Problem with Transubstantiation

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, if Jesus is bodily present it must be his whole body of course!
However the issue I am raising is whether his “whole body” can be said to be “fully present” if not “properly” communicated to us in the Eucharist as he is in heaven. In heaven his sensible species are communicated “properly.”

The Christ you receive in Communion is exactly the same as He is in Heaven, except you cannot see Him in Communion and in the Species He is Present " after the manner of the Sacrament, " as Thomas says. That means all that I have said before.

Yes, the “Person of Christ” is wholly and fully present in the Eucharist as He is in heaven. That is a different matter. “Seeing” a Person (which appears analogcial) is a different order from “seeing” bodily sensible species. As Aquinas seems to say, even glorified eyes will not see Jesus’s bodily presence in the Eucharist - He can only be seen in heaven.

The Christ received in the Sacrament has all the elements of Sensible Accidents Christ has in Heaven except you cannot see them or sensebly apprehend them by reason of the Miracle or because the properties of a glorified body is not subject to the laws of our material, limited universe." What Thomas said is correct, we can only see him in Heaven.

Linus you have refrained thus far on commenting on the Jesuit article I posted above…
(“God might leave the substance without any of its accidents. Some accidents…He does remove in a way impossible to nature: for example, the quantity of Christ’s Body is left without its connatural extension in space: the Sacred Body is just where the small, round Host is, but it does not become correspondingly round and small.”)

What you say is correct. I haven’t read the article yet. However, I do not see how that would square with the phrase " the Whole Christ " which the Church uses. I will read the article tonight and tell you what I think.

That suggests you disagree. But is there any philosophic contradiction in this opinion and would you say it explicitly contradicts Aquinas?

Yes, off hand I would disagree, I think Thomas makes sense, but I will let you know later.

Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus2nd, Verbum Caro - would you go along with the following:

“…we find that some accidents can be removed and leave the substance intact, as when a ball loses its velocity… Created means suffice to bring about these removals; but how much further Divine power could go on stripping off accidents while the substance endured, we must not pretend to determine. … in the Blessed Sacrament God leaves the accidents of bread without their substance, so He might leave the substance without any of its accidents. Some accidents…He does remove in a way impossible to nature: for example, the quantity of Christ’s Body is left without its connatural extension in space: the Sacred Body is just where the small, round Host is, but it does not become correspondingly round and small.”

It comes from a very stolid article by a Jesuit philosopher/theolgian on substance/accidents here.

O.K. now, give me a hint??? Just " where " is " here " ??? Give me a paragraph or something, that is a pretty long article !!

Off hand I will repeat what I said before. Thomas did speak of First and Second Substance, at least I think he did and if not someone else did. In Second we still do not see the " substance, " but we do see the accidents.

As to you question about " proper " senseble species ( accidents ), I agree that these we will see only in Heaven. However all the accidents of the Whole Christ are present under the Sacramental Species, but in the manner of the Sacrament. They are there but we can’t see them, taste them, touch them.

And yes, Christ’s quantity is present also, again after the manner of the Sacrament, even in its dimensive aspect. You can read Thomas and see how he explains that.

Again I reiterate what I said before. " This presence is called ’ real ’ …because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present. " ( ccc, # 1374, Paul Vl ). Or again , " In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist " body and blood, together with the soul and divinity , of our Lord Jesus Christ and , therefore, *the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. * "( CCC # 1374, Council of Trent ).

When we use terms like " wholly," and " entirely, " or phrases like “…because it is presence in the fullest sense…” I don’t see how you could mean anything but second substance by which all the accidents are understood to be present. Then again, how could the body and blood " nourish " us if the accidents were not present?

He appears to say, similar to myself, that Jesus’s (sensible) bodily absence is to be explained by stripping some of His body’s accidents rather than other explanations that might involve impassibility or glorification.

O.K., it was just an idea. But none of His accidents are stripped away. The whole manner of His presence is explained as a Miracle.

A new question:
When we say that the substance of bread does not remain…does that refer to bread’s 2nd substance as well? We do speak of “eucharistic bread” afterall and in this phrase “bread” is the noun. We don’t say “breadly Eucharist”. Is it not through 2nd substance (a sort of “accident”) that we locate essence. Are we to say that the essence of bread no longer remains in the Eucharist as well? Probably, just want to be sure .

