Digestion of the Holy Eucharist

[Brian777]

I post this issue here because it deals with the Eucharist of course.

I came across this argument against the Holy Eucharist, on baptist blog-site…

“They believe they are receiving Jesus Christ by eating this rite and eating His literal flesh and blood to become “holy” only to flush “Jesus” down the toilet when it time for waste removal.”

is there any theological statement that discusses the digestion of the host, does it become bread after Christ permeates throughout our bodies? What happens? just curious.

 

[kurtmasur]

I post this issue here because it deals with the Eucharist of course.

I came across this argument against the Holy Eucharist, on baptist blog-site…

“They believe they are receiving Jesus Christ by eating this rite and eating His literal flesh and blood to become “holy” only to flush “Jesus” down the toilet when it time for waste removal.”

is there any theological statement that discusses the digestion of the host, does it become bread after Christ permeates throughout our bodies? What happens? just curious.

I am in no way theologically qualified to answer your question. However, I can try to paraphrase what I have read from theologians themselves on this matter (I’m sure other members here could post better answers).

The Holy Eucharist involves transubstantiation of the bread and wine. Defined properly, transubstantiation is: “the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist while all that is accessible to the senses remain as before.”

So the eucharist has all the physical characteristics of bread and wine, but it is Jesus present in them. Jesus will be present in them as long as they retain their physical characteristics of bread and wine.

During digestion, they will lose their physical properties of bread and wine, and with those physical properties lost, so will the presence of Jesus be lost as well.

 

[mercygate]

During digestion, [the accidents of bread and wine] will lose their physical properties of bread and wine, and **with those physical properties lost, so will the presence of Jesus be lost **as well.

Bingo. Nicely put.

 

[Eucharisted]

Jesus is no longer present under the appearance of bread when His Body is digested; hence, our bodies digest food, not Jesus. But even if He is no longer in us under the appearance of bread, if we recieved Him worthily He is still with us, reiging in our hearts as He reigns in Heaven as King.

 

[tee_eff_em]

To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and

endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist

. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

The process of digestion breaks down the Eucharistic species so that they no longer subsist and the Eucharistic presence ceases.

tee

 

[Brian777]

cool thanks everyone, that cleared up my confusion.

God bless you all!

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Actually only the appearance of bread and wine as it relates to our sense intellect remains, as is related in the Thomistic sense of phantasm, the mental ability to “know” an object. The reality is the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and only the species remains to our sense apparatus, our brain. A good source on this is from Pope Paul VI in the document Mysterium Fidei. www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Earnest,

I’ve been mulling over your post (mulling is a dangerous occupation!).

I may be misunderstanding what you actually meant to convey. It seems to me that one could interpret your phrase
Earnest Bunbury:

only the appearance of bread and wine as it relates to our sense intellect remains, as is related in the Thomistic sense of phantasm

as implying that only the phantasm remains and not the extra-mental object which is apprehended by our senses.

But then when you say
Earnest Bunbury:

only the species remains to our sense apparatus

it seems to me that you are saying that the sensible species (and therefore a sensible reality) remains.

The latter portion of your quote seems to more accurately represent the truth of the matter, since the accidents which remain have their own independent reality and being (irrespective of a mind to apprehend them). In other words, they really exist, just as before, except they do not inhere in a subject.

Maybe I just completely misunderstood you (and/or mangled Aquinas).

Thanks Earnest, and since I haven’t had a change to welcome you to the forums, welcome!
VC

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Hi Earnest,

I’ve been mulling over your post (mulling is a dangerous occupation!).

I may be misunderstanding what you actually meant to convey. It seems to me that one could interpret your phrase only the appearance of bread and wine as it relates to our sense intellect remains, as is related in the Thomistic sense of phantasm as implying that only the phantasm remains and not the extra-mental object which is apprehended by our senses.

Yes, because the reality has changed. The object has changed. Aquinas states in “On Being and Essence” that the “notion of species is one of the accidents that follow upon the nature because of the being it has in the intellect” chapter 3 no. nine. The smell and taste do not exist outside the mind.

