Avoiding absurdity in preaching the Eucharest

[Linusthe2nd]

Come on Linus, the Apostles and Christ said nothing of “imperceptible accidents” which is the heart of JimG’s reflections here.

I hope I explained all that in the last two posts. It is important to note that in the Decrees and Canons of trent, the attributes/accidents of Christ are not mentioned at all. All that is said is that he is present " Whole and entire. " It must be assumed that " Whole and entire. " mean that Christ is truely, and really, and actually present just as the Apostles saw him when he gave them the First Eucharist, except in his Glorified Form.

BTW can you source exactly where you believe Aquinas clearly spoke of what you interpret as “invisible/imperceptible accidents” wrt his Glorified Body?

No and I’m not sure he described Christ’s presence using those terms. But he definitely assumed it to be the case. If you read over the section in part 3 of the S.T. dealing with the Real Presence again, that is the only conclusion one can reach. And of course the Catholic Encyclopedia and various Catechisms have used the term " invisible. "

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . Christ didn’t speak figuratively. He made it absolutel plain, " This is my Body…this is the chalice of my Blood…" . . . .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

Here are a few quotations from the Catechism of the Council of Trent ( which remains the most detailed explanation of the Sacrament ) which bear directly on this discussion.

" Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of. Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. He should point out that the word Christ designates the Godman, that is to say, one Person in whom are united the divine and human natures; that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both, and whatever is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood, all of which must be believed to be in this Sacrament. In heaven the whole humanity is united to the Divinity in one hypostasis, or Person; hence it would be impious, to suppose that the body of Christ, which is contained in the Sacrament, is separated from His Divinity. "

It would therefore be heretical to exclude the real presence of his bodily attributes/accidents.

" while we, with a firm and unwavering faith, adore the Divine Majesty present with us, not, it is true, in a manner visible to mortal eye, but hidden by a miracle of power under the veil of the sacred mysteries. "

Thus, it is right to say that Christ is present in an " invisible " manner.

" On the other hand, some things are contained in the Sacrament because they are united to those which are expressed in the form. For instance, the words This is my body, which comprise the form used to consecrate the bread, signify the body of the Lord, and hence the body itself of Christ the Lord is contained in the Eucharist by virtue of the Sacrament. Since, however, to Christ’s body are united His blood, His soul, and His Divinity, all of these also must be found to coexist in the Sacrament; not, however, by virtue of the consecration, but by virtue of the union that subsists between them and His body. All these are said to be in the Eucharist by virtue of concomitance. Hence it is clear that Christ, whole and entire, is contained in the Sacrament; for when two things are actually united, where one is, the other must also be. "

Thus, " Hence it also follows that Christ is so contained, whole and entire, under either species, that, as under the species of bread are contained not only the body, but also the blood and Christ entire; so in like manner, under the species of wine are truly contained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entire. "

" Christ Whole And Entire Present In Every Part Of Each Species
Nor should it be forgotten that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each.

This is also an obvious inference from the narrative of the Evangelists. It is not to be supposed that our Lord consecrated the bread used at the Last Supper in separate parts, applying the form particularly to each, but that all the bread then used for the sacred mysteries was consecrated at the same time and with the same form, and in a quantity sufficient for all the Apostles. That the consecration of the chalice was performed in this manner, is clear from these words of the Saviour: Take and divide it among you. "

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Yes! The thesis of this thread has been justified.

CCC paragraph 1000

Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God’s blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the **one earthly **and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection. St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,18,4-5G 7/1,1028-1029

Hey,
Linus, where does the Catechism of Trent speak of all the 5 qualities of Glorified bodies?

 

[thinkandmull]

Blue Horizon;12830652:

Yes, that would be the normal meaning of “accidents”…?]

Continued.

