Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is a transmitter of diseases?

[catholictiger]

And this, still without being able to quote any Church Fathers, or Doctors being of the opinion that our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of disease.

I don’t think anyone is going really going to adress this issue, as far as the church fathers go. Its not an issue they will really have to deal with, because there probably wasn’t any disagreement at the time so they had no need to argue it.

But you could argue that what STA says here is argument enough to say disease can be transferred through the sacraments. Especially if bacteria is an accident of the wine lets say.

It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord’s body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Some of these posts just keep getting better and better. Now we’re being presented with the assertion that the Body and Blood of Christ mixes with pathogens. . . nice . . . uch:

 

[catholictiger]

Some of these posts just keep getting better and better. Now we’re being presented with the assertion that the Body and Blood of Christ mixes with pathogens. . . nice . . . uch:

hmm I don’t think I said this but at the moment of consecration NONE of the accidents change but the ENTIER substance changes into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Only if you can convince me that diseases are part of the substance then you can convince me that the sacraments can’t transmit disease

 

[NeedImprovement]

hmm I don’t think I said this but at the moment of consecration NONE of the accidents change but the ENTIER substance changes into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Only if you can convince me that diseases are part of the substance then you can convince me that the sacraments can’t transmit disease

I’ll try not to let you down catholictiger (), and although it won’t be exactly as you require, I’m hoping the thread will move in a certain direction which might cause all of us to grant several concessions (not necessarily a change of mind - maybe more like an enhancement) , and also hoping we’ll learn a bit more from each other as we go.

I’ve read all your posts - just a little squeezed for time trying to respond to everybody. Thanks for participating.

 

[NeedImprovement]

We know that the communicant can receive under the Precious Blood, or with low gluten hosts. But I see no reason whatsoever why a “pre-existing condition” would make any difference. If Jesus won’t let people who receive Him to get sick why should a pre-existing condition make a difference to the Almighty Lord of the Universe? . . .

Perhaps you might try thinking this out one or two steps further MA. If we go down this road, we ultimately have to examine why anyone gets sick at all ( or in your words why “Jesus lets people get sick”), and may also very easily end up asking among many other diversions, why for example, Protestants can’t receive Holy Communion.

I’ve asked if we could remain on topic. You guys are more than intelligent enough to do it. If you still don’t wish to, or think what’s quoted above is absolutely pertinent and necessary, then please at least be kind enough to explain which pre-existing condition you’re speaking of : You’ve just admitted that celiac disease is not an obstacle to Holy Communion, and I’ve confirmed for you earlier that even acute dysphagia circumvented by a PEG is not an obstacle to Holy Communion either, for any minister who, upon consultation with the attending medical specialist(s), has expertise in this field.

So specifically which pre-existing condition do you presume to be talking about ?

I think the quote above might be just a little myopic in terms of causality as well. It’s something else you may wish to look at ; that is, once you have specified precisely which pre-existing condition you’re speaking of.

It’s in everybody’s better interests not to go into that 'hood MA – blaming God for human suffering (albeit inadvertently). It’s what can happen when we ask why at an importune moment or spot.

 

[oieiriererq]

We are receiving His glorified Body, and the graces that we are open to receive.

---

Sacs Longchamp Pliage

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Perhaps you might try thinking this out one or two steps further MA. If we go down this road, we ultimately have to examine why anyone gets sick at all ( or in your words why “Jesus lets people get sick”), and may also very easily end up asking among many other diversions, why for example, Protestants can’t receive Holy Communion.

I’ve asked if we could remain on topic. You guys are more than intelligent enough to do it. If you still don’t wish to, or think what’s quoted above is absolutely pertinent and necessary, then please at least be kind enough to explain which pre-existing condition you’re speaking of : You’ve just admitted that celiac disease is not an obstacle to Holy Communion, and I’ve confirmed for you earlier that even acute dysphagia circumvented by a PEG is not an obstacle to Holy Communion either, for any minister who, upon consultation with the attending medical specialist(s), has expertise in this field.

