I’m not sure about that formulation. The doctrine is that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ. I don’t think change means annihilation. The bread and wine are gone, but they are changed into the body and blood of Christ. The accidents of bread and wine remain. We can’t think of substance in chemical or atomic terms when speaking of transubstantiation.
Without having read the prior responses (sorry), I think the answer to your question is simply that the change is a miracle worked by Christ - and the whole Aristotelian thing is an attempt to explain something that is fundamentally beyond the physical world - it is the very intersection of God, creation/the temporal and the eternal. It is simply a way to try to explain a reality that is inexplicable in this world.
Perhaps so, *annihilation may be too strong a term. But to restate the primary point: In transubstantiation the substances of the bread and wine are changed, but are not exchanged, they are not traded off somewhere (somewhat?) else.
I never thought we could.
This is the only truly repeatable miracle that occurs every time there is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is a miracle because it cannot be explained by science. It is transcendent because Jesus Himself promised that He is present. This is why He said that the Second Temple is greater than Solomon’s Temple because He fulfilled scripture when He Himself, God in the flesh, preached in the Temple before He was crucified. And this is why He said He will be with His Church until the end of time because He is always present in the Blessed Sacrament.
While I agree with pretty much everything you say, I would not call the Eucharist a “miracle,” because with a miracle, we observe a scientifically inexplicable change in the accidents or appearances of something. With the Eucharist, the accidents do not change. It is better than a miracle, but only the substance changes, and that is not something that we can perceive.
You have to remember that Christ’s body is a glorified body. Glorified bodies, as we will be after our own resurrection, are not subject to the limitations of matter, as we are subject to in our earthly life. Remember how Christ was able to pass through solid walls and doors after his resurrection? Well it is the same glorified body that is present in the Eucharist. It can be visible or not visible. In other words, his body is now a " spiritualized " body. It can be any size, it can be visible or invisible. But it is still matter, so it is still composed of matter and form.
No; Christ is present sacramentally, not physically. What’s physically present is what can be sensed – that is, the accidents of bread and wine.
Well, no… not in a philosophical sense. What makes ‘blood’ blood is that it has the substance of blood; what makes ‘blood’ perceptible to us is its chemical makeup.
ependence on another being for its existence. Accidents naturally inhere in the substances they modify. By divine power, in the Holy Eucharist the accidents of bread and wine exist without inhering in their substance, which has been changed through transubstantiation into the substance of Christ’s body and blood.I heard it explained like this at a retreat: The speaker held up a pen and began to describe it on a scientific level. With the end result being that what you saw was actually different than what was scientifically there. The pen appeared to be solid. But on its basic level it was made up of molecules. We have all seen representations of molecules. In his explaination it was the movement of the molecules that made it appear solid when actually they are mostly nothing( or blank space). So things are not always what they appear to be.
But Jesus is truly a human being! Hence the analogy fails.
Oh please no. Please. Anyone who has been around these discussions for a while has seen the same canned list of patristic citations a thousand times. Please spare us.
Thank you for bringing this up.
But this is because what we mean by physical presence invariably refers to the accidents of a thing, not the substance of a thing.
This is precisely the point. And, the accidents present in the Eucharist are the accidents of bread and wine. Therefore, there is no physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. A Real Presence; a sacramental presence; but not a physical presence.
How in the world else would we define physical presence, as opposed to substance?
Yes; He is sacramentally and substantially present. No argument there.
That’s not what I’m claiming.
Are you claiming that the accidents of Christ are present in the Eucharist? On what basis?
No. I agree that the accidents of Christ are not present in the Eucharist. I would also note that even though the accidents of bread and wine are present, they do not inhere in any substance. They do not inhere in Christ. But Christ is corporeally present. That is part of the doctrine. One might ask whether his head and arms and legs are present, and the answer is yes, they are. He is wholly present body and soul. But his accidents are not present to us.This is precisely the point. And, the accidents present in the Eucharist are the accidents of bread and wine. Therefore, there is no physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. A Real Presence; a sacramental presence; but not a physical presence.
How in the world else would we define physical presence, as opposed to substance?
Yes; He is sacramentally and substantially present. No argument there.
That’s not what I’m claiming.
Are you claiming that the accidents of Christ are present in the Eucharist? On what basis?
Agreed; corporeally – but not physically.
No – this doesn’t seem right. Saying it that way seems to make the case for Christ’s presence in the Eucharist being composite (arms and legs and head and feet). However, what’s present is His substance – and that would seem to be simple, not composite.
Sorry, you are wrong. A physical body may exist in this world or it may be glorified. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is a glorified physical body. And it is indeed present after the manner of the sacrament. Christ rose from the dead in his glorified body. Was it a ghost? No, it was a physical body. Thomas put his finger in his side, he ate and drank with his disciples, he talked with them. Yet it was a glorified body, not limited by the restrictions of finite matter or time. Christ cannot be sensed because that would make the Sacrament impossible. He chose to be invisible for that reason among others. Why not read the Summa Theologiae, Part 3, on Christ’s presence.
With due respect to the Angelic Doctor, :twocents: the reason I prefer to describe Our Lord’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament as *Real *rather than *physical *is because the latter description is incomplete and leaves one open to error. In the same way, I would prefer not to describe Our Lord’s presence as merely *spiritual *(nor merely sanguinal, nor merely divine). I cannot deny any of those modes – Our Lord is present body, blood, soul, and divinity – But to express any one of them at the exclusion of the others is incomplete and leaves one open to error.