Now you have something that is very nearly true. Thomas teaches that the " accidents " exist in the substance. But this is not " concomitance. " This is perfectly natural. Now Chirst is present " Whole and entire, " we cannot arbitraily say that his accidents ( quantitative deminsions, limbs, teath, skin, hair, clothes, etc ) are not present. Because then he would not be present " Whole and entire, " he would only be present by his underlying matter-form structure. And that is clearly opposed to everything we read in the New Testament concerning the Eucharist. Futher, Jesus was not talking to philosophers and theologians. He was talking to ordinary men, most of whom were uneducated. They would take his meaning literally. What they saw, is what they believed. They saw Christ just as we would see any man sitting down to table with us - with all his physical attributes and all his clothing, fully dressed. That is what they believed they were receiving and Christ didn’t correct them!!!

No, because a similar idea was condemned by the Church. Some theologian hundreds of years ago went around teaching that tiny, tiny bodies of Christ were actually, physically present in the species. He was condemend and had to submit. That is why it is essential to insist that Christ is present in his Glorified body which posses the properties of subtletly, clarity, and agility, he is presenr " Whole and entire , " but we cannot sense him because he does not wish us to.

You know you are errecting scenarios much more difficut to accept than what Thomas and others have offered, including our Catechisms. And no the comparison you give is not the same. Jesus is present " Whole and entire " whever his flesh is present and wherever his blood is present. And this is by concomitance.

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”.

Jesus’ own words, the words of the Evangelists, the words of St. Paul, the words of Trent cannot be interpreted in any other way.

The answer is Jesus’ bodily attributes ( perhaps that is a less offensive word? ) are actually, really present, not virtually and not by concomitance. Although his body, with all its attributes, is present wherever his flesh and blood are, by concomitance.

So different in fact that he would not be present " Whole and entire. " Do you think Jesus meant to say I am here " Whole and entire, " but absent all of my bodily attributes? Is that what you think Trent meant?

Linus2nd

“They saw Christ just as we would see any man sitting down to table with us - with all his physical attributes and all his clothing, fully dressed. That is what they believed they were receiving and Christ didn’t correct them”

So you are saying that there is a veil of invisible clothing surrounding the host?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes! The thesis of this thread has been justified.

CCC paragraph 1000

Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God’s blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the **one earthly **and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection. St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,18,4-5G 7/1,1028-1029

Hey,
Linus, where does the Catechism of Trent speak of all the 5 qualities of Glorified bodies?

Haven’t looked. But I will check. But the Roman Cathichism goes into it in great depth and it came out just after Vatican 2, or at least was revised then. The Catholic Catechism by Venerable John Harden discusses it.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;12831908:

“They saw Christ just as we would see any man sitting down to table with us - with all his physical attributes and all his clothing, fully dressed. That is what they believed they were receiving and Christ didn’t correct them”

So you are saying that there is a veil of invisible clothing surrounding the host?

I’m saying that the species act as a veil hiding his presence. It is only a figure of speach. It is actually Christ’s will that he should not be seen, as I explained above. The Catechism of the Council uses the figure of a " veil " and I have seen it used in other places.

And of course, since Christ wishes not to be seen, he would also keep his clothing from being seen. I would imagine that his presence in the Eucharist, if it could be seen, would be just as the Apostles saw him after the Resurrection or as he now appears in his natural presence at the right hand of the Father and as we will see him in heaven - if we get there. The Council also uses the term ’ under ’ to describe the way Christ is present in the species. And Thomas Aquinas says that the species ’ contain ’ Christ to explain how Christ fills the deminsions of the species.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes! The thesis of this thread has been justified.

CCC paragraph 1000

Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God’s blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the **one earthly **and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection. St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,18,4-5G 7/1,1028-1029

Hey,
Linus, where does the Catechism of Trent speak of all the 5 qualities of Glorified bodies?

Here is what the Catechism of Trent says: catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed11.shtml

"
The Qualities Of A Glorified Body
In addition to this, the bodies of the risen Saints will be distinguished by certain transcendent endowments, which will ennoble them far beyond their former condition. Among these endowments four are specially mentioned by the Fathers, which they infer from the doctrine of St. Paul, and which are called gifts.

Impassibility
The first endowment or gift is impassibility, which shall place them beyond the reach of suffering anything disagreeable or of being affected by pain or inconvenience of any sort. Neither the piercing severity of cold, nor the glowing intensity of heat, nor the impetuosity of waters can hurt them. It is sown says the Apostle, in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption This quality the Schoolmen call impassibility, not incorruption, in order to distinguish it as a property peculiar to a glorified body. The bodies of the damned, though incorruptible, will not be impassible; they will be capable of experiencing heat and cold and of suffering various afflictions.