So specifically which pre-existing condition do you presume to be talking about ?

I think the quote above might be just a little myopic in terms of causality as well. It’s something else you may wish to look at ; that is, once you have specified precisely which pre-existing condition you’re speaking of.

It’s in everybody’s better interests not to go into that 'hood MA – blaming God for human suffering (albeit inadvertently). It’s what can happen when we ask why at an importune moment or spot.

Very well. I will try to explain this as clearly as I possibly can.

Gluten allergies are not a barrier to receiver communion, but only because the accidents are different than normal. The communicant can receive communion only by receiving a low gluten host or the Blessed Blood. The communicant cannot receive the Sacrament with its normal accidents. This means that the accidents CAN have an effect on health.

Does this make sense?

 

[catholictiger]

I’ll try not to let you down catholictiger (), and although it won’t be exactly as you require, I’m hoping the thread will move in a certain direction which might cause all of us to grant several concessions (not necessarily a change of mind - maybe more like an enhancement) , and also hoping we’ll learn a bit more from each other as we go.

I’ve read all your posts - just a little squeezed for time trying to respond to everybody. Thanks for participating.

I completely understand and please don’t feel like you have to respond to me. I understand what is like when you are the only one and 20 people are arguing the other side and you can only argue with 1 or 2 of them.

take you time

 

[NeedImprovement]

Very well. I will try to explain this as clearly as I possibly can.

Gluten allergies are not a barrier to receiver communion, but only because the accidents are different than normal. The communicant can receive communion only by receiving a low gluten host or the Blessed Blood. The communicant cannot receive the Sacrament with its normal accidents. This means that the accidents CAN have an effect on health.

Does this make sense?

Not totally, at least, not to me . You’ve just said :

“the communicant can receive communion only by receiving a low gluten host or the Blessed Blood” , followed by , “ The communicant cannot receive the Sacrament with its normal accidents”

– The Precious Blood (Body, Soul and Divinity) under the species of wine is the Sacrament under its normal accidents.

We should consider that the Church has been given the power of loosing and binding – and this concerning the sacraments as well. The low gluten host is valid matter for transubstantiation – as is mustum when conditions are respected . Perhaps our Lord willed that a secondary solution (low gluten hosts) to the problem come through His Church along with the built-in one (species of the Precious Blood).

Again, what you are speaking of is a pre-existing condition. What the topic of this thread addresses, is more that which someone with gluten intolerance or a gluten allergy, would, similar to the other faithful , be concerned about when receiving valid Holy Communion through the recommended means.

People with gluten allergies and gluten intolerance, and more specifically Catholics within this group, really don’t have it easy ( one may read further about some of the difficulties they face by clicking here ) . But that isn’t what this thread is about . The gluten allergy you are addressing is what St. Thomas Aquinas would identify as a “physical evil” – but you appear to be (perhaps inadvertently) attempting to link that “physical evil” to the (accidents of) the Blessed Sacrament ; the underlying sentiment of which isn’t so different from what you were asking back in post # 16 :

Why would do you think our loving God allows cancer? He has control of that too. . .

This would seem a most opportune time to point out : For anyone else following this thread who might not be too formerly grounded, or clear on philosophy and/or theology as it would pertain to physical evil and spiritual evil, or *physical evil and moral evil *, this *THE PROBLEM OF EVIL * provides a nice general layout, touching on the basics by using some practical questions. It would provide useful background in the event that we progress further.

 

[NeedImprovement]

"NeedImprovement:

One would surmise, from this thread that most posting think themselves able to explain/define how our Blessed Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament.

. . . I’m using Aquinas’s distinctions, taken from Aristotle, on substance and accidents and relating them to the Eucharist… . .