Yes, we ( at least I ) are speaking of second substance here too. But because there must be a sacramental sign, the accidents remain behind without a subject in which to inhere ( this is part of the Miracle).
You are asking some real tough questions. Good. You are thinking. Linus

 

[brb3]

What does Aquinas say of the 8th Century Lanciano Eucharist miracle ?

Certainly he was asked to explain …

 

[rom422]

I’m glad you posted your errata. I had noticed when you first posted that you used the term “proper accidents” instead of “proper species” and wanted to point it out but hadn’t gotten around to it. I don’t think Aquinas ever uses the term “proper accidents” in relation to Christ in the Eucharist does he? I think “natural accidents” is used, and we both agree that Christ is present with His natural accidents

You are right, St. Thomas did not speak of “proper accidents” in relation to Christ in the Eucharist. Actually, He simply said “accidents.” And with good reason. Because the Body of Christ (whether in heaven or in the Eucharist) does not merely have the proper accidents (that proceed from His human nature), but also all the other contingent accidents that belong to His Body as an individual body.

After having meditated on this matter more, I tend to follow St. Thomas, and want now to speak simply of the “accidents” of Christ’s Body, without regard to whether these are “proper accidents” or not. Because I am convinced that the whole Christ is in the Eucharist, with all its bodily dimensions, and with all its other bodily characteristics, including the shape and color of His eyes, etc., etc. just as it is in heaven. For Christ has only one Body. The Body in the Eucharist is therefore not a second body, nor a duplicate body. It is the same Body that is now in Heaven. If His Body in heaven contains the wounds of His passion (which I believe it does), then the Body of Christ in the Eucharist also contains the wounds of His passion. However, His Body in heaven is perceptible by us because it exists under its own proper sensible species, whereas that same Body in the Eucharist is hidden from our view because it exists under the species of the bread and the wine.

I will explain what faith in the Eucharist does for philosophy shortly. I just want to mention now that, in my opinion, Christ’s Body contains the wounds of His passion, nothwithstanding the fact that it is now a glorified Body. For it was after the resurrection that He appeared to Thomas the Apostle. When He appeared to Thomas, He invited him to put his finger on His side (John 20:27).

You all know the rest of the story. Thomas believed, saying “My Lord, and my God.” Christ then told Him, “You believe, Thomas, because you have seen Me. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet have believed.” I think that Christ is referring to us who will behold Him in the Eucharist, but not see Him in His proper species or human form. We are truly blessed when we don’t see Him, yet believe.

Philosophy cannot prove the fact of transubstantiation. This is something that we only believe. We believe it because Christ said, “This IS my body.”

Yet this is where human reason or philosophy derived great benefit from faith. We know from Aristotle that quantity is what spreads a body, so that it has “parts outside of parts.” By our observation we noticed that quantity is invariably what orders the various parts of a body to be spread out in space (spatial extension). Our faith in the Eucharist, however, refines our concept of quantity. We now realize that the true essence of quantity - as a proper accident of bodily substance - is not to spread a body in space, but simply to order and distinguish the various parts of the body, so that a body remains “extended” in itself, or has parts outside of parts. Of course, without spatial extension, a bodily substance would not be perceptible to us, yet the nature and integrity of bodily substance is not diminished on that account, for the body continues to possess quantity (and all the other accidents concomitant with with the possession of quantity); so a true body exists invisibly in the real world - as St. Thomas says - “after the manner of substance.”

 

[rom422]

What does Aquinas say of the 8th Century Lanciano Eucharist miracle ?

Certainly he was asked to explain …

In the Miracle of Lanciano a part of the host apparently becomes a piece of heart tissue, and the wine appears to change into blood (with a blood type similar to the one found in the Shroud of Turin!) However, St. Thomas in ST, Part III, Q.76, Art. 8 carefully notes that the sensibly perceptible Body of Christ (including all its parts, organs, tissues, and blood) **is only in heaven. ** Therefore, the apparent heart tissue, and the apparent blood are not real parts of Christ’s Body. They are no different from the accidents of bread and wine. God miraculously conserves the accidents of flesh and blood without a flesh substance or a blood substance. However, this does not mean that the Miracle of Lanciano is nothing but a big lie. It is not a deception because Christ continues to be really and wholly present in the Sacrament, and it is the purpose of this amazing miracle to point to the truth of the Real Presence of Christ.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

O.K. now, give me a hint??? Just " where " is " here " ??? Give me a paragraph or something, that is a pretty long article !!

