K
Kliska
Guest
Is there an official place that talks of the “physicalist” heresy?
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
I would just note that “spiritual touching” is a contradiction in terms if taken literally. It can, I suppose, be taken metaphorically. The point is, that Jesus in the Eucharist is fully present, without his appearances or accidents being present.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Sorry, that is not true, Christ is present with all his accidents, but in a Glorified, invisible manner.
How do you eat something if you don’t touch it? Christ was pretty clear. " Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have live in you. "
Linus2nd
J
JimG
Guest
I quite agree that Jesus is present in an invisible manner. That is the same as saying that Jesus is present but his accidents are not.
He is present under the appearances of bread and wine. The bread and wine are not present in their substance, but their accidents remain. Any sense perceptions that we receive are perceptions of the accidents of bread and wine.
And saying “in an invisible manner” applies to just one of the senses: sight. If we are to say the same of all the other accidents we can say that we feel Jesus but in an non-tangible manner, we hear him but in a non-auditory manner. It is all just the same as saying that Jesus is fully present but we can not perceive him. We can not perceive him because his accidents—which are perceptible—are not present. For us to touch Jesus, he would need to be present spatially, but he is not present in a spatial manner.
He is wholly present under the appearances of bread and wine.
It is because he is present in this non-tangible manner that we are able to eat his body and drink his blood.
He is present under the appearances of bread and wine. The bread and wine are not present in their substance, but their accidents remain. Any sense perceptions that we receive are perceptions of the accidents of bread and wine.
And saying “in an invisible manner” applies to just one of the senses: sight. If we are to say the same of all the other accidents we can say that we feel Jesus but in an non-tangible manner, we hear him but in a non-auditory manner. It is all just the same as saying that Jesus is fully present but we can not perceive him. We can not perceive him because his accidents—which are perceptible—are not present. For us to touch Jesus, he would need to be present spatially, but he is not present in a spatial manner.
He is wholly present under the appearances of bread and wine.
It is because he is present in this non-tangible manner that we are able to eat his body and drink his blood.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
We receive Jesus Christ, " …Whole and entire…," his Glorified Body, Soul and Divinity. This is the same body which now sits at the right hand of God, in its natural but Glorified mode, as opposed to the Sacramental mode in which He is simultaneously Present in every consecrated Species throughout the whole world. It is the same Body which rose from the dead and walked among the Apostotle and Disciples for forty days, which ate with them, talked with them - and appeared where his wished, at a flash, without being hindered by walls and locked doors, a mode of presence which had absolute power over earthly matter, a Body which, while being visibly present, was not subject to matter.
But in His Eucharistic Presence he is not visible, is he? No, you can’t see him, he is invislble. Nor can you sense his presence by any of your other senses. Why? Because he was catering to our human sensibilities which would be repulsed at the thought that we were consuming his human body, even if it was a Glorified Body. Also, it was because his Sacramental mode of presence demanded that he conform the manner of his presence to the demands of the species and because he wished to be present in every particle of the species that was distributed.
How does He do this? Remember, in his Glorified Person he has absolute power over matter, he can be Present however he wishes, he is not limited by the exigencies of earthly matter, and the species are earthly matter.
How is He present? He is present sacramentally. He is in the species but is not a part of them, nor are they a part of him. Theologians define it this way: the species contain his presence, that is ,they convey his presence, they carry his presence to us. The Council of Trent says that he is under the species. These expressions convey the same meaning. The species are the instruments he uses to convey his presence to us, to " locate " his precence in specific objects, the bread and wine.
Is his presence a material presence, is it a physical presence? Yes, but it is a material and a physical presence which is Glorified, it is no longer earthly matter, it is heavenly matter, a matter that can be " sensed " only if He wishes it to be sensed. Remember there only two things which exist in the universe and in Heaven, material beings and spiritual beings. And Christ, even in his Glorified state, which has been his state of existence since his Resurrection, is a material being as well as a human soul and a Divine Spirit. And it is all of this we receive, but in his Glorified mode of existence.
Do we actually touch Christ when we receive him? Absolutely. How could we consume his flesh and blood if we did not touch him, if he did not touch us? Some have rejected this thought. However, remember that he invited Thomas to " touch " the wounds in his side and in his hands. And this is the exact same body we receive, so we touch him just as Thomas did.
