How the Miracle of Transubstantiation Is Possible

[Tannhauser_1509]

It is often said that God can not create or effect something which is non-existable, such as a square circle. However, why do Catholic philosophers say that God can allow the substance of Christ to exist apart from his physical accidents, i.e., under the accidents of what is proper to the substance of bread and wine? Transubstantiation is truly miraculous, seeing as it is not normal in nature for a substance to exist apart from its accidents, but how is this miracle not another example like God creating a square circle?

Gracias.

 

[Wesrock]

This is a good question, and I think it’s best to go to Saint Thomas, as I’m not actually intimately familiar with how he explained the change.

newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

Sections 73 - 83 concern the Eucharist. 73 - 77 are probably all profitable reading regarding the issue here, and earlier portions serve as a foundation for later, but I think Thomas addresses such objects under section 77 (accidents).

Objection 1. It seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament without a subject, because there ought not to be anything disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject. Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament.

I answer that, The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (Question 75, Article 2); nor in the substantial form, for that does not remain (75, 6), and if it did remain, “it could not be a subject,” as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ’s body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ’s glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.

Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is, nay more, the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do not pass from subject to subject, so that the same identical accident which was first in one subject be afterwards in another; because an accident is individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one time in one subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of its own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect only what they signify.

Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin’s womb, “without the seed of man” (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).

Reply to Objection 1. There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained by a special privilege of grace, as is evident in the raising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege which are outside the common law. And so, even though it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to be in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the order of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on account of the reasons given above (75, 5).

Essentially, it seems that the accidents are preserved by the divine grace of God. While not possible in the ordinary nature of things, it can be made possible by God.

This is not the same as a square circle. Or perhaps to use Aquinas’ own example, a (euclidean, which for the remainder of this example, will not be repeated) triangle with angles adding up to less than 180 degrees. It is essential to a triangle that it’s angles add up to 180 degrees. Therefore, for a triangle to exist with angles less than 180 degrees, it both is and is not a triangle at the same time. That’s absurd. The shape violates what is essential (and not accidental) to the triangle, so it cannot be a triangle. Same could be said for a square circle.

That an accident could be preserved apart from a subject is not a violation of what is essential to the either subject. To be an accident is to not be part of (for or against, really) the essence of a thing.

Still briefing myself on this. But it’s not that the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ has the accidents of bread and wine, it’s that the accidents are preserved by divine grace in the absence of a subject.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

This is a good question, and I think it’s best to go to Saint Thomas, as I’m not actually intimately familiar with how he explained the change.

newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

Sections 73 - 83 concern the Eucharist. 73 - 77 are probably all profitable reading regarding the issue here, and earlier portions serve as a foundation for later, but I think Thomas addresses such objects under section 77 (accidents).

Essentially, it seems that the accidents are preserved by the divine grace of God. While not possible in the ordinary nature of things, it can be made possible by God.

This is not the same as a square circle. Or perhaps to use Aquinas’ own example, a (euclidean, which for the remainder of this example, will not be repeated) triangle with angles adding up to less than 180 degrees. It is essential to a triangle that it’s angles add up to 180 degrees. Therefore, for a triangle to exist with angles less than 180 degrees, it both is and is not a triangle at the same time. That’s absurd. The shape violates what is essential (and not accidental) to the triangle, so it cannot be a triangle. Same could be said for a square circle.

That an accident could be preserved apart from a subject is not a violation of what is essential to the either subject. To be an accident is to not be part of (for or against, really) the essence of a thing.

Still briefing myself on this. But it’s not that the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ has the accidents of bread and wine, it’s that the accidents are preserved by divine grace in the absence of a subject.

But is it not in the essence of humanity to have tangible flesh and blood? I’m having trouble keeping this straight: so the substance of man is both form and matter (hylomorphic); but does not the matter have to conform to certain qualifications in order to retain the form of man? To possess black skin is accidental, but is it the case that not to possess skin, in general, would be a deficiency in the substance of man?

