Simple Google like “proof-texting” of a literally translated Latin text from Aquinas is not really enough to make the case that transubstantiation is a “miracle”.
Especially when today’s Catholic Theology at the same time clearly denies such a thing:
" Thus, e.g., the
creation of the
soul is not a miracle, for it takes place in the ordinary course of
nature. Again, the
justification of the sinner, the
Eucharistic Presence, the
sacramental effects, are not miracles for two reasons: they are beyond the grasp of the senses and they have place in the ordinary course of
God’s supernatural Providence."
(Catholic Encyclopedia).
How do we explain this apparant contradiction?
It is rather simple, and the usual explanation in such cases.
The word “miracle” has changed its meaning over time not only in english but also in latin.
If we abide by the accepted modern theological definition of english “miracle” (requiring something extraordinary being perceived by the senses) then why do authors ancient and modern still apply this word to the Eucharist?
It is because the Latin word which is translated is ambiguous and in ancient time had at least two meanings. The classic meaning was “wondrous”, often interchangable with the Latin word for “Mystery”. Hence we classicly speak of the “Mysterium Fidei” after transubstantiation (let us proclaim the mystery of faith).
By the time of Aquinas when theological thought was becoming more rigorous and scientific Aquinas and others started using the Latin word in a stricter sense meaning extraordinary natural changes. So while transubstantiation is a wonder and a Mystery…in english it is not really a miracle - even though the old latin word for miracle could be used to describe all three meanings in ancient texts.
In english “miracle” is defined by most theologians and scientists as only possessing the above strict meaning of the old Latin word.
Which is why Aquinas, in his poorer english translations, is sometimes seen to use the word “miracle” to mean bother a “wonder” and a true miracle in the strict sense.
If we understand Aquinas’s system and definitional vocab we can be certain he cannot mean that transubstantiation is a “miracle” even when he is translated into english this way.
So Vico your quotes above are poorly translated, he really means “wonder” or “mystery”.
I accept that even Aquinas may have slipped up himself because there is evidence in his later works that he tried to correct his earlier works on this point.
Regardless, it is clear in current Catholic Theology (as opposed to the writings of pious mystical authors) that transubstantiation is not properly called a “miracle” in todays english meaning of that word. Traditionally it is called a Mystery in Roman Catholicism - as in Byzantium I believe.