Brightness
The next quality is brightness, by which the bodies of the Saints shall shine like the sun, according to the words of our Lord recorded in the Gospel of St. Matthew: The just shall shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father. To remove the possibility of doubt on the subject, He exemplifies this in His Transfiguration. This quality the Apostle sometimes calls glory, sometimes brightness: He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory; " and again, It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. Of this glory the Israelites beheld some image in the desert, when the face of Moses, after he had enjoyed the presence and conversation of God, shone with such lustre that they could not look on it.

This brightness is a sort of radiance reflected on the body from the supreme happiness of the soul. It is a participation in that bliss which the soul enjoys just as the soul itself is rendered happy by a participation in the happiness of God.

Unlike the gift of impassibility, this quality is not common to all in the same degree. All the bodies of the Saints will be equally impassible; but the brightness of all will not be the same, for, according to the Apostle, One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars, for star differeth from star in glory: so also is the resurrection of the dead.

Agility
To the preceding quality is united that which is called agility, by which the body will be freed from the heaviness that now presses it down, and will take on a capability of moving with the utmost ease and swiftness, wherever the soul pleases, as St. Augustine teaches in his book On the City of God, and St. Jerome On Isaias. Hence these words of the Apostle: It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power.

Subtility
Another quality is that of subtility, which subjects the body to the dominion of the soul, so that the body shall be subject to the soul and ever ready to follow her desires. This quality we learn from these words of the Apostle: It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body.

These are the principal points which should be dwelt on in the exposition of this Article.

Advantages of Deep Meditation on this Article
But in order that the faithful may appreciate the fruit they derive from a knowledge of so many and such exalted mysteries, it is necessary, first of all, to point out that to God, who has hidden these things from the wise and made them known to little ones, we owe a debt of boundless gratitude. How many men, eminent for wisdom or endowed with singular learning, who ever remained blind to this most certain truth ! The fact, then, that He has made known to us these truths, although we could never have aspired to such knowledge, obliges us to pour forth our gratitude in unceasing praises of His supreme goodness and clemency. "

In some ways our current Catechism is, in my opinion, defecient. It could be much more complete on the subject of the Eucharist and on the resurrection of the body. I highly recommend studying the Catechism of the Council of Trent as a supplement to the current Catechism.

Link to the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm

You can still buy copies.
Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Linusthe2nd;12831908:

“They saw Christ just as we would see any man sitting down to table with us - with all his physical attributes and all his clothing, fully dressed. That is what they believed they were receiving and Christ didn’t correct them”

I don’t disagree.
But when was Jesus “present” yet “intangible” to the apostles as Linus opines .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

thinkandmull;12832344:

I don’t disagree.
But when was Jesus “present” yet “intangible” to the apostles as Linus opines .

At the Last Supper. They received the Christ in the bread and wine but they could not perceive him in the species. So they naturally assumed that they were receiving the same Christ, as he appeared to them at that moment, living, but in a different form, since they could not perceive him in the specie and he had told them, " This is the chalice of my blood which will be offered for you. "

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Haven’t looked. But I will check. But the Roman Cathichism goes into it in great depth and it came out just after Vatican 2, or at least was revised then. The Catholic Catechism by Venerable John Harden discusses it.

Linus2nd

The Roman Catechism is another way of saying the Catechism of Trent, in the usage of Popes and the Old Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[thinkandmull]

The “strength” of the accidents is what is at issue here. Did Jesus at the Last Supper feel the apostles eating Him?