Linus just do an F3 search on that page with, say, “we find that some accidents.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are right, St. Thomas did not speak of “proper accidents” in relation to Christ in the Eucharist. Actually, He simply said “accidents.”

Rom422 I don’t think it is that simple. When he said “accidents” he immediately qualified that assertion. I really think he made things much more complicated when he said it wasn’t in a commensurate manner but in a concommitant manner. These are not “accidents” as we know them.

And with good reason. Because the Body of Christ (whether in heaven or in the Eucharist) does not merely have the proper accidents (that proceed from His human nature), but also all the other contingent accidents that belong to His Body as an individual body.

I like the way you put this. OK, maybe Jesus’s contingent “individual” accidents are missing (including spatial extension of the generic “dimensive” quantity). I am not sure if this is kosha though.

Because I am convinced that the whole Christ is in the Eucharist, with all its bodily dimensions, and with all its other bodily characteristics, including the shape and color of His eyes, etc., etc. just as it is in heaven. For Christ has only one Body. The Body in the Eucharist is therefore not a second body, nor a duplicate body. It is the same Body that is now in Heaven.

I want to agree with this but I think there is a problem if you say it is the same body as in heaven. Wouldn’t this suggest “multi-location” of Jesus’s heavenly body even if hidden under the accidents of bread and wine?
Also, sounds like very “individual” accidents of Jesus to me.

However, His Body in heaven is perceptible by us because it exists under its own proper sensible species, whereas that same Body in the Eucharist is hidden from our view because it exists under the species of the bread and the wine.

Agreed, sort of. Jesus could still walk past in front of us bodily and still with-hold his sensible species.

I think that Christ is referring to us who will behold Him in the Eucharist, but not see Him in His proper species or human form. We are truly blessed when we don’t see Him, yet believe.

Agreed. This is exactly what “Noli me tangere” and “the flesh has nothing to offer…” teachings are about as Aquinas states.

We now realize that the true essence of quantity - as a proper accident of bodily substance - is not to spread a body in space, but simply to order and distinguish the various parts of the body, so that a body remains “extended” in itself, or has parts outside of parts.

Not sure. I think Aristotle may have realised that “undivided quantity” need not have spatial extension and still be predicated of “body”. Maybe I am wrong and someone can correct me.

Of course, without spatial extension, a bodily substance would not be perceptible to us, yet the nature and integrity of bodily substance is not diminished on that account, for the body continues to possess quantity (and all the other accidents concomitant with with the possession of quantity); so a true body exists invisibly in the real world - as St. Thomas says - “after the manner of substance.”

I think this is really a logical contradiction, at least in english. Ordinary human experience (from which our concepts of accident, substance, proper etc are inferred) tells us that it is proper for bodily accidents to include not only dimensive quantity but also spatial extension. Anything less than this, by definition, is not “proper.”

We must at the same time accept from Trent that in the Eucharist these two aspects of quantity (dimension and spatial extension) can apparantly be separated. But that still means the accident called “quantity” is not functioning in its normal, proper, everyday manner. At first pass Aquinas seems to agree this is improper. I don’t think we can get away from that.

 

[Michael1966]

"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt 26:29

This occurs after Christ tells the apostles to eat his body and drink his blood. This means, that unless you mean to imply that Christ’s blood was made of grapes, that the bread was still substantially bread. This does not mean that the bread did not take the substance of Christ, but it does mean that the substance of bread is still there.

Hi Pauline

It is enough for me to know that Christ really is present in the Eucharist. I think we should remember that “accidents” and “substance” are very old philosophical constructs used in the exploration of the nature of matter and are not reality themselves. In more modern scientific terms we might call them a “model” of reality, while appreciating all models are just that - models to help people think. I wonder if it’s time we learned to let go of the transubstantiation/consubstantiation arguments of the 16th century. I think the Orthodox Church probably took the better route on this one, not trying to force the Eucharist into any imperfect philosophical system.

