Luther's Consubstantiation .... or Catholicism's Transubstantiation

[brb3]

1.) When hosts get moldy, mold would be the underlying “substance”. In the case of consecrated hosts that miraculously have turned into flesh, the Eucharistic presence of Jesus would cease (since the species of bread is required for that), and the “substance” would be the same as the “accidents”.

2.) That means in the Lanciano miracle what is present in the miraculous host is both the substance and the accidents of human heart tissue. But, it is not necessarily heart tissue belonging to Our Lord’s heart.

Among other things, it appears to have the accidents of heart tissue in the same state as ours – that is, flesh in its perishable/mortal state, not in the state of Our Lord’s risen and glorious body. (Not that we would even know what that would look like under a microscope!!!) …

3.) But it would not be Our Lord’s Eucharistic presence where we are assured of His real, true, sacramental and substantial presence - body, blood, soul and divinity. I was fortunate enough to visit Lanciano and view the miraculous host.

Except Nita … not all Miracles of the Eucharist, recognized by the Church, resulted in a microscopic visual change. For example the Eucharistic Miracle of Sienna, Aug. 17, 1730

Taken from the website: www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm … then click on MIRACLE heading at top, middle area of homepage.

“With a UNANIMOUS voice, the faithful, priests, bishops, cardinals and popes have MARVELED AND WORSHIPED the holy Hosts, recognizing in them a PERMANENT MIRACLE, both COMPLETE and PERFECT, that has endured for 380 years.
By this miracle the Hosts have remained whole & shiny and have MAINTAINED THE CHARACTERISTIC SCENT of unleavened bread. Since they are in such a perfect state of conservation, MAINTAINING THE APPEARANCES OF BREAD, the Catholic Church ASSURES US that although THEY ARE CONSECRATED IN THE YEAR 1730, these Eucharisitic Hosts are STILL AND TRULY THE BODY [and also the BLOOD, SOUL, DIVINITY ??] of Christ.”

My questions to you. 1.) Consecrated, miraculous preservation, still under appearances of bread … right ? So, still viable Eucharist today … my sister Nita ? They could be offerred to you or I … if not for Churches’ desire to presevere the miracle of Christ for many more centuries, for the faithful to see and venerate.

2.) also … while this article says STILL AND TRULY THE BODY … would we not also say B/B/S/D ? Since Christ is undivided … being undivided & present in either the Bread or Wine blessed offering ?

3.) … So, Christ can/does remain in the Eucharistic miracles. And, if you read the whole article … you will discover that the Church has repeatedly allowed scientists to examine these holy Hosts.

 

[Nita]

Except Nita … not all Miracles of the Eucharist, recognized by the Church, resulted in a microscopic visual change. For example the Eucharistic Miracle of Sienna, Aug. 17, 1730

Taken from the website: www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm … then click on MIRACLE heading at top, middle area of homepage.

“With a UNANIMOUS voice, the faithful, priests, bishops, cardinals and popes have MARVELED AND WORSHIPED the holy Hosts, recognizing in them a PERMANENT MIRACLE, both COMPLETE and PERFECT, that has endured for 380 years.
By this miracle the Hosts have remained whole & shiny and have MAINTAINED THE CHARACTERISTIC SCENT of unleavened bread. Since they are in such a perfect state of conservation, MAINTAINING THE APPEARANCES OF BREAD, the Catholic Church ASSURES US that although THEY ARE CONSECRATED IN THE YEAR 1730, these Eucharisitic Hosts are STILL AND TRULY THE BODY [and also the BLOOD, SOUL, DIVINITY ??] of Christ.”

My questions to you. 1.) Consecrated, miraculous preservation, still under appearances of bread … right ? So, still viable Eucharist today … my sister Nita ? They could be offerred to you or I … if not for Churches’ desire to presevere the miracle of Christ for many more centuries, for the faithful to see and venerate.

.

Yes, this (Sienna) is still the Real Presence of Jesus because the Eucharistic species of bread and wine continued to be present without any interruption – the species never corrupted, at any moment, into something other than the original species of bread and wine that were present when the words of consecration were spoken by the priest back in the 1700’s. (If I understand correctly what happened in this miracle.)
.
That is the whole point – **Jesus’s real presence "endures as long as the Eucharistic species (accidents of bread and wine) 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,." (CCC #1377)

In a Eucharistic miracle where the miracle is that the species of bread and wine is miraculously preserved - continues to subsist - then Jesus’ Eucharistic presence continues to endure.