 

[Aloysium]

Mystici Corporis Christi Encyclical Of Pope Pius XII:

For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condescension of divine love for us! O inestimable dispensation of boundless charity! In the crib, on the Cross, in the unending glory of the Father, Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The Roman Catechism is another way of saying the Catechism of Trent, in the usage of Popes and the Old Catholic Encyclopedia

Yes, you are correct. An earlier English edition, 1829, translated by Rev. J. Donovan, of Maynooth, Ireland, was titled, " The Catechism of the Council of Trent. " Later editions were called " The Roman Catechism. " I have a 1985 Daugters of St. Paul edition and it is the same. But it is organized differently than the same book you find on line under the title of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. The material in each is essentially the same except the sentence structure and some of the phaseology have been updated and the Table of Contents headings and Chapter headings or different. And I did find, after some searching that my " Roman Catechism " contains all the information about impassibility, subtlety, agility, brithtness ( The old Catechism of the Council of Trent calls this clarity ). It also contains all the information on the Real Presence that the old CCT contains but under slightly different headings.

Thaks for bringing this to my attention, I was just about to order a copy of the CCT. By the way the CCT can be downloaded on PDF free of charge at:
saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf

It is the same as modernized Roman Catechism, it is essentially the same structure.

The link to the CCT I used in my posts must have been to the 1829 translation by Rev. J. Donovan.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The “strength” of the accidents is what is at issue here. Did Jesus at the Last Supper feel the apostles eating Him?

It is a Glorified body, it possesses only the properties of impassibility and subtlety. By impassibility a glorified body suffers no pain or loss and by subtlety the intellect has complete control of the material, it can and does " spiritualize " the material. The answer is no,

Linus2nd .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That does not follow at all. Christ is imperceptible to us because he realized that a visible appearance would be misinterpreted '… It has nothing to do with his ability to sense the world himself.

Well that’s a great non-sequitor!
If Jesus is the invisible man, as you opine, we cannot see him and he cannot see us with his invisible retinas because light goes right through them.

That doesn’t mean I don’t hold to the real presence, I just find your particular “explanation” more absurd than helpful as it doesn’t reconcile with how we use the words “bodily presence.” Please don’t try and tell us your explanation is Church Teaching…I suggest its only your personal interpretation of Aquinas and if it ends in absurdities then its an unlikely understanding of Aquinas sorry.

BTW Is it correct to presume your “invisible body of Jesus” is alive in the Eucharist?

" 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.

Yes, esoteric, highly refined, highly conceptualised and abstract, understood by only a few, thin and far removed from the wealth of the raw experiences they attempt to systematise. I didn’t mean they were wrong…just of very very limited use in answering the very new questions we ask of those Resurrection events today.

Take them with a grain of salt Linus, they are not by that reason (in the Catechisms of the past) necessarily 100% correct, compulsory or infallible…which may explain why they are happily left out of recent Catechisms.

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 don’t intrinsically object to them. But I do think there is more than one way to skin a cat. Explanations that seem coherent and apt in one age can lose their currency in another age that throws questions at the primary Scriptural experiences these “solutions” were never designed to answer.

I can’t see that a better explanation is possible. If you have one please explain it.

Why?
One cannot find new clothes for the Emporer without first accepting that he may not be wearing any. I am comfortable with identifying contradictions/inadequacies even if I do not yet know exactly which new direction is the best direction.

Are you comfortable with tolerating the as yet inexplicable Linus?
So many philosophers have to have an answer to tout even if its clearly inadequate.
Why?

Quote: BHorizon
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”).

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? "

Linus, spend some time trying to actually understand what I said here.
If Jesus’s Transfig was perceptible then the bodily accidents thereof were also visible.

But below you made the strange statement that Jesus’s bodily accidents in the Resurrection can be present but intangible . I don’t think so. He just isn’t there…surely?

Of course nothing during Christ’s forty days on earth after his Resurrection required Jesus to be bodily present but imperceptible. Jesus appeared suddenly in the Upper Room, twice, even though the doors were locked.

And this somehow conclusively proves Jesus was bodily present for a few secs in the closed room with intangible bodily accidents?

I think the more reasonable explanation is that he was never in the room until he materialised.

But it doesn’t really matter whether this explanation is more reasonable or not.
Because it is a reasonable alternative then your “it must be” hypothesis of imperceptible bodily accidents is but your personal interpretation only of what happened in those 40 days.

Personally I have never understood those forty days to mean Jesus had to be bodily present on earth all of that time. And even if he were I see no reason why he couldn’t have been tangible and visible the whole time…doing his “beam me up scotty” thing all over the place including, suddenly, the Upper room. One moment he was present, the next moment he wasn’t.