I’m just confused, because the “soul and divinity” part makes sense when talking about the substance appearing under certain accidents, but to speak of the “body and blood” of Christ appearing under certain accidents causes me to run into perplexities.

 

[Karen107]

But is it not in the essence of humanity to have tangible flesh and blood? I’m having trouble keeping this straight: so the substance of man is both form and matter (hylomorphic); but does not the matter have to conform to certain qualifications in order to retain the form of man? To possess black skin is accidental, but is it the case that not to possess skin, in general, would be a deficiency in the substance of man?

I’m just confused, because the “soul and divinity” part makes sense when talking about the substance appearing under certain accidents, but to speak of the “body and blood” of Christ appearing under certain accidents causes me to run into perplexities.

So don’t speak of the accidents…The scriptures often spoke of using things of the earth to heal… Such as Jesus putting mud on peoples eyes to cure blindness and oils for healing, and even cloths.

If you see things with your human mind with your human eyes you see wine and bread, but if you see things with your spiritual mind with the eyes of faith you see and experience the body and blood of Jesus. The eyes being the window to the soul, if brightness from a light comes into your eyes your whole body will be filled with light… And who is the light?.. Jesus…and Jesus will fill your soul when you consume Him… Jesus used the words ‘this is my body’ when raising up the bread to break and give to His disciples that bread becomes His Body, and ‘this is my blood’ about the wine and the wine changes to the precious Blood of Jesus… This is an eternal offering as God is eternal… When Jesus who is the Word of God, says something the words come true… Like God said Let there be light and there was light… So we believe Jesus and know that miracle is eternal so that we can be with Jesus in eternity even while we are still in our human condition…And this is the great gift Jesus left us before He died…

 

[Kliska]

It’s also my understanding that the Body and Blood present is the glorified Body and Blood, not the pre-risen Body and Blood. If that is the case, then the characteristics of the glorified Body and Blood are not limited to the characteristics of the pre-glorified state. So, for example, His glorified Body and Blood were capable of passing through earthly matter.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

It is often said that God can not create or effect something which is non-existable, such as a square circle. However, why do Catholic philosophers say that God can allow the substance of Christ to exist apart from his physical accidents, i.e., under the accidents of what is proper to the substance of bread and wine? Transubstantiation is truly miraculous, seeing as it is not normal in nature for a substance to exist apart from its accidents, but how is this miracle not another example like God creating a square circle?

Gracias.

But isn’t it by definition that “miracles” aren’t “possible?” That’s what makes them miracles. This is where I think our Eastern brethren have an advantage over us Latins: Eastern teaching seems to me much more comfortable with mystery and doesn’t try to analyze it as happens in the West.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

But isn’t it by definition that “miracles” aren’t “possible?” That’s what makes them miracles. This is where I think our Eastern brethren have an advantage over us Latins: Eastern teaching seems to me much more comfortable with mystery and doesn’t try to analyze it as happens in the West.

No, I don’t think that is true. I think the issue here is distinguishing logical impossibilities from suprarational mysteries of faith.

 

[Gorgias]

No, I don’t think that is true. I think the issue here is distinguishing logical impossibilities from suprarational mysteries of faith.

Right – although I think I’d make the distinction along the lines of “logical impossibilities” and “naturally occurring phenomena”.

 

[John_Martin]

We have the term “transubstantiation” and think about it.
The twelve did not; they simply had Jesus at one time saying “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh… Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
(Many left off from following him because of this.)
Then the twelve also heard, “take this and eat it; this is my body given for you… the chalice of my blood of the covenant; Drink from it all of you…etc.”
No understanding of the technical aspect. They only had Jesus holding something out for them and wanting them to eat what he gave them, and drink what he gave them.

And they ate, and they drank, we surmise.

Now, their real victory is their submission to Jesus and his call to eat and drink; it is his “problem” to give life to those who take and eat, take and drink, and his problem to raise them up on the last day.

We do not have to perceive his physical body in the host, nor his blood in the chalice.