But in Eucharitic miracles where the miracle consists in the species of bread and wine corrupting into the species of human flesh and blood, there is no Church teaching that it would be the flesh and blood of Jesus. We believe the Eucharist is Jesus because He took a piece of bread in His hand and said “This is My Body”. He never took a thin piece of human flesh and declared “This is My Body” , so we have no words from Jesus to serve as the basis for believing that something other than what appears as bread and wine could be His body and blood present sacramentally.

Note the Church also teaches it is the body of Jesus “whole and entire” that is in the species of bread and wine. When the species become that of a thin slice of heart tissue, only a very small part of a human body is present - not the entire body.

 

[ivebeenshown]

U misunderstand. Trent was addressing the beliefs/teachings of Luther & those teaching Consubstantiation & other things not c/w Transubstantiation. Luther was teaching ‘co-existance’ of bread/wine … along with Christ. Both bread/wine AND Christ being/sharing their SUBSTANCES in the Eucharist. Luther teaching that once the Eucharist was served … the Supper lost it’s miraculous nature, being just ordinary bread/wine.

I understanding what Trent was addressing.

Lutherans used the words [beneath, with, in, under, etc] … to convey the idea of the co-existance. Trent said NO to this teaching. The Council taught that upon Consecration, the bread/wine was TRANSFORMED into Christ … only their appearances/accidents remained. Thus, Christ was Truly Present UNDER their appearances/accidents/species …

The terms accidents refers to the tangible physical properties of something. In this case, bread and wine. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is entirely substantial – body, blood, soul, divinity.

Substance in and of itself does not include physical properties. This is how we can say Jesus is eternal and unchanging even though he took on the flesh of a zygote and grew into an adult man. The accidents, the physical properties, did indeed change, but the substance never once changed – Jesus sacrificed for us eternally.

So no, the bread and wine are not transFORMED – form indicating physical form – but they are transubstantiated. The physical forms of bread and wine remain as hosts to the entire, whole substance of Jesus Christ.

but, NOT the substance of bread/wine.

Right.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

One of the impoprtant things to acknowledge is that a Eucharistic Miracle is a miracle that happens in addition to the miraculous change described by transubstantiation. It is an additional miraculous change, not transubstantiation proper, and not a removal of anything.

Once, a long time ago, I was teaching a class on the Eucharist and made a careless analogy. I said that if you were to somehow look “behind” the appearances of bread you would see Christ. Then I said tht sometimes, in some eucharistic miracles, that is what happens, i.e. That God draws aside the veil of bread appearances to show us what is truly there.

I was wrong back then. There certainly is something “under” the appearances of bread, but because it is there in the manner of a substance you can’t ever observe it with with your sense organs (including amplified ones, like microscopes or infrared cameras, etc). This is because our senses are not ordered towards perceiving bare substances. We know substances through their accidents.

So a eucharistic miracle isnt the removal of bread accidents letting “flesh” or appearances associated with a body shine through. Rather it is the further additional change of bread appearances into other appearances (like fleshiness).

This same concept explains why the bread accidents aren’t “hiding” Christ in a normal instance of transubstantiation, why you wouldn’t expect to find flesh type things no matter how hard you look or how you look (microscope, for instance) , i.e. imagining that we could see evidence of Christ’s presence if we could just get beyond or behind or under or through the pesky bread appearance blocking our way. What is there is there in the manner of a substance and we don’t see bare substances (even under electron microscopes).

VC

 

[Nita]

One of the impoprtant things to acknowledge is that a Eucharistic Miracle is a miracle that happens in addition to the miraculous change described by transubstantiation. It is an additional miraculous change, not transubstantiation proper, and not a removal of anything.

Once, a long time ago, I was teaching a class on the Eucharist and made a careless analogy. I said that if you were to somehow look “behind” the appearances of bread you would see Christ. Then I said tht sometimes, in some eucharistic miracles, that is what happens, i.e. That God draws aside the veil of bread appearances to show us what is truly there.

I was wrong back then. There certainly is something “under” the appearances of bread, but because it is there in the manner of a substance you can’t ever observe it with with your sense organs (including amplified ones, like microscopes or infrared cameras, etc). This is because our senses are not ordered towards perceiving bare substances. We know substances through their accidents.

So a eucharistic miracle isnt the removal of bread accidents letting “flesh” or appearances associated with a body shine through. Rather it is the further additional change of bread appearances into other appearances (like fleshiness).

This same concept explains why the bread accidents aren’t “hiding” Christ in a normal instance of transubstantiation, why you wouldn’t expect to find flesh type things no matter how hard you look or how you look (microscope, for instance) , i.e. imagining that we could see evidence of Christ’s presence if we could just get beyond or behind or under or through the pesky bread appearance blocking our way. What is there is there in the manner of a substance and we don’t see bare substances (even under electron microscopes).

