Problem with Transubstantiation

[rom422]

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.

You are very diplomatic in your language, Michael1966, being very careful not to offend anyone just because you have a different point of view. Thanks for that. Now for some comments.

First of all, “accidents” and “substance” are old philosophical concepts – that is true. But they are no older than “matter” itself. Should we abandon any use or talk of “matter” just because it is old? I think that as long as they remain useful concepts, things like “matter,” “substance” and “accidents” should continue to be used. As a matter of fact, people still use them. I often hear people use the words “substantial,” “accidental,” “actual,” “potential,” etc. All these have their roots in both ancient and medieval philosophy.

Secondly, it is more accurate to call them “concepts” rather than “models.” Models are often just logical constructs – useful perhaps, but just a mental fiction. For example, consider an engineer who is designing the concrete foundation of a vibrating machine. He might model the soil over which the concrete block is founded as a “spring” with a spring constant that is a function of the modulus of elasticity of the soil. He can then set up the differential equations to describe the motion of the concrete foundation. And the results can be amazingly useful. But, does that mean that the soil is just a spring, or that it has the nature of an elastic spring? Of course not, the “spring” is only a logical tool that engineers use to analyze the behavior of the soil under vibratory loads.

The “substance” and “accidents” of philosophy are concepts of reality. They are not mere models, or fictitious representations of reality in the mind. Rather, they are the forms (or essences) of things understood and grasped by the mind from the real world. My concept of “man,” for example, is not a mere model like a computerized robot. My concept of man is my intellectual grasp of a being in the real world who is capable of understanding and love.

I wonder now why you want to dismiss the term “transubstantiation.” The term is being used here to describe the Eucharist accurately. The sacrament of the Eucharist results from a change from bread to the Body of our Lord, or from wine to the Blood of our Lord. Every change has a start point and an end point. In transubstantiation the start point is the bread or wine, and the end point is the Body or Blood of our Lord. The change is called transubstantiation to distinguish it from creation (whose start point is non-being) and from annihilation (whose end point is non-being). In the mystery of the Eucharist, the Body of Christ does not come from nothing, and the bread is not reduced to nothing. Rather, there is a **complete conversion **of the substance of bread into the substance of our Lord. However, this complete conversion happens in the level of substance (hence, trans-substance), because the accidents of the bread alone remain after conversion.

Now do you have a better, modern, scientific way of describing this process? If not, then let’s keep the term transubstantiation.

 

[rom422]

But I don’t see any philosophical framework as infallible truth.

No philosophical framework is infallible truth. No scientific framework is infallible truth either. But unless a framework is proved false, there is no reason to abandon it.

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.

They may be imperfect, but they are useful ways of thinking. Indeed, how many scientific theories do you know are perfect?

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.

I don’t think that the CC ever claimed to make infallible statements on the nature of matter, or on any scientific matter. The Church has made proclamations and official statements regarding scientific matters (as in the case of Galileo), but unless the Church pronounced them as dogma, then she did not make a claim to infallibility in those pronouncements. Note that not all statements and pronouncements by the Pope are infallible, but only those for which He had invoked the protection of the Holy Spirit, and for which He had obligated the entire Catholic faithful to believe (a proclamation ex cathedra).

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.

Why don’t you think substance and accidents are real?

I know that science has made a lot of advances during the past few centuries. But its progress seems limited to the description of the observable properties of matter. Science has not made much progress in understanding the nature of matter itself. What, for instance, is the best definition of matter that you have to date? Can you define an electron for me? Is it a solid particle, a wave, a field, a string, or just a system of equations? Does it occupy space? Is space empty, or is it filled with some chaotic “something” that you can only describe by means of a system of partial differential equations? It seems to me that when you go beyond the level of superficial accidents, modern scientists today actually don’t know much more about the nature of bodily substance than the philosophers of old.

 

[Michael1966]

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.

That’s really thought-provoking, thank you. Yes, I can see better now why the scholastic view has held forth even in these days of far more advanced knowledge on the nature of matter. I think we’re living in terribly exciting times concerning our understanding of matter, though I wonder whether there will be a tendency to think we’ve got it sussed now. I’m reminded of Lord Kelvin’s comment in 1900 when he was reported to have said “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement”. Of course Einstein blew all that away! I think we just have to keep reminding ourselves we are always working with simplifications of reality in both philosophy and science, and simplifications always involve errors, though that does not at all mean the models aren’t useful.