But then when you say ** only the species remains to our sense apparatus** it seems to me that you are saying that the sensible species (and therefore a sensible reality) remains.

Sensible reality exists only in the intellect.

The latter portion of your quote seems to more accurately represent the truth of the matter, since the accidents which remain have their own independent reality and being (irrespective of a mind to apprehend them). In other words, they really exist, just as before, except they do not inhere in a subject. Maybe I just completely misunderstood you (and/or mangled Aquinas).

If the reality of the object is changed, the accidents (as in red in a rose) don’t exist in the new reality, outside of the sense perception of the object, which is not reality. No. 46 of Mysterium Fidei states the sign and finality change due to the reality changing. Bodily nourishment becomes now spiritual nourishment. The bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. To say it is both Christ and bread is limiting Christ to a crunchy, doughy, round object. Thus we don’t digest Jesus. Reality exists in God, as God can cause all to cease to be. This is how God can know everything and why sin is pernicious because it causes God to give being to acts contrary to Him.

Thanks Earnest, and since I haven’t had a change to welcome you to the forums, welcome!
VC

THX, Happy to be here.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Earnest,

Thanks for the reply. I think I disagree with you on some points.

Yes, because the reality has changed. The object has changed.

I agree that the reality of the substance has changed, but it seems to me the accidents (in this unique case) have an independent reality, and they haven’t changed.

The smell and taste do not exist outside the mind.
Sensible reality exists only in the intellect.

I agree if you mean the sensible *species *or the intelligible species only exist in the observer, but they originate from some sensible thing (which exists outside the mind).

If the reality of the object is changed, the accidents (as in red in a rose) don’t exist in the new reality, outside of the sense perception of the object, which is not reality.

This is because the red of the rose changes along with the rose, i.e. when a substantial change causes an accidental change, is it not? Furthermore since accidents are (normally) individuated by their subject, if the subject (rose) changes, the accidents can’t be the same as before. BUT, in the Eucharist, although their is a substantial change (and a total one, involving both matter and form) the accidents remain in being, and do not subsist in a subject. And their being allows them to effect other being.

Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual being, the consequence is that everything stands in the same relation to action as it does to being. Therefore, because, according to what was said above (Article 1), it is an effect of the Divine power that the sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the substance of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they continue in their action. Consequently they retain every action which they had while the substance of the bread and wine remained, now that the substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and blood of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external bodies. (ST, III, 77, 3)

In sum, it seems to me that Aquinas holds that

These accidents acquired individual being in the substance of the bread and wine; and when this substance is changed into the body and blood of Christ, they remain in that individuated being which they possessed before, hence they are individual and sensible.(ST, III, 77, 1, reply obj. 3)

That action of the still existing accidents (which exist as an extra-mental reality) on the senses gives rise to the perception of them.

The fact that the accidents still exist, just as before, in reality, seems to be taught by Catechism Council of Trent taught when it said,

the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any;

When the catechism speaks about accidents “present(ing) themselves. . .to our senses” and when Aquinas speaks about accidents “acting”, it seems clear to me that the accidents have an extra-mental reality all their own.

Thanks for the discussion!
Any thoughts?
VC

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I was hoping someone else would jump in, but this thread is almost done for.

I do not disagree with the above, my point was from the aspect of reality as it exists in God. “I think therefore I am”? is more like “God thinks therefore I am”. The philosophical question of how we know is based, for me as proposed by philosophers (that I can’t remember or find in my books which is the reason for this post taking so long Mr Verbum Caro), on phantasm, the mental recreation of an object in the mind that is not reality but only a phantasm of what is “real”. This reality is based in God and is not known except in Him thus the object is what God makes it, not what we see. This is my view and could be wrong but is the basis for my post saying that sensible reality exists only in the intellect.