VC

Verbum, do you know of any Church documents that touch on Eucharistic miracles where the accidents are miraculously converted into those of human flesh and/or blood – as to the substance present in such miraculous hosts?
All I’ve managed to find are

1. Aquinas’ teachings in the Summa Theo. He makes a distinction between corruptions that occur miraculously ( newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article8 ) and those that occur from a natural process ( newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm#article4 ).
2. And the following in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”.
   According to the general teaching of theologians, the Real Presence continues as long as the species, which constitute the sacramental signs ordained by Christ, remain. …When the species are corrupted, in place of the body and blood of Christ, those substances probably appear which correspond to the specific nature of the altered accidents.
   But like the Catechism, miraculous corruptions are not specifically mentioned and treated separately by Dr. Ott.
   Since the Catechism (an official source for Church teaching) gives no separate teaching for miraculous instances of corruption of the species, I tend to think the teaching given there (CCC #1377) applies in all cases - natural or miraculous. How do you see it?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Nita,

I see it as a complicated issue. I’m not aware of any “official” sources that speak to it directly, either.

You’ve probably noticed that Aquinas seems to hold that, at least in some instances, a miraculous change of bread accidents doesn’t signal the end of Christ’s real presence, i.e that the substance remains. I think that for Aquinas so long as the foundational accident of dimensive quantity remains the substance can remain. I suppose we could speculate on why he says this, although Im a bit timorous because I dont understand it very thouroughly. But, I think we can say at least that for him there was at least some possibility that in certain cases, the real prsence would persist.

How does that square with the Church’s teaching that when the Host no longer looks like bread (or you could say when the accidents change to the extent that it would normally indicate a substantial change) then the Real Presence of Christ ceases? Again, I’m cautious here because I don’t know if I understand the nuances. Perhaps one possibility would be that we know that this teaching isn’t about all or one accident, i.e there is a continuum. For instance, breaking the host changes its appearance but the Real Presence remains, so size and shape can change to some extent. Maybe color too, and other appearances. So, “Eucharistic Species subsists” doesnt seem to mean any change in appearance. The question seems to be more whether or not we can identify it as “eucharistic species”. Perhaps Aquinas sees it as a continuous identity in certain miracles because of the miraculous and instantaneous change of appearance, i.e. that is still is functioning as the eucharistic species. . . still a sign . . . And that it is identifiable as this particular thing.

Again, I’m speculating on this - assuming that I read Aquinas correctly here, I’m just thinking out loud about how it might fit into everything else.

Does that give you any food for thought? Dont know how helpful that was.
VC

 

[Philthy]

:nope: Cite the Post # … to support your claim.

:yup: Post 35:

SPH1:

The Church teaches that the “accidents” remain, which I understand to be the appearances. So of course science would be able to detect bread and wine; I’ve never thought otherwise.

**Nope **… not according to the Church’s teachings on Transubstantiation.

Appearances are different than the substances. According to the Church, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist … and are transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ. Our eyes, and other senses tell us it is bread and wine we are receiving … but, it is TRULY AND SUBSTANTIALLY Christ, under the appearance of bread & wine.

Thus, if we take the Church’s definition at face value, there is no longer bread [wheat] or wine [fermented etoh grape wine] but ONLY CHRIST alone. This is the great mystery !! What appears to our senses, is not what is truly present. ** Thus, at the molecular level, we should not find carbohydrates/etoh/ or vegetable protein … by chemical / physical testing. **

Do you still stand by this statement? It’s the reason we’re having this conversation…

 

[Verbum_Caro]

 

[Luvtosew]

I’m still checking in here and there, guess no definitive conclusions have been
made, probably no one on this side of heaven really knows.

 

[brb3]

Nita,

You’ve probably noticed that Aquinas seems to hold that, at least in some instances, a miraculous change of bread accidents doesn’t signal the end of Christ’s real presence, i.e that the substance remains.

Good find VC !!

 

[brb3]

:yup: Post 35:

Do you still stand by this statement? It’s the reason we’re having this conversation…

Yes … as I said : “If we accept the Church’s definition at face value” … the Substance [molecular structure] of Bread and Wine are no longer there [co-existing with Christ]. Only the B/B/S/D of Christ remains. We still SENSE bread/wine via their accidents, but we are receiving the Substance of Christ [under the appearances/species] of bread & wine.

Thusly did Trent define Transubstantiation. For you to believe otherwise, would be to promote the heresy of Luther’s Consubstantiation.