God bless +

 

[brb3]

That’s really thought-provoking, thank you. Yes, I can see better now why the scholastic view has held forth even in these days of far more advanced knowledge on the nature of matter. I think we’re living in terribly exciting times concerning our understanding of matter, though I wonder whether there will be a tendency to think we’ve got it sussed now. I’m reminded of Lord Kelvin’s comment in 1900 when he was reported to have said “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement”. Of course Einstein blew all that away! I think we just have to keep reminding ourselves we are always working with simplifications of reality in both philosophy and science, and simplifications always involve errors, though that does not at all mean the models aren’t useful.

God bless +

Scientist still trying to identify the GOD PARTICAL…recently say they found proof of, in SUPERCONDUCTOR - COLLIDER experiments !! They think they can prove God’s existence with their Newtonian-Einsteinian physics ??

Ha !!

Christians have held / received him via the Eucharista species for 2 Millennia. And, he isnt
a fleeting particle that is difficult to capture & prove existence of.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

rom422, brb3 I don’t think there is any need to come to the defence of philosophy re Michael1966’s observations do we? Its more a case of “he who is not against me is for me” rather than “he who is not with me is against me” .
I see M1966 as taking the high ground - opining that all frameworks of thought are potentially revisable. Whether that be Physics Newtonian or Aristotelian.

All of them are works-in-progress awaiting the discovery/acceptance of new instances of their subject matter that render old understandings inaccurate or less use-ful. I do not see presently see how this observation can be gain-sayed.
As has been noted above, Aristotle’s understanding of dimension had to be expanded to accomodate the miracle of the Eucharist. Newton’s explanation for calculating the paths of the planets had to be improved by relativity to remove high error in calculations involving fast-moving bodies.

This is pragmatism is it not? Useful ways of thinking. If the framework works we leave it alone - but let us not pretend it is perfect or always fits reality well. A “contradictory” singularity is always possibly around the corner.

When M1966 says “accidents and substances are not realities in themselves” is he not right if his drift understood? They are abstractions. Yes, we believe they **refer **accurately to the real world multiplicity that we “group” together in certain ways. But like the lesser abstractions of Maths, when apllied to empirical reality, real-world application is never so clear cut (the concept of number doesn’t work well when taking a census of a fungal colony).

It is perfectly true that Science has not pretended to do more than explain the sensible world (more than just matter). That is why I have never regarded Science as a threat to Philosophy or Theology.

Newtonian “Physics” never really pretended to replace Aristotelian Physics, the subject matter is 98% non-intersecting isn’t it? (OK, Aristotle’s more empirical aspects of Natural Philosophy came under attack, and rightly so as his, and Aquinas’s, understanding of force/inertia appears manifestly incorrect. Then there is the simple issue of the number of teeth in a horses mouth).

Personally I have never felt threatened by Science and the praise/advance of one does not imply the denigration of the other. The proper subject matters, normally, are completely disconnected. Science has to date not found the concepts of substance/accidents, matter/form of any practical use in unifiying/understanding its subject matter.

This separation of the forces of “truth” was practiced by its greatest exponents even back in the 1600s. As F Bacon said, “we do not presume by the contemplation of nature to attain to the mysteries of God…only let men beware…that they do not unwisely confound these learnings together.” Newton was similar, acknowledging God was responsible for every sparrow that fell to the ground - he sought only to explain how the sparrow might make that fall.

However, as opined above, it seems that those who study the cosmos at its extremities, macro or micro, increasingly must use frameworks/analogies that are not material/mechanical. Are not these “high priests” of science essentially forced to become philosophers to get the conceptual tools they need to understand even “matter”. They may well be lead back to conceptual principles such as Aristotle demonstrated. Whether they will be the same principles or new one’s remains to be seen.

I see no reason why our deeper understanding of the empirical world at sub-atomic level (better than Aristotle) could not see the rise of new principles that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas conceived of. One day these may also be used to explain the mystery of the Eucharist.

 

[brb3]

The more we understand science, the more we look into the mind of God. But, we shouldn’t expect scientific advances will one day let us visibly see God, or prove his existence using our own mental intellects alone.

If that were possible, faith would no longer be need to precede our illumination by God. “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth”. John 4:24.

…so it is written, so it shall always be.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Roman catholics love to ignore protestant father quotes, and wipe some different quotes over the top and hope the uncomfortable stuff will just go away.

Please explain the original quote. “Believe and you have eaten already”.

