Problem with Transubstantiation

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
(a) Aristotle would, perhaps, say that spatial extension is a “proper accident” (property) of dimensive quantity? Therefore, if Jesus’s body is not spatially extended neither is his dimensive quantity properly present? Is it acceptable to say that a proper accident of Jesus could be missing from the Eucharist. I do not think so. Therefore Aristotle could not be Catholic.

Rom422, I cannot believe you understood me above and still felt the need to set me right about when Aristotle lived! If you are not using a bit of hyperbole here (as indeed I was) then perhaps I had better start over and “draw in the organs as well” to use a phrase from my wife.

What I am really saying is that a man of pure reason would not (by virtue of his commitment to the truths of reason rather than faith) be able to glean or admit of any deeper understanding of the cosmos from the alleged deeper realities implied by the Eucharistic miracle. Therefore Aristotle’s understanding of the accident called “dimensive quality” would seem to logically always and everywhere demand the existence of spatial extension wherever that accident is found. It would seem rightly called a proper accident of bodies.

The conundrum I am pointing to is this.
Is the above reasoned conclusion of Aristotle (or any man of pure reason) 100% deriving solely from apriori reflection/abstraction on the nature of “dimension” (once a correct appreciation of “dimension” is derived via the senses)? OR, is that reasoned conclusion also partly aposteriori (i.e.“empirically” derived) and implicitly necessitating the use of inductive reasoning wrt the indubitable testimony of material creation?

I am suggesting that reason is incapable of coming to a complete and true understanding of “dimensive quantity” (e.g. one that doesn’t necessitate spatial extension) without some aposteriori inductive reasoning being applied to the cosmos as it is known.

If I am correct then Catholics of faith have had a long advantage against men of pure reason in this regard. Catholics know there is an exception to the rest of the cosmological track record wrt dimension and the necessity of spatial extension.

You may say this inability for “men of pure reason” to properly understand dimensive quantity is not true. You might say that it is only a limitation for the “men of Science” who limit themselves purely to the scientific method. You may say that “men of Philosophy” can accurately apriori reason to a correct understanding of the dimensive quantity (not necessitating spatial extension).

I do not know who is right in this regard. I am just suggesting this does not seem to be a closed topic amongst all the stakeholders mentioned .

Finally, it seems that the “men of Science” and the “men of pure reason”, as opined earlier, are at last heading back towards the “men of Catholic reason” as they discover that their mechanistic/material/spatial-extension understanding of matter/energy is breaking down. The sub-atomic world is beginning to hint at empirical verification/understanding of “dimensive quantity” without spatial extension - just as the Eucharist has incidentally informed Catholics for centuries.

 

[rom422]

Ven. Fr. John Hardon has an excellent treatment on the Eucharist in his Catechism of the Catholic Church. He points out that the term " substance " was in long use in the East before Thomas was born and was understood as " being " their understanding. It would mean what Thomas understood as second substance. Thus the Whole Christ with all his bodily " properties " ( the term Hardon uses ), including his dimensive property. He goes on to say that futher discussion is Theological speculation. In other words, the Whole Chirst is present and just how this can be is a matter of speculation and that we just have to hold on the the fact of his Whole Presence with all of his bodily properties.

Hi, Linus. Good to hear from you again.

Unfortunately I don’t have the book by Fr. John Hardon, although I have heard good reviews about it. But I agree that the important thing is to believe that the Whole Christ is present in the Eucharist. This kind of faith is what truly saves. I remember the story of a child who was asked, “Do you know the difference between a crucifix and the Blessed Sacrament?” The child replied, “Yes. In the crucifix you see Christ but He is not there. In the Blessed Sacrament you don’t see Christ but He is there.” With a faith like that, I think that the child is far closer to God than an erudite scholar who, neglecting the worship of the Eucharist, spends his time trying to figure out – by logic, philosophy, science and mathematics - how it was possible for the big man Christ to fit in a small wafer.