 

[brb3]

I’m still checking in here and there, guess no definitive conclusions have been
made, probably no one on this side of heaven really knows.

stay tuned !! The truth always wins the day, the week, the month, …

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But brb3,

In the quote philthy provided you said that we “at the molecular level” we “should not find carbohydrates/etoh”.

Arent you saying that we should find molecules of etoh, etc.?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But brb3,

In the quote philthy provided you said that we “at the molecular level” we “should not find carbohydrates/etoh”.

Arent you saying that we should find molecules of etoh, etc.?

VC

I meant to say:

Arent you saying that we should find molecules of something ELSE?
VC

 

[brb3]

But brb3,

In the quote philthy provided you said that we “at the molecular level” we “should not find carbohydrates/etoh”.

Arent you saying that we should find molecules of etoh, etc.?

VC

No !!

You know I conform to Trent. I take them ‘at face value’ … so, we SHOULD NOT find carbos/etoh SUBSTANCES, only the TRUE PRESENCE of Christ. In the unconsecrated hosts, one would find the Substance of bread & wine … but, not after consecration.

Wine & bread are wine & bread … until the words of Christ are pronounced “This is my body, this is my blood” !!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

See my correction:

Are you saying we should find molecules of something else?

VC

 

[brb3]

I meant to say:

Arent you saying that we should find molecules of something ELSE?

Voila !! Christ [and Trent] are saying the ELSE is the B/B/S/D [GOD-Man Substance] of Christ. In certain instances, Christ might desire his molecular supernatural flesh to be ‘sensed’ … and allow the ‘appearances’ of his body/blood to be visible [Eucharistic miracles]. Normatively however, He does not allow the ‘appearances’ of his body/blood to be seen.

Just as Christ could remove [or reveal] his physical form/appearance to the 12 … He can do the same for us in the Eucharist.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So,

We shouldnt expect to see something else other than bread type molecules, right? We should expect to see carbs and etoh on a molecular level?

 

[Nita]

Nita,

I see it as a complicated issue. I’m not aware of any “official” sources that speak to it directly, either.

You’ve probably noticed that Aquinas seems to hold that, at least in some instances, a miraculous change of bread accidents doesn’t signal the end of Christ’s real presence, i.e that the substance remains. I think that for Aquinas so long as the foundational accident of dimensive quantity remains the substance can remain. I suppose we could speculate on why he says this, although Im a bit timorous because I dont understand it very thouroughly. But, I think we can say at least that for him there was at least some possibility that in certain cases, the real prsence would persist.

How does that square with the Church’s teaching that when the Host no longer looks like bread (or you could say when the accidents change to the extent that it would normally indicate a substantial change) then the Real Presence of Christ ceases? Again, I’m cautious here because I don’t know if I understand the nuances. Perhaps one possibility would be that we know that this teaching isn’t about all or one accident, i.e there is a continuum. For instance, breaking the host changes its appearance but the Real Presence remains, so size and shape can change to some extent. Maybe color too, and other appearances. So, “Eucharistic Species subsists” doesnt seem to mean any change in appearance. The question seems to be more whether or not we can identify it as “eucharistic species”. Perhaps Aquinas sees it as a continuous identity in certain miracles because of the miraculous and instantaneous change of appearance, i.e. that is still is functioning as the eucharistic species. . . still a sign . . . And that it is identifiable as this particular thing.

Again, I’m speculating on this - assuming that I read Aquinas correctly here, I’m just thinking out loud about how it might fit into everything else.

Does that give you any food for thought? Dont know how helpful that was.
VC

Thanks. That’s what I got from Aquinas also. I did notice however that He said where there was a change of the host into flesh, the flesh was not to be considered that of Our Lord, even tho Our Lord was still present substantially if the dimensive quantity remained unchanged,.

I guess what strikes me is the absence of any mention of exceptions in the Catechism section (#1377). It would have been very simple to have added a clause at the end of the sentence – eg. “except in instances of approved miraculous changes where the Eucharistic species is converted into flesh and blood” – if that’s what the Church believes and teaches.

 

[Nita]

Yes … as I said : “If we accept the Church’s definition at face value” … the Substance [molecular structure] of Bread and Wine are no longer there [co-existing with Christ]. Only the B/B/S/D of Christ remains. We still SENSE bread/wine via their accidents, but we are receiving the Substance of Christ [under the appearances/species] of bread & wine.

Thusly did Trent define Transubstantiation. For you to believe otherwise, would be to promote the heresy of Luther’s Consubstantiation.

Trent didn’t say a single word about molecular structure.
Substance does not mean molecular structure. It might mean that in the physical sciences and in ordinary language, but not in theology and philosophy which is the language used by Trent.