply were not available to the Church, let alone reflected on or evolved, until about C9. The words you name meant different things to different people and were mostly interpreted in Platonic (if even that) fashion not Aristotelian.
In any case the issue here is not the Real Presence but the “real absence.”

As I opine, if objective “existence” can only be posited on the basis of the evidence of the senses (which is how the Oxford defines “exist”) … then clearly the bread and wine remain according to this usual use of the English word. Esse (Latin), perhaps not so much.

Agreed. Augustine, writing in Latin, appropriated Platonic concepts in his philosophical writings, and this was in its essence a dualism of form and matter. It was not until the time of Aquinas that Aristotelian concepts were used in the philosophical writings of the Church.

Aquinas (also writing in Latin) was one of the great philosophers of the ages. In this respect, his speculations (which were not Scripture) were, in the classic tradition of philosophy, fair game for critical analysis and development. And this indeed occurred.

Latin, for example, does not have a present-tense word for “substance”, and the Greek word “ousis”, which means “being”, was translated to Latin as “consubstantium”, which connotes both being and substance. As we know, this would present difficulties and eventual confusion in the English translation of the Nicene Creed (i.e., “one in being with the Father” vs. the present use of “consubstantial with the Father”). This revision was made so that the language of the Creed would more closely correspond to the Latin (rather than to its original Greek).

Anyway, in view of the above (and as you know), it is useless to reply to the emotional rants or autodidactic comments of others.

 

[JimG]

No amount of circuitous verbiage on a Forum can change Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. We believe what the Church has handed down from the Apostles, from the Fathers, from Christ. That does not change with the times.

As to “the real absence,” let me refer again to the writings of Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.:

“We might then say that the Eucharistic Presence of Christ is at once a reality and a relationship. It is a reality because Christ really is in the Eucharist. So that the Real Presence of Christ postulates on faith the real absence of bread and wine. He is now where before the consecration were bread and wine. They are gone and He is there. What before was real bread and wine is now only the external properties of bread and wine. He is here in the Eucharist truly present. They are no longer present but only their species or, as we say, appearances.”

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_010.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No amount of circuitous verbiage on a Forum can change Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

We don’t need to, time and colloquial changes in the meaning of words has done that already Jim. And it happens all the time ending in errors of equivocation or simply hieroglyphic “teaching” and “learning” by mantra of which you are a prime example.

Thus “Extra ecclesiam nullus salus” may have made colloquial sense to start off with. But with the rise of Protestantism and the eventual pastoral recognition that they were not all damned heretics (a relatively recent insight that many lay Catholics still do not accept) we have come to realise that “Ecclesiam” does not accurately translate into “Catholic Church” as most lay people understand the colloquial meaning of “Catholic Church”.

Therefore to say that those who do not belong to a Catholic Parish cannot be saved is not what the original Latin truly says.

Likewise with modern English, Englishmen and the equally unhelpful and equivocal phrase that the “bread and wine are no longer bread and wine”.

Are airplane “blackboxes” black? No they are not, they are bright orange.
Maybe they were once black (probably not), but the point is that things change over time and if we keep using the original words without thinking we end up making the silliest of assertions.

As Aquinas states, we do not reason by the surface meaning of words used to signify a reality, we want to discuss the actual reality that words refer to.

Words age and wear out and expire over time just like any material thing. Knowing the reality in question we must often change the words we use to discuss them or the uninitiated will be unable to comprehend anything.

 

[Pulvis]

We don’t need to, time and colloquial changes in the meaning of words has done that already Jim. And it happens all the time ending in errors of equivocation or simply hieroglyphic “teaching” and “learning” by mantra of which you are a prime example.

Thus “Extra ecclesiam nullus salus” may have made colloquial sense to start off with. But with the rise of Protestantism and the eventual pastoral recognition that they were not all damned heretics (a relatively recent insight that many lay Catholics still do not accept) we have come to realise that “Ecclesiam” does not accurately translate into “Catholic Church” as most lay people understand the colloquial meaning of “Catholic Church”.