And what does it mean when Trent says we receive Christ, ," Whole and entire…? "
It means just that. We receive Christ just as he appeared to the Apostles after his Resurrection. What they saw, is what we receive. That is what a body is, right? Yes, that’s right, and what did they see? They saw Christ with all his bodily attributes, limbs, hair, clothes, sandles, the works - all his accidents but in a Glorified manner, a manner that in the case of the Eucharist cannot be sensed.
All of this can be gleaned from the simple statements of the Council of Trent which can be read here, chapters 1-4:
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/CT13.html
You can also find it in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:catholicapologetics.info/…ucharist.shtml
See also the Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church:
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Also see the Summa Theologiae, part 3, the Holy Eucharist, ques 74-88
And the Supplement to the Third Part, ques 82-85
Linus2nd
.
J
JimG
Guest
One might bump into an invisible man. I agree that Jesus in the Eucharist is invisible, and that he is present whole and entire, under the appearances of bread and wine. We do not perceive His own appearances with any of our senses. (If we did, it would be classified as a Eucharistic miracle.)
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yes, we do not perceive his own " appearances, " or accidents any more than his substance. Yet they are present. Otherwise he would not be present " Whole and entire. "
Linus2nd
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Good point. I must admit I was hyperbolisising a bit to make my point briefly.
Physicalism is a charge often leveled against the “Manualists” by neo-Thomists since Vat2. They charge that the Moral Theology Manualists have misunderstood Aquinas and tend to over ontologise his teachings leading to inconsistencies.
I don’t know of a comprehensive review of this charge sorry.
My Theology lecturer used to discuss it more as an aside.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I quite agree.
This was the basis of my comments regarding invisibility below.
Clearly the Latin word used by Aquinas/Treat is somewhat absurdly translated as invisible for Joe Boggs 21stC English speaker. And for the reason you state, it only really refers to insensitivity of the sense of sight. We all here accept the insensitivity refers to all the senses and also scientific instruments.
And it is silly to try and rescue this discrepancy by asserting that invisible can be understood to refer to all the senses… as you point out that would mean Jesus is intangible as well… Which at first pass seems to deny other affirmations that we do actually touch and eat Jesus in the Eucharist.
Well, if we do touch Jesus then to be consistent we must also accept we see Jesus too. Which conclusion contradicts Trents affirmation (allegedly according to Linus) that Jesus is invisible!
In other words different statements about the Eucharist are using the same words from different world-view… leading to logical absurdities if we are take literal translation approach as Linus tends to do with ancient texts that were not actually formulated in modern English.
The best approach surely is to affirm that Jesus presence is “hidden” in the Eucharist in a mode quite differently from that which the word “invisble” evokes.
It is a sort of sensible concomitant… where the consecrated bread is… there we are truly both seeing and touching Jesus veiled in the sensibilities of bread.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
No, we do not perceive Jesus because a glorified body has the attribute of subtlety. along with agility, clarity. These attributes, which Christ possesses in his Glorified body, which is the mode of his presence in the species, make it possible for Christ to be present but not seen or sensed in any other way. ( See S.T. Supplement to part 3, linked above, if you do not refer to these you cannot possibly understand what Christ’s Glorified body was capable of ).
Essentially, they mean that Christ ( or any other glorified body ) could, by an act of his will, make his physical presence impervious to any human perception or any attempts by science to detect his presence. In other words he can touch us and we can touch him, in the actual act of consuming him, without our being able to perceive this physical contact. That is why theologians have referred to this as a " spiritual touch. " ’ Touch ’ here is nothing more than a euphemism for physical contact, and in this case, a contact that cannot be perceived.
This " spiritualized " presence is made possible by the glorified body’s attribute of subtlety by which the body is perfectly subject to the will of the soul. Thus Christ, by an act of the will, caused himself to be imperceptible.
"… our Lord had a palpable body after the Resurrection, as appears from the last chapter of Luke, and we must believe that His body was supremely subtle. Moreover the human body will rise again with flesh and bones, as did the body of our Lord, according to Luke 24:39, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have,” and Job 19:26, “In my flesh I shall see God,” my Saviour: … ( please note that here that Christ possessed all his accidents after the Resurrection. But the attribute of subtlety made it possible for him to cause himself to be imperceptible in the Eucharist without loosing his accidents!!!)