That’s just the way I see it, though - appreciating others will not see it in the same way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are right, St. Thomas did not speak of “proper accidents” in relation to Christ in the Eucharist. Actually, He simply said “accidents.” And with good reason. Because the Body of Christ (whether in heaven or in the Eucharist) does not merely have the proper accidents (that proceed from His human nature), but also all the other contingent accidents that belong to His Body as an individual body.

After having meditated on this matter more, I tend to follow St. Thomas, and want now to speak simply of the “accidents” of Christ’s Body, without regard to whether these are “proper accidents” or not. Because I am convinced that the whole Christ is in the Eucharist, with all its bodily dimensions, and with all its other bodily characteristics, including the shape and color of His eyes, etc., etc. just as it is in heaven. For Christ has only one Body. The Body in the Eucharist is therefore not a second body, nor a duplicate body. It is the same Body that is now in Heaven. If His Body in heaven contains the wounds of His passion (which I believe it does), then the Body of Christ in the Eucharist also contains the wounds of His passion. However, His Body in heaven is perceptible by us because it exists under its own proper sensible species, whereas that same Body in the Eucharist is hidden from our view because it exists under the species of the bread and the wine.

I will explain what faith in the Eucharist does for philosophy shortly. I just want to mention now that, in my opinion, Christ’s Body contains the wounds of His passion, nothwithstanding the fact that it is now a glorified Body. For it was after the resurrection that He appeared to Thomas the Apostle. When He appeared to Thomas, He invited him to put his finger on His side (John 20:27).

You all know the rest of the story. Thomas believed, saying “My Lord, and my God.” Christ then told Him, “You believe, Thomas, because you have seen Me. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet have believed.” I think that Christ is referring to us who will behold Him in the Eucharist, but not see Him in His proper species or human form. We are truly blessed when we don’t see Him, yet believe.

Philosophy cannot prove the fact of transubstantiation. This is something that we only believe. We believe it because Christ said, “This IS my body.”

Yet this is where human reason or philosophy derived great benefit from faith. We know from Aristotle that quantity is what spreads a body, so that it has “parts outside of parts.” By our observation we noticed that quantity is invariably what orders the various parts of a body to be spread out in space (spatial extension). Our faith in the Eucharist, however, refines our concept of quantity. We now realize that the true essence of quantity - as a proper accident of bodily substance - is not to spread a body in space, but simply to order and distinguish the various parts of the body, so that a body remains “extended” in itself, or has parts outside of parts. Of course, without spatial extension, a bodily substance would not be perceptible to us, yet the nature and integrity of bodily substance is not diminished on that account, for the body continues to possess quantity (and all the other accidents concomitant with with the possession of quantity); so a true body exists invisibly in the real world - as St. Thomas says - “after the manner of substance.”

Yes, you have it now. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Pauline

It is enough for me to know that Christ really is present in the Eucharist. I think we should remember that “accidents” and “substance” are very old philosophical constructs used in the exploration of the nature of matter and are not reality themselves. In more modern scientific terms we might call them a “model” of reality, while appreciating all models are just that - models to help people think. I wonder if it’s time we learned to let go of the transubstantiation/consubstantiation arguments of the 16th century. I think the Orthodox Church probably took the better route on this one, not trying to force the Eucharist into any imperfect philosophical system.

That’s just the way I see it, though - appreciating others will not see it in the same way.

Since these are Defined Dogmas we are obliged to hold them as true on a Catholic Faith of heart and mind. So must strive to understand the Real Presence as Defined. The best way to do this is to read how Thomas explined it as I and Rm422 have pointed out. So if one cannot understand his reasoning we accept Definition the Church has given on Faith.

Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Rom422 I don’t think it is that simple. When he said “accidents” he immediately qualified that assertion. I really think he made things much more complicated when he said it wasn’t in a commensurate manner but in a concommitant manner. These are not “accidents” as we know them.

I like the way you put this. OK, maybe Jesus’s contingent “individual” accidents are missing (including spatial extension of the generic “dimensive” quantity). I am not sure if this is kosha though.

I want to agree with this but I think there is a problem if you say it is the same body as in heaven. Wouldn’t this suggest “multi-location” of Jesus’s heavenly body even if hidden under the accidents of bread and wine?
Also, sounds like very “individual” accidents of Jesus to me.