Why posit something so complicated and self contradictory as "imperceptible bodily accidents .

As I asked you below:

… have you an authoritative source that states Jesus’s Resurrected bodily accidents are present even when he is “imperceptible”).

How about responding - I would love to see what you have personally interpreted as “imperceptible bodily accidents”.

Maybe I am wrong and your understanding of Jesus’s glorified state is correct…but I don’t think so.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Here are a few quotations from the Catechism of the Council of Trent ( which remains the most detailed explanation of the Sacrament ) which bear directly on this discussion.

" Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of. Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. He should point out that the word Christ designates the Godman, that is to say, one Person in whom are united the divine and human natures; that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both, and whatever is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood, all of which must be believed to be in this Sacrament. In heaven the whole humanity is united to the Divinity in one hypostasis, or Person; hence it would be impious, to suppose that the body of Christ, which is contained in the Sacrament, is separated from His Divinity. "

It would therefore be heretical to exclude the real presence of his bodily attributes/accidents.

" while we, with a firm and unwavering faith, adore the Divine Majesty present with us, not, it is true, in a manner visible to mortal eye, but hidden by a miracle of power under the veil of the sacred mysteries. "

Thus, it is right to say that Christ is present in an " invisible " manner.

" On the other hand, some things are contained in the Sacrament because they are united to those which are expressed in the form. For instance, the words This is my body, which comprise the form used to consecrate the bread, signify the body of the Lord, and hence the body itself of Christ the Lord is contained in the Eucharist by virtue of the Sacrament. Since, however, to Christ’s body are united His blood, His soul, and His Divinity, all of these also must be found to coexist in the Sacrament; not, however, by virtue of the consecration, but by virtue of the union that subsists between them and His body. All these are said to be in the Eucharist by virtue of concomitance. Hence it is clear that Christ, whole and entire, is contained in the Sacrament; for when two things are actually united, where one is, the other must also be. "

Thus, " Hence it also follows that Christ is so contained, whole and entire, under either species, that, as under the species of bread are contained not only the body, but also the blood and Christ entire; so in like manner, under the species of wine are truly contained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entire. "

" Christ Whole And Entire Present In Every Part Of Each Species
Nor should it be forgotten that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each.

This is also an obvious inference from the narrative of the Evangelists. It is not to be supposed that our Lord consecrated the bread used at the Last Supper in separate parts, applying the form particularly to each, but that all the bread then used for the sacred mysteries was consecrated at the same time and with the same form, and in a quantity sufficient for all the Apostles. That the consecration of the chalice was performed in this manner, is clear from these words of the Saviour: Take and divide it among you. "

Linus2nd

Linus I am asking wrt Jesus’s glorified body in his Resurrection.
All your above examples seem to be the Eucharist.

You stated his mode of imperceptibility was the same in both the Eucharist and in his glorified body at the resurrection. I disagree.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon;12830652:

Yes, that would be the normal meaning of “accidents”…?]

Continued.

Now you have something that is very nearly true. Thomas teaches that the " accidents " exist in the substance. But this is not " concomitance. " This is perfectly natural. Now Chirst is present " Whole and entire, " we cannot arbitraily say that his accidents ( quantitative deminsions, limbs, teath, skin, hair, clothes, etc ) are not present. Because then he would not be present " Whole and entire, " he would only be present by his underlying matter-form structure. "

I think you’ve missed the subtlety of my point.
ie. just as Jesus’s body is virtually present in the consecrated wine (actually his blood) not directly but by concomitance…so too perhaps such a virtual presence can be said of his bodily accidents in his substance. That is, they are there by substantial causal principles but not in full actuality. This may actually be more like the mature body being virtually present in a fertilised ovum as below.

No, because a similar idea was condemned by the Church. Some theologian hundreds of years ago went around teaching that tiny, tiny bodies of Christ were actually, physically present in the species.

No, your understanding is too gross if you refer to the homunculus understanding! I am not saying a little mature body is fully present at all.
I am saying the mature human body is present in a fertilised ovum by causal principles in a very real way. Why could this not be an explanation of how Jesus is bodily present in the Eucharist by reason of his substantial form alone.