That’s easy enough to see . However, I really doubt whether St. Thomas Aquinas would consider his description of transubstantiation to be an *explanation of how * our Blessed Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament ; in light of the following quotes :

The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change: we know it only by faith in God’s word
therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/transubstantiation.htm

V.—The teaching of Catholic philosophy on the distinct reality of certain absolute, not purely modal, accidents was occasioned by the doctrine of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, though the arguments for the theory are deduced from natural experience. The same doctrine, however, suggests the further question, whether such accidents may not be separable from substance. Reason alone offers no positive arguments for such separability. The most it can do is to show that separability involves no inherent contradiction, and hence no absolute impossibility ;

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Accident

. . . While aptitudinal extension or internal quantity is so bound up with the essences of bodies that its separability from them involves a metaphysical contradiction, external quantity is, on the other hand, only a natural consequence and effect, which can be so suspended and withheld by the First Cause, that the corporeal substance, retaining its internal quantity, does not extend itself into space. At all events, however plausibly reason may seem to explain the matter, it is nevertheless face to face with a great mystery.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

 

[NeedImprovement]

Several more . . .

Although Christ ascended into heaven depriving mankind of his visible presence, He remains with us hidden beneath the veil of the Eucharistic host to continue on the work of redemption, making intercession for us before the Father through the renewal of His sacrifice and His abiding presence. Faith alone makes us aware of His presence, for reason cannot comprehend it. Yet reason knows that what is of divine faith and divinely revealed is infallibly certain.

rosary-center.org/ll49n3.htm

As posted earlier from Father Albert Mary Joseph Shamon’s book Behind the Mass ; [pg 27]

" First of all, transubstantiation does not explain how our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament. That is a mystery of faith. Transubstantiation simply shows that the doctrine of His Presence is not something contrary to reason."

The Sacrifice of Transubstantiation , Fr. Alvin Kimel
(highlights mine)

Who hasn’t stumbled trying to explain the scholastic theory of transubstantiation? More than one intelligent Catholic has found himself lost in its metaphysical thicket . . .

Yet a hasty dismissal of the scholastic analysis of the eucharistic presence is surely not the wise course. Transubstantiation is the fruit of the theological and philosophical reflection of some of the greatest minds of Western Christendom. One cannot read Aquinas’s analysis of the eucharistic conversion without being impressed by both its metaphysical subtlety and metaphysical audacity. The Trinitarian formulations of Gregory of Nyssa or Augustine are no less complex and challenging; but we do not dismiss them because we find them difficult to comprehend, nor are we surprised by their antinomies and paradoxes. We know that language must be broken if the ineffable mystery of God is to be faithfully stated. Transubstantiation also attempts to bring to speech a mystery that exceeds our comprehension and verbal expression. As Herbert McCabe acknowledges, “We do not know what we are talking about when we speak of transubstantiation” (God Matters, p. 149). We do not know what we are talking about, because we cannot grasp what it means for a change to occur at the fundamental level of existence itself. The scholastic separation of substance and accident may seem inconceivable, yet it is this breaking of language that brings illumination.
pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/the-sacrifice-of-transubstantiation/

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’ll respond in bullets:

-Very well, I’ll accept that you’ve given a good response to my posts on gluten allergies.

-The doctrine of transubstantiation may not tell us how the Eucharist is transformed, something that is indeed a mystery, but it DOES tell us that the physical properties of the host are still present. Since they’re still present nothing about my point changes, and there is no good reason to believe the Eucharist can’t carry viruses or bacteria since the host’s physical properties have not changed.

-I am aware of possible answers to the problem of evil (although Dr. Kreeft’s article is quite good). The fact of the matter is that God is omnipotent and He does indeed allow evil to exist.

I believe, of course, that He has good reasons (and the article gives a few excellent examples), but ultimately God controls EVERYTHING. So He is “responsible” for evil in the sense that He has good reasons for allowing it.

BUT-that’s a topic for another thread anyway.

 

[NeedImprovement]

To review

So in other words, you are saying that a consecrated Host can transmit disease ?

Not at all. I’m saying that physical objects might have bacteria or viruses on them, and since the accidents of the bread and wine are physical the bacteria and viruses ON the consecrated host can transmit disease.