I am a man who values learning. I will not throw away metaphysics just because I know that religion (or a relationship with God) is better than erudition. Like the child in the story, I have faith. But I am also like St. Augustine, in that I have a faith seeking understanding, fides quaerens intellectum. So I continue to seek God in my heart and in my mind. I am not alone on this. I know that many others are also pursuing both scholarship and sanctity. However, I think that we must put a limit to our intellectual exercises. If Thomistic philosophy lost popularity in the schools, I think it is because many philosophers had put more importance to argumentation and debate than the pursuit of God and Truth. They indulged in making definitions and hair-splitting distinctions without end, even speculating on the number of angels that could possibly stand on the point of a needle! I know, for instance, that there were theologians who had asked whether Christ had use of his bodily senses in the Eucharist. If the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, they asked, could He actually see you with His bodily eyes if you were present? And could He hear you with His bodily ears when you sing “Tantum Ergo”? Believe it or not, there had been philosophizing theologians who had argued for and against it. But this is no longer the kind of issue that I would engage anymore. With a question like this, I would simply say (without need of philosophizing), “Yes. He hears me when I pray. He sees me when I come to visit Him in the Blessed Sacrament. I believe that He is there waiting for me, every time I see the sanctuary lamp lit. This is the beauty of our Catholic faith. Our Churches are never empty. Christ is always there, in the Holy Eucharist, waiting for us to approach Him.”

I am certain that your last paragraph cannot be held. Since it is the actual Last Supper upon which the teaching of the Church is based, the Church certainly would have told us that the mode of the Sacrament as celebrated prior to Christ’s death was different in manner from the Sacrament celebrated after his death. I remember reading a discussion on that point somewhere but can’t remember where. The upshot was that the mode of the Sacrament is the same before and after Christ’s death. Both before and after we receive the Glorified body of Christ.

I think that Verbum Caro already responded to this. Thanks, VC

 

[rom422]

Rom422, I cannot believe you understood me above and still felt the need to set me right about when Aristotle lived! If you are not using a bit of hyperbole here (as indeed I was) then perhaps I had better start over and “draw in the organs as well” to use a phrase from my wife.

LOL. Sorry about that. I am just confirming your thought.

What I am really saying is that a man of pure reason would not (by virtue of his commitment to the truths of reason rather than faith) be able to glean or admit of any deeper understanding of the cosmos from the alleged deeper realities implied by the Eucharistic miracle. Therefore Aristotle’s understanding of the accident called “dimensive quality” would seem to logically always and everywhere demand the existence of spatial extension wherever that accident is found. It would seem rightly called a proper accident of bodies.

The conundrum I am pointing to is this.
Is the above reasoned conclusion of Aristotle (or any man of pure reason) 100% deriving solely from apriori reflection/abstraction on the nature of “dimension” (once a correct appreciation of “dimension” is derived via the senses)? OR, is that reasoned conclusion also partly aposteriori (i.e.“empirically” derived) and implicitly necessitating the use of inductive reasoning wrt the indubitable testimony of material creation?

I am suggesting that reason is incapable of coming to a complete and true understanding of “dimensive quantity” (e.g. one that doesn’t necessitate spatial extension) without some aposteriori inductive reasoning being applied to the cosmos as it is known.

Correct. Aristotle knew by *a posteriori *reasoning that spatial extension is a proper effect of quantity, because existing bodily substances have been observed invariably to be extended in space.

If I am correct then Catholics of faith have had a long advantage against men of pure reason in this regard. Catholics know there is an exception to the rest of the cosmological track record wrt dimension and the necessity of spatial extension.

You may say this inability for “men of pure reason” to properly understand dimensive quantity is not true. You might say that it is only a limitation for the “men of Science” who limit themselves purely to the scientific method. You may say that “men of Philosophy” can accurately apriori reason to a correct understanding of the dimensive quantity (not necessitating spatial extension).

I do not know who is right in this regard. I am just suggesting this does not seem to be a closed topic amongst all the stakeholders mentioned .

Many catholic philosophers still hold that spatial extension is a proper effect of quantity, but it is not what constitutes the essence of quantity as such. By divine power, therefore, this effect can be prevented from taking place without destroying the nature of dimensive quantity. This is how St. Thomas and others proposed to explain how Christ could retain His bodily dimensions in the Blessed Sacrament without being extended in space.

Finally, it seems that the “men of Science” and the “men of pure reason”, as opined earlier, are at last heading back towards the “men of Catholic reason” as they discover that their mechanistic/material/spatial-extension understanding of matter/energy is breaking down. The sub-atomic world is beginning to hint at empirical verification/understanding of “dimensive quantity” without spatial extension - just as the Eucharist has incidentally informed Catholics for centuries.

Yes, scientists are now beginning to realize that their current “models” of the atom are slowly losing the corporeal character of previous models.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I think that Verbum Caro already responded to this. Thanks, VC

Hi rom, you are most welcome.