Consequently another kind of subtlety must be assigned to glorified bodies, by saying that they are subtle on account of the most complete perfection of the body.
Hence … that … completeness by reason of which human bodies are said to be subtle will result from the dominion of the glorified soul (which is the form of the body) over the body, by reason of which dominion the glorified body is said to be “spiritual,” as being wholly subject to the spirit. The first subjection whereby the body is subject to the soul is to the effect of its participating in its specific being, in so far as it is subject to the soul as matter to form; and secondly it is subject to the soul in respect of the other operations of the soul, in so far as the soul is a principle of movement. Consequently the first reason for spirituality in the body is subtlety, and, after that, agility and the other properties of a glorified body. Hence the Apostle, as the masters expound, in speaking of spirituality indicates subtlety: wherefore Gregory says (Moral. xiv, 56) that “the glorified body is said to be subtle as a result of a spiritual power.”
newadvent.org/summa/5.htm , Ques 82-85.
So the imperception of Christ’s presence is due to an act of his will. by which it is impossible for us to sense him or detect his presence in any way, by any sense or instrument. It is not due to our lack of sensible acuteness.
Linus2nd
Essentially, they mean that Christ ( or any other glorified body ) could, by an act of his will, make his physical presence impervious to any human perception or any attempts by science to detect his presence. In other words he can touch us and we can touch him, in the actual act of consuming him, without our being able to perceive this physical contact. That is why theologians have referred to this as a " spiritual touch. " ’ Touch ’ here is nothing more than a euphemism for physical contact, and in this case, a contact that cannot be perceived.
This " spiritualized " presence is made possible by the glorified body’s attribute of subtlety by which the body is perfectly subject to the will of the soul. Thus Christ, by an act of the will, caused himself to be imperceptible.
"… our Lord had a palpable body after the Resurrection, as appears from the last chapter of Luke, and we must believe that His body was supremely subtle. Moreover the human body will rise again with flesh and bones, as did the body of our Lord, according to Luke 24:39, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have,” and Job 19:26, “In my flesh I shall see God,” my Saviour: … ( please note that here that Christ possessed all his accidents after the Resurrection. But the attribute of subtlety made it possible for him to cause himself to be imperceptible in the Eucharist without loosing his accidents!!!)
Consequently another kind of subtlety must be assigned to glorified bodies, by saying that they are subtle on account of the most complete perfection of the body.
Hence … that … completeness by reason of which human bodies are said to be subtle will result from the dominion of the glorified soul (which is the form of the body) over the body, by reason of which dominion the glorified body is said to be “spiritual,” as being wholly subject to the spirit. The first subjection whereby the body is subject to the soul is to the effect of its participating in its specific being, in so far as it is subject to the soul as matter to form; and secondly it is subject to the soul in respect of the other operations of the soul, in so far as the soul is a principle of movement. Consequently the first reason for spirituality in the body is subtlety, and, after that, agility and the other properties of a glorified body. Hence the Apostle, as the masters expound, in speaking of spirituality indicates subtlety: wherefore Gregory says (Moral. xiv, 56) that “the glorified body is said to be subtle as a result of a spiritual power.”
newadvent.org/summa/5.htm , Ques 82-85.
So the imperception of Christ’s presence is due to an act of his will. by which it is impossible for us to sense him or detect his presence in any way, by any sense or instrument. It is not due to our lack of sensible acuteness.
Linus2nd
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Nowhere has the Church taught that Jesus feels our tongue and insides with His body, a part or whole of It. Kissing Jesus is one thing, hugging Him, yes, but not putting our tongue on Him. Why are you making this so difficult Linus?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
You are the one making it difficult because you cannot seperate carnal eating and consumtion of Christ’s Glorified body. I have explained the difference, if you could stop thinking carnally you would be able to accept what the Church teaches.
Linus2nd.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The Church never said what you said! My tongue doesn’t touch His face. If you don’t think it does, than we don’t touch Him. It is intimate because God enters our body, but we touch the physical “bread and wine”, which is not an illusion
J
JimG
Guest
Of course, Jesus making his presence impervious to any human perception is exactly the same as making himself present without his accidents.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I have given you the teaching of the Church, even Christ’s own words, and those of his Apostoles, I have given you St. Thomas’ reflections on these great truths, and still you refuse to believe. I hope you will reconsider all that I have said.