Agreed, sort of. Jesus could still walk past in front of us bodily and still with-hold his sensible species.

Agreed. This is exactly what “Noli me tangere” and “the flesh has nothing to offer…” teachings are about as Aquinas states.

Not sure. I think Aristotle may have realised that “undivided quantity” need not have spatial extension and still be predicated of “body”. Maybe I am wrong and someone can correct me.

I think this is really a logical contradiction, at least in english. Ordinary human experience (from which our concepts of accident, substance, proper etc are inferred) tells us that it is proper for bodily accidents to include not only dimensive quantity but also spatial extension. Anything less than this, by definition, is not “proper.”

We must at the same time accept from Trent that in the Eucharist these two aspects of quantity (dimension and spatial extension) can apparantly be separated. But that still means the accident called “quantity” is not functioning in its normal, proper, everyday manner. At first pass Aquinas seems to agree this is improper. I don’t think we can get away from that.

I think if you reread Rom422’s post # 123 you will see that he has given a really good and true understanding of Christ’s Real Presence. I would add that the absence of " extensenion in space " detracts nothing from this Real Presence but is explained by Thomas’ phrase " after the manner of the Sacrament. " The mode of the Presence in the Sacrament would require this explanation.

As to how Christ can be Present simutaneously under the Sacred Species throughout the world and still be at his Father’s side in Heaven. Call this a Miracle of bilocation I think is fine. We just have to remember that however we explain it, we must believe that it is the same, real, Glorified Body.

If you keep in mind that the whole Sacrament is a Miracle that will help you get over the problem you are having with the terms " proper " as opposed to " natural. " Also keep in mind Thomas’ phrase " after the manner of the Sacrament. " Linus

 

[Michael1966]

Since these are Defined Dogmas we are obliged to hold them as true on a Catholic Faith of heart and mind. So must strive to understand the Real Presence as Defined. The best way to do this is to read how Thomas explined it as I and Rm422 have pointed out. So if one cannot understand his reasoning we accept Definition the Church has given on Faith.

Linus

Thanks Linus,

But I don’t see any philosophical framework as infallible truth. These framework are, in my opinion, ways of good and wise men thinking through the nature of matter and the mystery of the Eucharist - but I think it a mistake to see it as more than imperfect ways of thinking. I don’t see the Catholic Church as being in a position to make infallible statements on the nature of matter, Eucharistic or otherwise, even if once people did consider themselves to be in such a position. As I said before, accidents and substance are not realities or truths themselves - they are ancient philosophical constructs grasping at exploring truth and exploring the nature of matter. If we were thinking through this problem today I don’t think we’d use “accidents” and “substance” as a basic description of matter - we’re blessed to have far more knowledge than Aquinas and Aristotle.

Accepting that you probably think differently.

God bless +

 

[brb3]

About the visible body of Christ in Heaven …

JOHN saw and spoke of …“like a lamb slain” …thus, with the Calvary wounds visible. The same wounds the Apostles saw and touched !

Yet, a Supernatural one, able to defy laws of physics, when occasion calls for. Like Ascension & the EUCHARIST !!

Never chew hard on the Bread received, let it slowly dissolve and let the EUCHARISTA wine (blood) wash it down. Always be utmost respectful of the Viaticum …it is Both the suffering servant And the risen Supernatural Lord we receive internally, grace upon grace !!! The Real Presence!!

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks Linus,

But I don’t see any philosophical framework as infallible truth. These framework are, in my opinion, ways of good and wise men thinking through the nature of matter and the mystery of the Eucharist - but I think it a mistake to see it as more than imperfect ways of thinking. I don’t see the Catholic Church as being in a position to make infallible statements on the nature of matter, Eucharistic or otherwise, even if once people did consider themselves to be in such a position. As I said before, accidents and substance are not realities or truths themselves - they are ancient philosophical constructs grasping at exploring truth and exploring the nature of matter. If we were thinking through this problem today I don’t think we’d use “accidents” and “substance” as a basic description of matter - we’re blessed to have far more knowledge than Aquinas and Aristotle.

Accepting that you probably think differently.

God bless +

Michael, your posts are lucid and well thought out. I have learned much. Thank you and welcome to the forums. I look forward to reading more of your writing. Please do write more.