This is an interesting thread to me. If you were to look at my post history, searching for “glorified” or “accidents” you would find that these are two of the things I have been bringing up pretty consistently: that Christ did not give the apostles his glorified body at the last supper (and, similarly, that it isn’t necessary to appeal to the glorified body to explain the Real Presence) and that Christ is present with His own natural accidents in the Eucharist, i.e the whole Christ is present not just “the substance of Christ”. I think I’ve been taken to task a couple of times over it, if I recall correctly.

I love thinking about it.

VC

 

[brb3]

Someone explain the difference between the ‘blessed’ bread/wine Abram received from Melchizedec, that which the Apostles received @ Last Supper, and that our priests offer to us today.

 

[fred_conty]

Hi rom, you are most welcome.

This is an interesting thread to me. If you were to look at my post history, searching for “glorified” or “accidents” you would find that these are two of the things I have been bringing up pretty consistently: that Christ did not give the apostles his glorified body at the last supper (and, similarly, that it isn’t necessary to appeal to the glorified body to explain the Real Presence) and that Christ is present with His own natural accidents in the Eucharist, i.e the whole Christ is present not just “the substance of Christ”. I think I’ve been taken to task a couple of times over it, if I recall correctly.

I love thinking about it.

VC

I agree with you.

When Jesus said at the Last Supper, “this is my body”, he was referring to his present, current body as he was before the apostles, which was an unglorified body.

But when the priest says at the alter table, “this is my body”, acting in the person of Christ, it would mean Christ’s current body as it is today, which is a glorified body.

So we receive the glorified body of Jesus in Holy Communion.

 

[brb3]

What body did Abram receive in first Eucharist via Melchizedec ?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,

Aquinas, Fr. Hardon, and many others hold and explain that the Eucharist at the last supper was the non-glorified, passible body of Christ, i.e. the body which Christ has at the time of the consecration.

This point protects the doctrine of the Real Presence as being the actual Christ, as He really is, right now. Since all of us only encounter Christ in the Eucharist in his glorified body, sometimes the notion has crept in that this is part and parcel of the Eucharist. But the apostles encountered Christ before he was glorified, at the table and in the Eucharist.

VC

Can you provide precise references? I don’t see how we can hold this as true since it would imply that in the Last Supper there was no Sacrafice of Christ, because Christ had not yet been Crucified. This would seem to be contray to the Dogmas related to the Sacrament… Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aristotle was a pagan philosopher, since he was born approximately 384 years before Christ. He didn’t know anything about Christ, and neither did he investigate any question regarding the Eucharist. So, you are right. Aristotle never asked – and had no clue - that a “spaceless” manner of existence by a bodily substance was possible.

Aristotle did not know the nature of quantity in the context of the Eucharist. His understanding of quantity was based on empirical observation and purely rational considerations. On the other hand, St. Thomas Aquinas knew that the Body of Christ could exist “after the manner of substance,” that means, without external extension. But he himself did not arrive at this philosophically. He merely accepted it on faith when Christ said, “This IS my body.”

Three more comments I also want to make in this regard:

*First, *God is so powerful that He can either produce or block the effects of secondary causes. For example, burning might be the proper effect of fire. Throw a piece of paper in the fire and it will burn. However, by God’s power, He can prevent the fire from burning a piece of paper that is thrown into it without destroying the nature of the fire as fire. (Remember the burning bush?) In like manner, spatial extension may be the proper effect of quantity. Ordinarily, quantity orders and distinguishes the various parts of the body relative to their position in space. But God can prevent quantity from producing its effect in space and still allow the accident to continue its natural function of distinguishing the various parts of the body. In this extraordinary manner – and by God’s power – the accident quantity will distinguish the various parts of the body relative simply to the whole, rather than relative to their corresponding places in space. Therefore, Christ’s Body in the Eucharist is not without quantity (a proper accident of His Body). He has distinguishable body parts. His Body has internal, but not external (spatial) extension. These are parts distinguishable in themselves (relative to the whole), but not distinguishable by us.

*Second, *for the scientifically minded people who are following this thread, you might be tempted to theorize that perhaps Christ’s Eucharistic Body is in the nth dimension of a multi-dimensional space. But I don’t think so because, If that be the case, then Christ’s Body would still be externally extended in a place (defined by its spatial coordinates in the nth dimension). Yet we know that Christ’s Eucharistic Body is really and wholly present, not only in one morsel of this sacred host, but in every morsel, and not just in this host and in this altar, but in every consecrated host anywhere in the world. Christ is therefore present in the Eucharist “in the manner of a soul.” It is this non-circumscriptive presence in whatever place a sacred Host exists that makes me think that in a way Christ’s Body *transcends *space (no matter how many dimensions).

