"Carrying" "Handling" "Grinding" the body of Christ

[dcs6f4]

I was just looking for a clarification on a few points regarding Objection 3 to question 75 of Aquinas’ Summa. Robert Barron brings up these points in his book Eucharist. Barron explains that the anti-Berengarian oath is a little problematic or over-corrective… “The bread and the wine are the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ… handled and broken by the hands of the priests and ground by the teeth of the faithful.”

Why is it problematic to say that Christ’s body is in different places, however, not problematic to say his body is on different alters at the same time? We should also not say that we are “carrying” the body of Christ when we process with the Eucharist? These are all claims Fr. Barron makes to differentiate between the “proper species” and the “sacramental species” of Christ’s body.

Can anyone help with clarifying his points? Thanks!

Pax

 

[dcs6f4]

Seems as if I have a lot of views on this post but not bites? Do I need to clarify the question or is no one comfortable enough with the topic to answer?

 

[Gorgias]

Seems as if I have a lot of views on this post but not bites?

LOL! Probably because, in a philosophy forum, when one sees a question about the body of Christ, one doesn’t expect to get a discussion on a 1000-year-old Eucharistic heresy!

Here’s my take: when we speak of the Eucharist, we’re speaking of a presence that’s real substantially, not physically, per se. That is, what we experience physically are the accidents of the Eucharist – that is, the accidents of bread and wine. So, what we are crunching is bread and what we’re tasting is wine, but we cannot ‘taste’ Christ in the Eucharist. Our physical senses can only perceive accidents, not substance.

So, Christ is really substantially present on the altar – in fact, on many altars simultaneously. However, what we grind with out teeth, and what we handle or carry with out hands, seem to be the accidents of the Eucharist. Is it the substantial presence of Christ? Yes… but what our teeth and hands experience are only the physical, accidental qualities. Inasmuch as we get too wound up in insisting that our physical, sensory experience is that of Christ, we’re missing the point.

That seems to be the objection to the oath – it seems to confirm the problematic approach to the physicality of the real presence. Although Father Barron rightly points out that the notion of physical interaction with the species is somewhat problematic, I’m guessing that he isn’t mentioning the later problem that developed? (Having asserted that the species really is the body of Christ, later Catholics were unnerved by the notion of crunching on a host, or seeing it broken at the altar, since they went too far and pictured Christ’s body being crunched or broken.)

 

[dcs6f4]

LOL! Probably because, in a philosophy forum, when one sees a question about the body of Christ, one doesn’t expect to get a discussion on a 1000-year-old Eucharistic heresy!

Well, I think I can make the argument that it has its place on the philosophy forum

Here’s my take: when we speak of the Eucharist, we’re speaking of a presence that’s real substantially, not physically, per se. That is, what we experience physically are the accidents of the Eucharist – that is, the accidents of bread and wine. So, what we are crunching is bread and what we’re tasting is wine, but we cannot ‘taste’ Christ in the Eucharist. Our physical senses can only perceive accidents, not substance.

So, Christ is really substantially present on the altar – in fact, on many altars simultaneously. However, what we grind with out teeth, and what we handle or carry with out hands, seem to be the accidents of the Eucharist. Is it the substantial presence of Christ? Yes… but what our teeth and hands experience are only the physical, accidental qualities. Inasmuch as we get too wound up in insisting that our physical, sensory experience is that of Christ, we’re missing the point.

That seems to be the objection to the oath – it seems to confirm the problematic approach to the physicality of the real presence. Although Father Barron rightly points out that the notion of physical interaction with the species is somewhat problematic, I’m guessing that he isn’t mentioning the later problem that developed? (Having asserted that the species really is the body of Christ, later Catholics were unnerved by the notion of crunching on a host, or seeing it broken at the altar, since they went too far and pictured Christ’s body being crunched or broken.)

very helpful, thanks!