We do have to eat, with the “thought” that we are eating flesh, no matter what we taste, and drinking blood, no matter what we taste, and the thought that Jesus himself is looking at us take these in our hands and mouths and chewing and swallowing as he watches us, with a knowing smile of happiness. He delighted in watching the twelve take and eat, and he is delighting as he watches us.

 

[John_Martin]

…
…
Then the twelve also heard, “take this and eat it; this is my body given for you… the chalice of my blood of the covenant; Drink from it all of you…etc.”
No understanding of the technical aspect. They only had Jesus holding something out for them and wanting them to eat what he gave them, and drink what he gave them…

And they ate, and they drank, we surmise.
…

By the way, I speculate that the reason we do not see (read of) the twelve eating and drinking what is being handed to them is because we ourselves are the conclusion of that scene, we (in every Mass, in every generation known as ‘today’) are at that table actualizing the conclusion of the disciples, we are the twelve, eating and drinking what we are handed, what they are struggling to understand. And we also end up saying, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” We say “Amen” because it is Jesus, and not because we know what we are doing.

The real miracle of Transubstantiation is that we take, put in our mouths, taste, chew, sip, swallow, and do not walk away without doing these.
Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you wish to go away also?”

 

[fred_conty]

I cannot be an angel and a man at the same time … contradiction.
A figure cannot be a square and a circle at the same time … contradiction.

Accidents are qualities of man or creatures, since man is a creature. God can support the existence of any creature except a contradiction which cannot exist.

All the accidents of Jesus’ humanity are present in the Eucharist, tho they are not seen with the human eye. The glorious body of Jesus has all the accidents of his pre-glorious body, tho the glorious body may appear to be invisible. So also the accidents of the Eucharist Jesus appear invisible.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is often said that God can not create or effect something which is non-existable, such as a square circle. However, why do Catholic philosophers say that God can allow the substance of Christ to exist apart from his physical accidents, i.e., under the accidents of what is proper to the substance of bread and wine? Transubstantiation is truly miraculous, seeing as it is not normal in nature for a substance to exist apart from its accidents, but how is this miracle not another example like God creating a square circle?

Gracias.

There is no reason why God should create a square circle, so we should not bother ourselves about that.

There is a reason why Jesus should enter the bread and wine, which becomes his body and blood. He wants to become one with us so that we are truly the Body of Christ.

 

[ynotzap]

It is often said that God can not create or effect something which is non-existable, such as a square circle. However, why do Catholic philosophers say that God can allow the substance of Christ to exist apart from his physical accidents, i.e., under the accidents of what is proper to the substance of bread and wine? Transubstantiation is truly miraculous, seeing as it is not normal in nature for a substance to exist apart from its accidents, but how is this miracle not another example like God creating a square circle?

Gracias.

Transubstantiation: passage from one substance into another. The mystery of Transubstantiation,was defined by the Council of Trent as a singular and wondrous conversion of the total substance of bread into the body of Christ and the total substance of wine into the blood of Christ, the external appearances only remaining the unchanged. Conversion is the passing of one thing into another. It is a singular conversion eg. unique in the whole order of nature. In fact, all conversions that take place in the world either stop at the quantitative or qualitative change of things, or at most go as far as to change their substantial form as in the change of wine into vinegar.

In nature we find no conversion that changes matter itself, the common substratum on which is imprinted all the varieties of the corporeal world. This is precisely what happens through divine omnipotence in the Eucharist: the total passing of both, the matter and the form of bread into the body of Christ, only the accidents remain intact and unchanged

This singular conversion, is altogether outside the orbit of experience. It is mysterious because it is foreign to experience from which the intellect ascends naturally to its ideas, or concepts, we can not conceive adequately but must satisfy ourselves with weak images and analogies

A thing can not be a square and a circle at the same time, it is either one or the other, to say that God can create a contradiction of this nature is erroneous. The concept of a circle can not be the concept of a square, this violates the principle of identity

Luther rejected Transubstantiation, admitting only co-existence of the substance of bread and the body of Christ, the Transubstantiation is not one and the other substance. It is neither a kind of hypostatic union of bread with the body of the Lord