Third, do not think that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is necessarily and always a glorified body. At the Last Supper, when He uttered the words of consecration for the first time, the bread was changed into His mortal body, not a glorified body. Remember that Christ had only one body. So the Body that was reproduced in the Eucharist and given to the Apostles during the last supper must be His mortal body. It was not a different and glorified body. The primary effect of the words of consecration is not to make a glorified body. Its primary effect is to make the Body of Christ, which exists with its proper sensible species in only one place, to be present also in the place of consecration but in a “spaceless” manner, and under the species of bread. Today, of course, since we are all living in a post-resurrection world, the Body of Christ to which the bread is converted at consecration is a glorified body, the same Body that now sits at the right hand of the Father.

My response to Vaco on this last point.

Can you provide precise references? I don’t see how we can hold this as true since it would imply that in the Last Supper there was no Sacrafice of Christ, because Christ had not yet been Crucified. This would seem to be contray to the Dogmas related to the Sacrament… Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for the clarification Rom422, I understand now what you originally meant above.

It still seems an interesting question:
(a) Aristotle would, perhaps, say that spatial extension is a “proper accident” (property) of dimensive quantity? Therefore, if Jesus’s body is not spatially extended neither is his dimensive quantity properly present?
Is it acceptable to say that a proper accident of Jesus could be missing from the Eucharist. I do not think so. Therefore Aristotle could not be Catholic.

(b) But could God allow Aristotle’s understanding of the dimensive quantity to be present in the Eucharist (meaning spatial extension is also implied) yet by a miracle block/veil its expressed sensible species in some way (e.g. the subtility of a glorified body or the concept of a “spiritual body”?) While parts of Aquinas could be read in this way such blinkered reading, it seems to me, militates against his whole cosmology where he elsewhere rejects both the concept of a “spiritualised body” (its really a contradiction in terms) and that of “subtility” as the root cause. Ockham might also have words to say about so many required miracles.

(c) If we baptise Aristotle (as Aquinas did) and opine that spatial extension is not a proper accident of the dimensive quantity (and therefore need not be present) then this solution is not logically contradictory. All Christ’s proper accidents are present but not the sensible species of them.
This would mean that all Jesus’s proper accidents are present, his optional ones may not (certainly not spatial extension).
The fact that spatial-extension is not an optional accident for the rest of material creation does test human credibility somewhat, despite the wonderful semantic resolution :bigyikes:.
This observation alone makes me wonder whether this neat “explanation” is really the right one. It has merely turned an extra divine miracle into a possibility inherent in (glorified) human nature.

Anyhow, if this is so then once we affirm that the substance of his body is present (whether by concomitance or the power of the sacrament doesn’t matter) then everything fits into place re proper bodily accidents also being present.

It then doesn’t really seem to add further insight when Aquinas says that His bodily accidents are present “only by concomitance”. Are they not there as surely as is His bodily substance? They are either fully and properly there or not at all .
Perhaps its more about how the mind comes to know they are there?
Or maybe I have got something seriously wrong above?

See this excellent article on the Real Presence in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The third bullet addresses some of the speculative aspects of the Real Presence, including dimensive extension/I]. Linus

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Can you provide precise references? I don’t see how we can hold this as true since it would imply that in the Last Supper there was no Sacrafice of Christ, because Christ had not yet been Crucified. This would seem to be contray to the Dogmas related to the Sacrament… Linus

Hi Linus,

Sure. See III, 81, 3 as a start. You’ll also see it restated in The Credo of the People of God. There are other places where it is restated and I can find them for you if you are interested.

VC

 

[fred_conty]

What body did Abram receive in first Eucharist via Melchizedec ?

He was the high priest of Salem whose sacrifice was not bloody, but rather the offerings of bread and wine. He was different than the tribe of Levi which was one of the tribes of Israel, whose special function was the priesthood, from which all priests came in the O.T.

So Melchizedek was a figure of Jesus himself, who took bread into his hands, and offered it up saying “this is my body”, the real bread of sacrifice according to the order of Melchizidek who too offered bread and wine. And then Jesus did the same with the cup of wine and saying “this is my blood”.

So Jesus is a new order of priesthood departing from the Levitical order of priests who offered sacrifice of animals. Jesus offered the real sacrifice of bread and wine according to Melchizidek changed into his own body and blood for our salvation “which will be given up for you.”

The first Melchizedek had bread only to offer, but the second Melchizedek had the bread that was changed into his own body to offer.

In Hebrews 7;11 St. Paul explains the idea of Melchizedek in salvific history.

Just some thoughts.