From Mysterium Fidei: For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species…

For me, the species is only what is seen, thus could have no basis in reality other than what God makes it to be which is now the Body and Blood, the Soul and Divinity of Jesus and not any form of “Consubstantiation” which, if Jesus is united with the bread and wine, makes Jesus digestible, an untenable conjecture.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Mr. Bunbury,

Thank you for the response. Some thoughts:

I do not disagree with the above, my point was from the aspect of reality as it exists in God. “I think therefore I am”? is more like “God thinks therefore I am”.

You’ve hit on a important point here. All being apart from God’s being is sustained in existence by God. Technically when we give the definition of “substance” as that which exists in itself and does not inhere in another, what remains unsaid is how that existence comes about and how it is preserved. In both cases, it is from God and preserved in being by God.

Nevertheless, we are speaking of the accidents of some thing. Both the substance AND the accidents are real, have being, and exist apart from the mind of the observer. The difference is that where a substance exists in itself, accidents (normally) exist or inhere in an underlying substance. It seems to me that whatever mechanism we wish to develop about the way we perceive the reality of substance or accidents is a bit of a different consideration.
Earnest Bunbury:

The philosophical question of how we know is based, for me as proposed by philosophers (. . .) on phantasm, the mental recreation of an object in the mind that is not reality but only a phantasm of what is “real”.

This is true in Aquinas’ system, but the phantasm is generated by the senses based upon the extra-mental reality that exists outside of the senses. You are right that the phantasm isn’t reality, but there still is an extra-mental reality upon which it is based.

I mentioned above that accidents (which really exist) normally exist in another being. This isn’t the case with the Eucharist – here the accidents (although they still really exist apart from our minds*)* inhere in no underlying being. God keeps the accidents directly in being (the same way God keeps substances directly in being).

It’s a fine point, but in my view a corollary to the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence and the eucharistic change.

For reference here is a passage from Fr. Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholicism:

The Sacramental Accidents retain their physical reality after the change of the substance. (*Sent. certa.)

*Many Cartesian Theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries (. . .) denied the physical reality of the accidents, by applying to the doctrine of the Eucharist, the teaching of Descartes, that there are not absolute accidents, that is, really distinct and separable from the substance, but only modal accidents, that is not really distinct from the substance and therefore also not separable from it. They declared the sacramental appearances to be subjective impressions of the senses effected in a miraculous manner by the omnipotence of God.

This opinion is incompatible: a) With the teaching of the Council of Trent, which says that all appearances “remain,” that is, stay behind after the transformation of the terminus totalis a quo. b) With the whole teaching of Tradition, which has not the slightest doubt that an objective reality corresponds to the impressions of our senses (. . .) c) With the concept of Sacrament, which demands an objective sign, if the Sacrament is not to become a merely apparent Sacrament.

If the accidents which remain in the Eucharist are subjective and not objective then God would be creating the illusion of reality in regard to them, which seems somewhat unbecoming. Especially since, as is mentioned by Ott, sacraments are sensible signs. . . real stuff we touch.

What do you think Mr. Bunbury? I think, now, that I see how you are approaching it. You *aren’t *saying that the appearances only exist in the mind, are you? Maybe what you are saying is that the appearances (which really exist outside of the mind!) don’t correspond to any underlying substance. That is certainly true!
Thank you very much for the discussion! :tiphat:
VC

 

[VociMike]

I wonder how they deal with the fact that God is omnipresent? Must really freak them out.

 

[zab]

Catholic Answers has a library that has answers for questions you might have. Here is a link to Scripture and Tradition that may be of help.
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I was close to the Cartesian theologians view due to the thought that the species is separate from the new reality of the object and that the change resulted in a reduction of the object into the new reality of the object, which I see is wrong, THX. It is strange they would come to that conclusion, as the basis for Descartes hold on life was that God would not deceive him and that he could know from his own knowing of himself as a starting point on which to build further knowledge, I guess that this is not incorrect.

I wonder how they deal with the fact that God is omnipresent? Must really freak them out.

As would the concept of God giving us our being and reality, thus mankind making Him give being to our acts contrary to Him in His Holiness and Perfection is why we need the sacrifice of the Mass.