Therefore to say that those who do not belong to a Catholic Parish cannot be saved is not what the original Latin truly says.

Likewise with modern English, Englishmen and the equally unhelpful and equivocal phrase that the “bread and wine are no longer bread and wine”.

Are airplane “blackboxes” black? No they are not, they are bright orange.
Maybe they were once black (probably not), but the point is that things change over time and if we keep using the original words without thinking we end up making the silliest of assertions.

As Aquinas states, we do not reason by the surface meaning of words used to signify a reality, we want to discuss the actual reality that words refer to.

Words age and wear out and expire over time just like any material thing. Knowing the reality in question we must often change the words we use to discuss them or the uninitiated will be unable to comprehend anything.

And the US Constitution is a living document, and the Gospels do not give us the Actual words of Christ. Yea, heard all this before.

The true test must be the perennial Teaching of the Church including Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Magesterium as has been handed down throughout the ages.

Reinterpreting the meaning of words is a neat progressive trick. Great way to frame an argument in ones favor, or to cast doubt on the understood meaning of a teaching.
Pascendi Domenici Gregis thoroughly explained this in the early 1900’s. Nothing has changed in the teachings. what has changed is the willingness to adhere to the perennial Truths as handed down for centuries. Our modern(ist) society with all of its new found wisdom would do well to head the Teachings of St. Paul:

" [6] As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk ye in him; [7] Rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned, abounding in him in thanksgiving. [8] Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:" Colossians, Ch. 2 DRBO.Org

" [1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober." 2nd Timothy Ch. 4 DRBO.Org

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Have a Blessed and fruitful Lent.

 

[Thomas_White]

And the US Constitution is a living document, and the Gospels do not give us the Actual words of Christ. Yea, heard all this before.

The true test must be the perennial Teaching of the Church including Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Magesterium as has been handed down throughout the ages.

Reinterpreting the meaning of words is a neat progressive trick. Great way to frame an argument in ones favor, or to cast doubt on the understood meaning of a teaching.
Pascendi Domenici Gregis thoroughly explained this in the early 1900’s. Nothing has changed in the teachings. what has changed is the willingness to adhere to the perennial Truths as handed down for centuries. Our modern(ist) society with all of its new found wisdom would do well to head the Teachings of St. Paul:

" [6] As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk ye in him; [7] Rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned, abounding in him in thanksgiving. [8] Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:" Colossians, Ch. 2 DRBO.Org

" [1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober." 2nd Timothy Ch. 4 DRBO.Org

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Have a Blessed and fruitful Lent.

“And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke: 22, 9).

Please tell us who is reinterpreting these words.

 

[Richca]

In accordance with the metaphysics of Aristotle and the philosophy of Aquinas, appearance cannot exist independent of a substance. If it were so, it would mean that the bread and wine, which are substances, would vanish and all that would remain would be their respective colors (“accidents”, something incidental to the substances) without form and matter. And this is impossible.

Well then, you are denying the truth of transubstantiation which is a dogma of the catholic faith as well as placing limits on the infinite power of God. In essence, I think you are proposing a belief in consubstantiation which is a heresy or some form of it as the Council of Trent decreed:

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

 

[Thomas_White]

Well then, you are denying the truth of transubstantiation which is a dogma of the catholic faith as well as placing limits on the infinite power of God. In essence, I think you are proposing a belief in consubstantiation which is a heresy or some form of it as the Council of Trent decreed:

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

Of course the species of bread and wine remain. For Aquinas, “species” is the mental representation (or Idea) of form and matter. When having little or no understanding of the development of philosophy from Plato to Aristotle to Aquinas, one ought to be careful when accusing someone of heresy. Unless I am mistaken, doing so is a violation of forum rules.

“If Christ’s body appears miraculously upon the altar under the guise of flesh, or the wine under the guise of blood, it is not to be consumed” --St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Ginny89]

To avoid bamboozlement by anonymous posters, I urge readers to read leading authorities on the thought of St. Thomas and what he and they have had to say on transubstantiation visavis accidents, substance, form and matter.