 

[brb3]

He was the high priest of Salem whose sacrifice was not bloody, but rather the offerings of bread and wine. He was different than the tribe of Levi which was one of the tribes of Israel, whose special function was the priesthood, from which all priests came in the O.T.

So Melchizedek was a figure of Jesus himself, who took bread into his hands, and offered it up saying “this is my body”, the real bread of sacrifice according to the order of Melchizidek who too offered bread and wine. And then Jesus did the same with the cup of wine and saying “this is my blood”.

So Jesus is a new order of priesthood departing from the Levitical order of priests who offered sacrifice of animals. Jesus offered the real sacrifice of bread and wine according to Melchizidek changed into his own body and blood for our salvation “which will be given up for you.”

The first Melchizedek had bread only to offer, but the second Melchizedek had the bread that was changed into his own body to offer.

In Hebrews 7;11 St. Paul explains the idea of Melchizedek in salvific history.

Just some thoughts.

So, Abram did not receive the Efficacious blessing, that we Receive ? He did not receive the Alpha & Omega ‘uncreated’ Logos ?

 

[brb3]

Melchizedek, a priest FOREVER, of the MOST HIGH (God), King of Salem ( Peace)…and his offering of bread/wine not efficacious ???

He blessed Abram, become Abraham, the Father of All children of God, from whom the Levite’s took their flesh and ministry, …that makes Abraham the ‘chief’ Priest of they.

 

[davidv]

Melchizedek, a priest FOREVER, of the MOST HIGH (God), King of Salem ( Peace)…and his offering of bread/wine not efficacious ???

He blessed Abram, become Abraham, the Father of All children of God, from whom the Levite’s took their flesh and ministry, …that makes Abraham the ‘chief’ Priest of they.

How does the lack of the Eucharistic body of Jesus imply that Melchizidek’s offering was not efficacious? The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was not instituted until the Last Supper. Melchizidek didn’t have the abiltity to confect the Eucharist.

 

[fred_conty]

How does the lack of the Eucharistic body of Jesus imply that Melchizidek’s offering was not efficacious? The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was not instituted until the Last Supper. Melchizidek didn’t have the abiltity to confect the Eucharist.

Exactly.

 

[brb3]

How does the lack of the Eucharistic body of Jesus imply that Melchizidek’s offering was not efficacious? The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was not instituted until the Last Supper. Melchizidek didn’t have the abiltity to confect the Eucharist.

So, you’re saying blessed bread & wine, w/o Christ’s involvement/presence, is fully efficacious ?

Sounds mighty Protestant to me.

 

[davidv]

So, you’re saying blessed bread & wine, w/o Christ’s involvement/presence, is fully efficacious ?

Sounds mighty Protestant to me.

I think you have misunderstood. What do you mean by fully efficacious? And efficacious for what?

Maybe you should refrain from labeling until you understand what I wrote.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus,

Sure. See III, 81, 3 as a start. You’ll also see it restated in The Credo of the People of God. There are other places where it is restated and I can find them for you if you are interested.

VC

Thank you. Thomas explained it nicely, still not sure I agree. I’m glad I didn’t have to think about it at the Last Supper because it still seems, if that is the case, it would be difficult to describe that particular Sacrament as a Sacrefice, since a sacrefice demands a death. And Christ, had not yet been crucified. I didn’t find the Credo of the People of God to be helpful.

Here is Thomas’ explanation.
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body --namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.

But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning which we have already stated what should be held (28, 2, ad 3; 45, 2), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ’s body impassible when given under the sacramental species.

Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ’s body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (1, ad 2; 76, 5), is not compared with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ’s own body.

Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

You might be interested in this ( my post 178) because it has a quote from the Summa which mentions " passable " and " impassable " in reference to the Eucharist.
Verbum Caro;10411309:

Hi Linus,

Sure. See III, 81, 3 as a start. You’ll also see it restated in The Credo of the People of God. There are other places where it is restated and I can find them for you if you are interested.

VC

Thank you. Thomas explained it nicely, still not sure I agree. I’m glad I didn’t have to think about it at the Last Supper because it still seems, if that is the case, it would be difficult to describe that particular Sacrament as a Sacrefice, since a sacrefice demands a death. And Christ, had not yet been crucified. I didn’t find the Credo of the People of God to be helpful.

Here is Thomas’ explanation.
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body --namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.

But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning which we have already stated what should be held (28, 2, ad 3; 45, 2), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ’s body impassible when given under the sacramental species.

Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ’s body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (1, ad 2; 76, 5), is not compared with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ’s own body.

Linus