Pax
Linus2nd
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes, that would be the normal meaning of “accidents”.
Also, if it is alleged that Jesus’s body is imperceptible to the senses…then would not the reverse be true - the world cannot be perceived by Jesus through his own bodily senses?
I do not believe the very esoteric reflections by Aquinas on the 5 qualities of Glorified bodies can be considered “Church Teaching”. I am willing to be enlightened if Linus can show an authoritative source on this.
These qualities are of course necessitated by Aquinas’s philosophic system to explain the raw and apparently contradictory information we possess regarding the Resurrection experiences in Scripture. But it is surely not the only way of systematising a consistent explanation.
So this leads us back to the problem of how else a person may be present without going down the somewhat self-contradictory concept of “sensibly imperceptible accidents”!
(Unless, Linus, you have an authoritative source that states Jesus’s Resurrected bodily accidents are present even when he is “imperceptible”).
Anyways, I cannot think of any Resurrection Appearance that logically requires Jesus HAS to be bodily present and “imperceptible” at the same time. In those moments, by Ockham’s razor, I would say Jesus simply wasn’t present
.Linus has yet to explain this problem I asked of him below.
WRT the Eucharist there are other modes that seem logically more likely.
e.g. concomitance (in which case the accidents of Jesus’s body are present in a sort of virtual/potential/logical way.
e.g. Just as Mary can be said to be the “Mother of God” even though the Divine Nature is not capable of being born…so too we may be able to say that Jesus’s bodily accidents may be said to be present even if they are not actually. This may be a form of
concomitance?
eg perhaps we can say Jesus’s mature human body is present in the same way the body of a mature man is “present” in a recently fertilised ovum?
eg to see Jesus is to see the Father - even though the Father is Spirit and cannot be seen. This would be due to the hypostatic union of Jesus’s Person with the Divine Nature? I am not sure that this could be called concomitance…but this is yet another mode? And would not the reverse be true - to be in the presence of the Father is to be in the presence of Jesus…and by concomitance His human body as well…
Anyways, all I am saying is that there may well be better modes of explaining how Jesus can be said to be bodily present without having to resort to “insensible bodily accidents”.
Must we hold that Jesus’s bodily accidents actually are present in the Eucharist?
I have never seen anything directly taught on this point other than “if Jesus’s body is present then his bodily accidents must be present.”
Perhaps or perhaps not - perhaps the accidents are only present “virtually” by some sort of concomitance?
That is very different from them being actually present but “invisible.” That would be a very clumsy way of saying the accidents are only present by some sort of concomitance.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Come on Linus, the Apostles and Christ said nothing of “imperceptible accidents” which is the heart of JimG’s reflections here.
BTW can you source exactly where you believe Aquinas clearly spoke of what you interpret as “invisible/imperceptible accidents” wrt his Glorified Body?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yes, that would be the normal meaning of “accidents”.
Also, if it is alleged that Jesus’s body is imperceptible to the senses…then would not the reverse be true - the world cannot be perceived by Jesus through his own bodily senses?
I do not believe the very esoteric reflections by Aquinas on the 5 qualities of Glorified bodies can be considered “Church Teaching”. I am willing to be enlightened if Linus can show an authoritative source on this.
These qualities are of course necessitated by Aquinas’s philosophic system to explain the raw and apparently contradictory information we possess regarding the Resurrection experiences in Scripture. But it is surely not the only way of systematising a consistent explanation.
So this leads us back to the problem of how else a person may be present without going down the somewhat self-contradictory concept of “sensibly imperceptible accidents”!
(Unless, Linus, you have an authoritative source that states Jesus’s Resurrected bodily accidents are present even when he is “imperceptible”).
Anyways, I cannot think of any Resurrection Appearance that logically requires Jesus HAS to be bodily present and “imperceptible” at the same time. In those moments, by Ockham’s razor, I would say Jesus simply wasn’t present
Linus has yet to explain this problem I asked of him below.