Bacteria and viruses transmit disease. Our Lord never promised that viruses and bacteria would become the consecrated host.

The physical accidents of bread and wine remain. Since viruses and bacteria are physical I see no reason that they would disappear.

Although it was a skillfully worded effort (), I still question the above quote.

I don’t believe it is correct to say “bacteria and viruses transmit disease” : Bacteria and viruses cause disease . It is the *spread of these germs *that we refer to as transmission. Regardless of whether we have yet specified the modes of purported transmission , you are indeed still saying that a consecrated Host can transmit disease.

I think it’s just as evident here where you’ve said our Blessed Lord can “carry” viruses or bacteria (highlights mine) :

. . . -The doctrine of transubstantiation may not tell us how the Eucharist is transformed, something that is indeed a mystery, but it DOES tell us that the physical properties of the host are still present. Since they’re still present nothing about my point changes, and there is no good reason to believe the Eucharist can’t carry viruses or bacteria since the host’s physical properties have not changed . . .

Granted – transubstantiation is not an easy subject , but as “nothing about your point has changed” , it would be my hope that we might be able to state it more succinctly at some juncture thus facilitating examination of various implications.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I believe ConstantineTG ‘s comment

Arguing about “physical accidents” is just a sublime way of saying its just bread and wine.

is about what is happening on the thread. It isn’t criticizing St. Thomas Aquinas or Catholic doctrine, it’s criticizing a deficient representation of that doctrine in a restrictive argument ; an argument that cannot go beyond the accidents. When we depart from or impair precise terminology, this idea that Christ is somehow not present in the accidents, (which is the Host), can be misleading and conducive to one setting up (in one’s imagination) a false division between the intimately linked characteristics/accidents of the consecrated bread and wine and our Blessed Lord’s Presence.

From the moment of transubstantiation, the Blessed Eucharist must be seen through the eyes of faith , if we are to understand anything at all. As St. Augustine says :

“Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.”

As knowledgeable a man as he may have been before receiving his infusion of faith, St. Augustine remained convinced that faith precedes knowledge.

Earlier in the thread quotes were provided confirming that our Lord is present in every (even the smallest) particle of the consecrated Host – surface particles – interior particles – and all of this before it is ever broken into smaller pieces.

Concerning Catholic doctrine of the Blessed Eucharist, even in Catholic Encyclopedia we find expressions which don’t get hung up on the accidents and are much closer to what ConstantineTG implies , returning, as they must, to the words of institution (all highlights mine) :

When, therefore, He Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: “This is my body”, the bread became, through the utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been converted into the latter. The words of Institution were at the same time the words of Transubstantiation. Indeed the actual manner in which the absence of the bread and the presence of the Body of Christ is effected, is not read into the words of Institution but strictly and exegetically deduced from them . . . On the other hand, the synecdoche is plain in the case of the Chalice: “This is my blood”, i.e. **the contents of the Chalice are my blood, and hence no longer wine. **oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Eucharist

Here is another from Karl Rhaner:

"What Christ gives us is quite explicit if his own words are interpreted according to their Aramaic meaning. The expression ‘This is my Body’ means this is myself"

• Karl Rahner

. . . An excerpt from Father James Farfaglia’s: I Love Being a Catholic Priest

Each time I celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is as though a new Bethlehem and a new Calvary have become present for me. How could I be bored **when I hold Jesus in my sinful and trembling hands? **

What intimacy! When Jesus comes to us, he comes to us as communion. God and man become one. He comes to us as the divine lover. His communion with us is more intimate than the intimate union of husband and wife or a mother with her unborn child.

 

[NeedImprovement]

And, how could we leave out the most appropriate of all – what St. Thomas Aquinas himself says on this matter in the Summa ? . . .

III, 75 :5,8

Reply to Objection 2. There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception. And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.

Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above (Article 5), some of these expressions may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that “bread is the body of Christ,” or, “bread will be the body of Christ,” or “the body of Christ is made of bread”; provided that by the word “bread” is not understood the substance of bread, but in general “that which is contained under the species of bread,” under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.

