Pope St. Gelasius I and the Eucharist

[RSiscoe]

Alissa:

Question: In reference to the Eucharist, what does “accident” mean? …All that is left are the “accidents”. What is the meaning of that word (in this context)? --Alissa

It means that which is perceived by the senses: taste, smell, appearance, etc. The substances changes, from bread to God, while the “accidents” (that which appears to the senses) remains the same.

God Bless,

 

[rlg94086]

Reformed Rob:

Robert (rlg94086),

Since no other Catholics are pointing this out, I feel that I must do so. I believe, from Church teaching, that you are mistaken. Or maybe you’re saying something and I’m misunderstanding it.
Basically, the bread and the wine are NOT present. Their accidents are, that is so that you don’t partake of Christ’s body and blood under their proper “species.” But the whole of the bread is changed into the whole of the substance of Christ’s body.

Later on in the new catechism,
CCC 1376
“this holy council (Trent) now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, …”
Quoting the Council of Trent

Ok, and St. Thomas (Book 3, Question 75, Article 2)
Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ’s true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration

Reply to Objection 3. The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be said later (5), suffice for its signification; because the nature of the substance is known by its accidents.

However, the accidents see Article 5 of the same question:

On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of Prosper (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): “Under the species which we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and blood.”

I answer that, 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.

So, I think it’s safe to say you may have been misunderstanding what the CCC was teaching. The bread and wine only look, feel, taste, smell like bread and wine, but that’s not what they are. And you wouldn’t be deceived, for your intellect, which is above your physical senses, knows it’s Christ, and your senses perceive the physical accidents of the bread and wine, so they are not deceived. Your faith and intellect are above, but not contrary to your senses.

Sorry for being so long, I thought this was important. And if I’m wrong, somebody please correct me before I come into the Church with a wrong understanding of this.

Rob,

Thank you for the correction. I misunderstood the Catechism’s teaching…confused by the wording. I thought it was saying that both were present. It hasn’t been a big issue for me, so I hadn’t done the research.

Sorry for misrepresenting. I’m always learning…

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Hey Robert #1, I totally understand. Wow, I’m thankful that I’ve been put through the grinder so to speak, it’s made me to be sure about what the Church teaches that is so often misunderstood. I just need to remember to be charitable in it.

I do want to have that bond of unity with you Catholics, to be considered superstitious for our belief in Christ’s teachings. I think it’s pretty close. I’ll certainly be in prayer for my strength and readiness. The Eucharist is worth it!

I knew that objection in the first post would be answered easily enough. But I wanted to see it happen. Thanks

Robert #2

 

[rlg94086]

Reformed Rob:

Hey Robert #1, I totally understand. Wow, I’m thankful that I’ve been put through the grinder so to speak, it’s made me to be sure about what the Church teaches that is so often misunderstood. I just need to remember to be charitable in it.

I do want to have that bond of unity with you Catholics, to be considered superstitious for our belief in Christ’s teachings. I think it’s pretty close. I’ll certainly be in prayer for my strength and readiness. The Eucharist is worth it!

I knew that objection in the first post would be answered easily enough. But I wanted to see it happen. Thanks

Robert #2

Rob,

I noticed your bio says Presbyterian. I’m a convert from the Presbyterian Church. I’m guessing you’ve already read some Scott Hahn. If not, you might want to since he was a Presbyterian minister/biblical scholar.

God bless you in your journey,

Robert.

 

[CommonMan]

Well the inital question seems to have been side tracked or I missed the answer, if one exists.

The dogma of transubstantiation is clearly not expressed by Gelasius. How can this be?

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

ps . The term consubstantiation has never been a Lutheran concept or a word used by Luther to describe the Lord’s Supper. It’s a myth and distortion of Luthers teachings.