-Tim-

 

[Michael1966]

Michael, your posts are lucid and well thought out. I have learned much. Thank you and welcome to the forums. I look forward to reading more of your writing. Please do write more.

-Tim-

You’re very kind Tim. I’m sure I can be far from lucid and well thought out as well, though

God bless +

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would add that the absence of " extensenion in space " detracts nothing from this Real Presence…"

Linus, this is no more than a circumlocution!
I think I prev agreed, and it is clear to all, that it is better to believe without seeing. This is not the issue.
The minor issue at hand is one of pure logic. Can an existing accident which does not fulfill all the requirements of 99.999% (and indeed which is the only known exception) of normal everday experience of “accidents” (from which the abstracted definition derives) be said to exist/operate “properly” or “improperly”? I opine such an accident is operating in an “improper manner” and so can be called an “improper accident” - fully existing accidents of dimension are meant to be spatially extended. Potentiality remains until such is acted. The accidents of bread are spatially extended so they exist properly and in a normal manner. I do not think Aquinas disagrees.

In fact he positively agrees when he says that two sets of proper (commensurate) accidents cannot exist together in the same thing. Therefore Christ’s dimensive accidents exist improperly - which is logically what “concommitant” or “in the manner of a substance” appears to mean in this context.

I would accept that “existing in the manner of a substance” could mean the dimensive quality still qualifies as a proper accident if we are speaking of it as a “second substance”. My philsophical education is not sufficient to dig deeper into this possibility or not.

If you keep in mind that the whole Sacrament is a Miracle that will help you get over the problem you are having with the terms " proper " as opposed to " natural."

Sorry Linus, I do not think this is the approach of a keen philosopher! To smooth over the cracks with the oil of “its a miracle”? May as well not go beyond the Gospel of John .
I think we can do better than that and still avoid over-working the issue.

I don’t see anything to “get over” (yet) re proper or improper accidents. In factRom422 has raised a very good question here. I see no complications arising from this. I believe there are much greater complications to get over if this is not accepted. I am happy to be proven wrong but I think the logic is inescapable isn’t it .

As to how Christ can be Present simutaneously under the Sacred Species throughout the world and still be at his Father’s side in Heaven. Call this a Miracle of bilocation I think is fine.

Yes the “miracle of bilocation” is not anathema. However neither does it seem to be at all satisfactory amongst classic theologians from my reading. I believe the article from the Jesuit above touched on this point.

BTW Have you had a chance to look at his “missing accident” opinion?

 

[brb3]

Linus, this is no more than a circumlocution!
I think I prev agreed, and it is clear to all, that it is better to believe without seeing. This is not the issue.
The minor issue at hand is one of pure logic. Can an existing accident which does not fulfill all the requirements of 99.999% (and indeed which is the only known exception) of normal everday experience of “accidents” (from which the abstracted definition derives) be said to exist/operate “properly” or “improperly”? I opine such an accident is operating in an “improper manner” and so can be called an “improper accident” - fully existing accidents of dimension are meant to be spatially extended. The accidents of bread are spatially extended so they exist properly and in a normal manner. I do not think Aquinas disagrees.

In fact he positively agrees when he says that two sets of proper (commensurate) accidents cannot exist together in the same thing. Therefore Christ’s dimensive accidents exist improperly - which is logically what “concommitant” or “in the manner of a substance” appears to mean in this context.

I would accept that “existing in the manner of a substance” could mean the dimensive quality still qualifies as a proper accident if we are speaking of it as a “second substance”. My philsophical education is not sufficient to dig deeper into this possibility or not.

I don’t see anything to “get over” (yet)? I see no complications arising from this. I believe there are much greater complications to get over if this is not accepted. I am happy to be proven wrong but I think the logic is inescapable isn’t it .

Sorry Linus, I do not think this is the approach of a keen philosopher! To smooth over the cracks with the oil of “its a miracle”? May as well not go beyond the Gospel of John .
I think we can do better than that and still avoid over-working the issue.

Yes the “miracle of bilocation” is not anathema. However neither does it seem to be at all satisfactory amongst classic theologians from my reading. I believe the article from the Jesuit above touched on this point.

BTW Have you had a chance to look at his “missing accident” opinion?