Does Trent teach that Jesus’s bodily accidents proceed fully from his substance in the Eucharist (along with the bread accidents) in the same way as they did in the substance of his normal earthly body when he lived?

The answer is Jesus’ bodily attributes are actually, really present, not virtually and not by concomitance.

Is that clearly stated anywhere? You will have to excuse me if I am always wary of your personal interpretations which usually go way beyond Magisterial texts.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus I am asking wrt Jesus’s glorified body in his Resurrection.
All your above examples seem to be the Eucharist.

You stated his mode of imperceptibility was the same in both the Eucharist and in his glorified body at the resurrection. I disagree.

You can disagree but it wouldn’t be correct to do so. We know that Christ rose in his Glorified body. And I explained that he did indeed exercise some of properties of his subtlety, and clarity, at least. It is just that he wanted his Apostles to see him that he did not exercise them fully. Whereas in the Eucharist he exercised them fully.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;12831908:

I think you’ve missed the subtlety of my point.
ie. just as Jesus’s body is virtually present in the consecrated wine (actually his blood) not directly but by concomitance…so too perhaps such a virtual presence can be said of his bodily accidents in his substance. That is, they are there by substantial causal principles but not in full actuality. This may actually be more like the mature body being virtually present in a fertilised ovum as below.

I think the word ’ virtually ’ is improper here. Concomitance here means actually present but according to the demands of the subject ( i.e., the bread and wine ). And Christ’s bodily accidents would be present according to the demands of his bodily substance or nature. Besides, the Catechism of the Council of Trent ( the Roman Catechism as Thinkandmull has kindly pointed out ) makes it perfectly clear that his accidents were indeed present in the Eucharist.

No, I don’t think this presence would be present as a mature body is virtually present in an ovum. Christ was quite clear, he said, " This is my body,and this is my blood…" No loyal son of the Church has ever nuanced this clear meaning. The Church has always insisted we take them literally. All attempts at a nuanced meaning have been condemned. And while you are right in saying that the explanation of Thomas Aquinas on these things is speculative, still they are the best explanation we have and priests, bishops and Popes have been studying his reasoning here for 800 years, his teaching has never been condemned or seriously questioned.
.

No, your understanding is too gross if you refer to the homunculus understanding! I am not saying a little mature body is fully present at all.

I am not saying at all that a " little " Christ is present. I said that this understanding was condemned by the Church.

I am saying the mature human body is present in a fertilised ovum by causal principles in a very real way. Why could this not be an explanation of how Jesus is bodily present in the Eucharist by reason of his substantial form alone.

Because it contrary to the clear, direct meaning of Christ’s own words and the Church has always condemned any attempt to nuance Christ’s clear and direct words. You are trying to nuance Christ’s clear and direct meaning, therefore you are skating on very thin ice.

Does Trent teach that Jesus’s bodily accidents proceed fully from his substance in the Eucharist (along with the bread accidents) in the same way as they did in the substance of his normal earthly body when he lived?

No, because there was no need to do so. Trent was not teaching philosophy or science, it simply took Christ at his word, just as the Apostles and Disciples did. When Christ said, " This is my body…and…this is my blood…" Trent took him at is word and simply said that Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament " Whole and entire. " ( Chapter III of Session 13 of the Council )

Is that clearly stated anywhere? You will have to excuse me if I am always wary of your personal interpretations which usually go way beyond Magisterial texts.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read what I post. The Catechisms are Magisterial texts. If you are looking for these words " The answer is Jesus’ bodily attributes are actually, really present, not virtually and not by concomitance. " are to be found in the actual Dogma, the answer is no. The Catechisms simply say that Jesus’ bodily attributes are actually present. Now they do not give an exhaustive list of those attributes. The Roman Catechism simply says, " What must be explained at this point is that in this sacrament is contained not only the true Body of Christ - and that means everything that goes to make up a true body, such as bones, nerves, etc. - but Christ whole and entire. " ( Chapter 33, pg 229, 1985 edition. )

Linus2nd