WRT the Eucharist there are other modes that seem logically more likely.
e.g. concomitance (in which case the accidents of Jesus’s body are present in a sort of virtual/potential/logical way.
e.g. Just as Mary can be said to be the “Mother of God” even though the Divine Nature is not capable of being born…so too we may be able to say that Jesus’s bodily accidents may be said to be present even if they are not actually. This may be a form of
concomitance?
eg perhaps we can say Jesus’s mature human body is present in the same way the body of a mature man is “present” in a recently fertilised ovum?
eg to see Jesus is to see the Father - even though the Father is Spirit and cannot be seen. This would be due to the hypostatic union of Jesus’s Person with the Divine Nature? I am not sure that this could be called concomitance…but this is yet another mode? And would not the reverse be true - to be in the presence of the Father is to be in the presence of Jesus…and by concomitance His human body as well…
Anyways, all I am saying is that there may well be better modes of explaining how Jesus can be said to be bodily present without having to resort to “insensible bodily accidents”.
Must we hold that Jesus’s bodily accidents actually are present in the Eucharist?
I have never seen anything directly taught on this point other than “if Jesus’s body is present then his bodily accidents must be present.”
Perhaps or perhaps not - perhaps the accidents are only present “virtually” by some sort of concomitance?
That is very different from them being actually present but “invisible.” That would be a very clumsy way of saying the accidents are only present by some sort of concomitance.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
That does not follow at all. Christ is imperceptible to us because the mode of his presence in the two species demand it and because he realized that a visible appearance would be misinterpreted by men whose minds are carnal. It has nothing to do with his ability to sense the world himself.
" Esoteric? " All the Catechisms of the Roman Catholic Church used in this country, at least, up to and including Roman Catechism uses and discusses these properties at length. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not mention them specifically but covers them generically in paragraphs 999-1000. It should also be noted that for 800 years these " esoteric " properties have been taught to seminarians, priests, bishops, and Popes in the West as a matter of course in their theological preperation.
And even though you object to them, how else are the teachings of Christ,j of St. Paul, the Evangelists, and the Fathers of the Chruch conderning the Resurrection of Christ and of our own bodies to be understood?
I can’t see that a better explanation is possible. If you have one please explain it.
Why " self-contradictory? " We are dealing with the Glorified Body of Christ, we are not dealing with his earthly material body. Was his Transfiguration " self-contradictory? " Was his Incarnation " self-contradictorhy? " Was his Resurrection " self-contradictory? " Was his Ascension " self-contradictory? " Was his Transsubstantion " self-contradictory? " Was the Virgin Birth " self-contrdictory? " Was the creation of the universe, in time, out of nothing " self-contradictory? " Absolutely! They were all miracles! All beyond the natural order we live in and are subject to. So do we reject the idea of " sensibly imperceptible accidents " simply because such a thing is beyond the categories which define reality in our earthly mode of existence? Why accept all these other miracles and countless of others which transcend our material, earthly, scientific categories and reject this particular one? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Poor Old Ockham! I can’t see how appealing to him saves the argument. Of course nothing during Christ’s forty days on earth after his Resurrection required Jesus to be bodily present but imperceptible. But he did show that he possessed the properties of subtlety and clarity at least. He appeared suddenly in the Upper Room, twice, even though the doors were locked, he consumed food, he Ascended into Heaven. And no one recognized who he was when they saw him. His appearance had obviously changed marketdly after the Resurrection.Anyways, I cannot think of any Resurrection Appearance that logically requires Jesus HAS to be bodily present and “imperceptible” at the same time. In those moments, by Ockham’s razor, I would say Jesus simply wasn’t present
Linus has yet to explain this problem I asked of him below.
But his property of subtelty is needed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And he used it in several ways. To conform to the physical circumstances and manner of the species, to make it possible to be present in each separated molecule, and every consecrated species throughout the entire world simultaneously, to prevent men from thinking carnally, to make it possible to be present " Whole and entire ( Trent ) " in the Sacrament.
Have not idea what WRT means. It would be better to avoid acronyms. But Christ didn’t speak figuratively. He made it absolutel plain, " This is my Body…this is the chalice of my Blood…" Nowhere in the Gospels or in the Epistles is there a " virtual/potential/logical " description or interpretation of these words. And no where in Trent or any Catechism is such a thing even hinted at. I would say that such thinking is wading in dangerous waters.
continued on next post.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
- Status