Well, its much more than ‘bilocation’. The CCC gives the complete understanding on the Catholic Eucharista.

Indeed, wherever a Mass is being celebrated…there is Christ, in the blessed species, …but also, in Heaven, where Mass is ongoing, and celebrated by the Saints. Their’s celebrated with the visible Lord…ours with the invisible Lord.
And, not just our specific church’s celebrants…but, we also include the Pope, Bishop, all martyrs and Saints …in our Mass. So, in reality …we are celebrating with those in Heaven, from long-distance, or perhaps short-distance ??]

From the rising …to the setting of the sun …a continuous, ongoing Earth-Heaven Mass is celebrated in Present, UNIVERSAL tense. Folks, the Kingdom has come upon us !!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thanks Linus,

But I don’t see any philosophical framework as infallible truth. These framework are, in my opinion, ways of good and wise men thinking through the nature of matter and the mystery of the Eucharist - but I think it a mistake to see it as more than imperfect ways of thinking. I don’t see the Catholic Church as being in a position to make infallible statements on the nature of matter, Eucharistic or otherwise, even if once people did consider themselves to be in such a position. As I said before, accidents and substance are not realities or truths themselves - they are ancient philosophical constructs grasping at exploring truth and exploring the nature of matter. If we were thinking through this problem today I don’t think we’d use “accidents” and “substance” as a basic description of matter - we’re blessed to have far more knowledge than Aquinas and Aristotle.

Accepting that you probably think differently.

God bless +

Michael1966 I have much sympathy with your approach and it is mine also.

Yes our models become imperfect once they leave the nous-sphere and are applied to the “inconsistant common individualities” of the real-world.
This was prob a major reason why excessively “apriori” Scholasticism lost ascendancy to the present Sciences.

We have yet to read the signs of the times and cast our small enquiries into the miracle of the Eucharist into “modern clothes”.
Part of the reason why this still seems impossible at the moment (and why we still operate a 700 old scholastic model) is prob because an adequate vocab/thinking/model does not yet exist. There remains a yawning chasm between Scholasticism and modern Science rather than a bigger evolution.

I believe confirmation of things like the Higgs Field (far more important than the Higgs particle) will necessitate that the priests of Science return to these sorts of “non-material models.” This will bring forth a new vocab/thinking adequate to providing “new clothes” for a valid modern “understanding” of the Eucharist. That looks a long way off though.

 

[rom422]

Rom422 I don’t think it is that simple. When he said “accidents” he immediately qualified that assertion. I really think he made things much more complicated when he said it wasn’t in a commensurate manner but in a concommitant manner. These are not “accidents” as we know them.

In a way St. Thomas simplified things greatly. He said that Christ’s bodily substance is in the Eucharist by the power of the sacrament, but **everything else **that accompanies Christ (not just His bodily accidents – “proper” and “contingent”, – but also His Soul and Divinity) are in the Eucharist by reason of concomitance.

I like the way you put this. OK, maybe Jesus’s contingent “individual” accidents are missing (including spatial extension of the generic “dimensive” quantity). I am not sure if this is kosha though.

Just one clarification: The accidents of Christ’s body in the Eucharist are missing from our view, but they are not missing from His Body. They are missing from our view because they - including the quantity that distinguishes His head, His trunk, His arms and legs, etc.- exist in a “spaceless” manner or, in the language of St. Thomas, “after the manner of substance.”

I want to agree with this but I think there is a problem if you say it is the same body as in heaven. Wouldn’t this suggest “multi-location” of Jesus’s heavenly body even if hidden under the accidents of bread and wine?
Also, sounds like very “individual” accidents of Jesus to me.

If by multi-location you mean that Christ is present in several places under His proper species, then that is problematic and theoretically impossible. But if by multi-location you mean that He is present under His proper species only in heaven, and that He is simultaneously present in other places in the world under the sacramental species, then that is acceptable.

Not sure. I think Aristotle may have realised that “undivided quantity” need not have spatial extension and still be predicated of “body”. Maybe I am wrong and someone can correct me.

Aristotle’s definition of quantity is that it is the accident by which a bodily substance has parts outside of parts. However, we observed from experience that the distribution of parts is usually a distribution in space. So we tend to think that spatial extension is a requirement of bodily substance. Our belief in the Eucharist tells us that such spatial extension is not absolutely required. I do not think that Aristotle knew that. If he did, then good for him.