 

[catholictiger]

And, how could we leave out the most appropriate of all – what St. Thomas Aquinas himself says on this matter in the Summa ? . . .

please explain how this quote supports your side, because I can argue that it supports mine.

 

[catholictiger]

I believe ConstantineTG ‘s comment is about what is happening on the thread. It isn’t criticizing St. Thomas Aquinas or Catholic doctrine, it’s criticizing a deficient representation of that doctrine in a restrictive argument ; an argument that cannot go beyond the accidents. When we depart from or impair precise terminology, this idea that Christ is somehow not present in the accidents, (which is the Host), can be misleading and conducive to one setting up (in one’s imagination) a false division between the intimately linked characteristics/accidents of the consecrated bread and wine and our Blessed Lord’s Presence.

ok I know your not responding to me that much and I understand why not please don’t feel pressured to do so. But I feel like I need to address this accident issue because from my understanding of accident it doesn’t seem like people have a grasp on what accident means, mainly Aristotle’s view because Aquinas just restates his view point.

ok imagine for a second a hard core sports fan. He is white, tall, fat, has brown hair, and some other things. Lets say for a game he paints his entire body purple. You can no longer see the color white on him, lets also say he dies his hair gold or blond. His hair is no longer brown. Now let me ask you a simple question is the color white a part of his substance? Is the color brown a part of his hair? Or does, tall, white, fat, brown, just describe his substance? Also lets say he looses wait and becomes skinny? does he go under a substantial change? or does what explains him just change?

now to the host. It is small round, white, has the taste of bread, is kinda rigid not soft, and so on and so forth. Now is round, white, taste of bread part of the substance? or does it just describe what the substance is.

now change bread into Jesus. Also explain what it looks like. You will probably explain round white small and so on and so forth. So as you can see the accidents haven’t changed. So Jesus doesn’t in fact have to be a part of the accidents only has to change the substance.

this still leaves open the discussion if the substance of disease changes if it is attached to the bread, or the wine.

but I hope my post cleared up what accidents mean.

 

[JimG]

. . . now change bread into Jesus. Also explain what it looks like. You will probably explain round white small and so on and so forth. So as you can see the accidents haven’t changed. So Jesus doesn’t in fact have to be a part of the accidents only has to change the substance.

That’s right, the accidents don’t change. The accidents of bread and wine remain after the consecration.

I’m not sure if the point the OP is trying to make is that Jesus retains the accidents of bread and wine after the consecration, but if so, that would not be correct. That accidents of bread and wine, following transubstantiation, do not inhere in any substance.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

NeedImprovement, you give a lot of wonderful quotes on the Eucharist, most of them relating to how Holy is it is and how wonderful Jesus’s presence is, and how reverential we must be around the Host. All of which I agree with. If a consecrated host were dropped on a scummy, dirty floor scuffed up by shoes I would eat it to avoid desecration of the host.

But I don’t see how any of this relates to the idea of germs (I think we can agree that calling bacteria and viruses germs allows for ease of usage) being present on physical objects.

Let’s get even more basic here. The Host is a physical object. Physical objects can carry other physical objects on top of them, including germs. Now we ingest the physical object, with the germs on top of it. Then we conclude that the germs have been transmitted by the physical object into our bodies.

The consecrated host, although it now contains the Real Presence, is still a physical object. Therefore it can still carry other physical objects, including germs. Therefore the consecrated Host can transmit the germs into our bodies when ingested.

 

[NeedImprovement]

please explain how this quote supports your side, because I can argue that it supports mine.

Actually, I intend to include it in support of an assertion in the near future in the hope of clearing up some confusion. In the interim, feel totally free to present your argument based on that excerpt from the Summa if you wish.

Thanks to all you guys for replying - catholictiger, JimG ,MarcAnthony ; for every post actually. I think it will help all of us and everyone who reads them become a little more informed and a little more aware re the Holy Eucharist.