I think this is really a logical contradiction, at least in english. Ordinary human experience (from which our concepts of accident, substance, proper etc are inferred) tells us that it is proper for bodily accidents to include not only dimensive quantity but also spatial extension. Anything less than this, by definition, is not “proper.”

We must at the same time accept from Trent that in the Eucharist these two aspects of quantity (dimension and spatial extension) can apparantly be separated. But that still means the accident called “quantity” is not functioning in its normal, proper, everyday manner. At first pass Aquinas seems to agree this is improper. I don’t think we can get away from that.

What I have termed “proper accidents” in my previous posts refer to accidents that naturally belong to a subject, such as risibility in a man. They are called “proper” because, as predicables, they are predicable of their subject as properties. Remember the five predicables (genus, species, differentia, property, and accident)? The so-called “proper accidents” are predicable of a subject as its properties. Therefore, what I called “proper accidents” are not called “proper” because of their mode of existence, as if some accidents exist in a proper way and others in an improper way. No. Proper accidents are called “proper” because, inasmuch as they proceed from the essence of a subject, they are predicable of that subject as its properties.

However, to make our thoughts and our language compatible when referring to the mode of existence that accidents have in nature, let us just call them the “ordinary” and the “extraordinary” way or mode of existence. Ordinarily, bodies are spatially extended in the world. **Extraordinarily, **- as the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist - they exist without spatial extension; yet they are real bodies with naturally distinguishable parts (I mean distinguishable in themselves, but not by us.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, its much more than ‘bilocation’. The CCC gives the complete understanding on the Catholic Eucharista.

Indeed, wherever a Mass is being celebrated…there is Christ, in the blessed species, …but also, in Heaven, where Mass is ongoing, and celebrated by the Saints. Their’s celebrated with the visible Lord…ours with the invisible Lord.
And, not just our specific church’s celebrants…but, we also include the Pope, Bishop, all martyrs and Saints …in our Mass. So, in reality …we are celebrating with those in Heaven, from long-distance, or perhaps short-distance ??]

From the rising …to the setting of the sun …a continuous, ongoing Earth-Heaven Mass is celebrated in Present, UNIVERSAL tense. Folks, the Kingdom has come upon us !!

brb3 I don’t think anyone is denying the CCC nor Aquinas here.

How are we to best interpret Mt 26:11 “Me you have not always.” A real absence is clearly meant. Absence of “Me” does not appear a trivial matter for Jesus’s future followers. It was important enough for Jesus to warn the apostles.

A literal reading would appear to contradict Trent which affirms Jesus’s Person (Me) is present in the Eucharist. Obviously the very real absence affirmed by jesus in Mt 26:11 cannot be that of his His Person.

Aquinas speaks of this missing reality and its consequences in a number of different ways:

• as an absence of proper bodily sensible species
• His bodily sensible species only exists in heaven
• His body is not present in the same way as a body is in a place…
• His body is not present as in different places…
• Christ is not present bodily (if by that we mean visible presence)…
• the substance of His body is present but not its dimensions.
• His body is not present by way of quantity.
  *- In the bread: His body is NOT present by concomitance.
• In the wine: His body is NOT present by “the power of the sacrament.”*
• His body is present as a substance.
• His body’s accidents are present only by concomitance (inferred by reason of the presence of the substance of his body.)

I find some interesting “contradictions” in the above which presumably only gets resolved by a correct understanding of how Aquinas uses/defines the terms “accident” “substance” “concommitant” “body” etc.
BTW I have never before noticed before the distinction he made in the itallicised lines re the way His body is present in the wine. It is different from the way it is present in the bread.

Anyhow, I tentatively suggest that Jesus’s bodily accidents are logically inferred to be present only because the substance of his body is present. (i.e. concomitance).

This principle appears little different from the one that makes acceptable the saying that “Mary is the Mother of God.” Of course “properly” speaking God as God cannot have a parent, let alone be born. However because the Person of Jesus is both God and Man what is predicated of one can be said of the other. Am I mistaken?

Likewise with the Eucharist?
Can we correctly say there is a sense in which Jesus’s bodily accidents are present, and a sense in which they are not.