I said I would answer, so I will. I would like to remind you that you are performing eisegesis by requiring one line of text to be analyzed apart from the rest of the individual teachings. I am growing tired of your circular and disingenuous arguments, so I do not promise I will respond to anymore of them.

First, I will state that I have already shown amply (and entire) sections of text that state Augustine believed in the True Presence, and that he considered the actual bread and wine to be the Body and Blood. I am not going to re-post them, especially since you ignored them the first time. I will point out that because Augustine believed the bread and wine itself is the Body and Blood, it implies that your proof-text quote does not mean he somehow reneged on this belief. Rather, in context, he was stating how important belief in the Sacrament is. In the other quotes I posted, he said as much. Another poster also mentioned spiritual communion, which is also valid. But what is sure is that he places heavy emphasis on believing in the Sacrament.

Secondly, his mentor, St. Ambrose, also believed in the Real Presence. See Chapter 9 of the following work:

newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

Thirdly, I have already shown numerous quotes from Church Fathers, including Martyr’s definition of ‘transmutation’. It makes no logical sense that from Ignatius of Antioch to St. Ambrose, this belief was consistent, and then Augustine radically departed from it.

After all of the evidence I have provided against your opinion and improper quoting of Augustine, the burden is on you to somehow disprove this evidence, which will be impossible without eisegesis, as you just performed.

As an aside consideration, you seem to place importance on Augustine. Do you also believe in his definition as Mary being the Mother of God? Or being perpetually a Virgin? He was also among the first to argue in writing for her being entirely free from sin. See Chapter 42 of “On Nature and Grace”:

newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm

Or do you also hold to his belief of regenerating baptism that should be performed on infants? How do you know what he said is true or false? How do you determine the same of any Church Father? We Catholics determine it through the use of counsels that decide on faith and morals and acclaim them with one voice. What do you have? You have nothing but opinion, whether yours or some other preacher. We all have an authority. Mine is the Church. Yours is yourself.

 

[rom422]

I don’t think there is any need to come to the defence of philosophy re Michael1966’s observations do we?

How can I not rise to the defense of philosophy when a suggestion is being made to replace the methods and concepts of philosophy by the methods and concepts of science, even in explaining theological matters such as the Eucharist? I might welcome this suggestion if it can be shown that the methods and concepts of science are appropriate for this purpose. But neither you nor Michael1966 had come up with a “scientific” description that can serve as a better alternative to the idea of transubstantiation.

I see M1966 as taking the high ground - opining that all frameworks of thought are potentially revisable. Whether that be Physics Newtonian or Aristotelian.

I already said in an earlier post that no philosophical framework is perfect. But there is no reason to abandon or revise an old philosophical framework if it still works, or if it still does the job of explaining the mystery of the Eucharist. The fact that the idea of transubstantiation is 700 years old doesn’t really matter. The Pythagorean theorem is much older, but we still use it, don’t we?

When M1966 says “accidents and substances are not realities in themselves” is he not right if his drift understood? They are abstractions.

The philosophical concepts of “substance” and “accidents” are universal essences abstracted by the mind from individual substances and accidents in the real world. So, you might call them abstractions, if you like, because they are abstract representations (or “species”) of real things. But don’t let their being abstract fool you. Remember that the Dirac equations representing the electron in quantum mechanics, for example, are even far more removed from reality than the abstract “substances” and “accidents” of Aristotle! The “models” of modern mathematical physics have no resemblance to anything real anymore. So, they are not in the same category as the “substances” and “accidents” of philosophy. They are truly just mental fiction, or “beings of reason” as philosophers call them. But before I get too far, let me get back to the point I wanted to make. I thought that you favor the approach of the Eastern Churches because they tend to be less technical and more focused on faith. Why then do you want to replace the simpler commonsense concepts of philosophy by the more abstruse equations of modern physics? Do you think more people will believe and understand the mystery of the Eucharist if you explain the dogma in terms of quantum mechanics?

It is perfectly true that Science has not pretended to do more than explain the sensible world (more than just matter). That is why I have never regarded Science as a threat to Philosophy or Theology.

Science is not the threat to philosophy. The threat (to the untrained or unsuspecting scholar) is not science, but scientism – the idea that the scientific method is universally applicable to all fields of inquiry (including theology), and that every truth had to be expressed in scientific garb to be acceptable.

Newtonian “Physics” never really pretended to replace Aristotelian Physics, the subject matter is 98% non-intersecting isn’t it? (OK, Aristotle’s more empirical aspects of Natural Philosophy came under attack, and rightly so as his, and Aquinas’s, understanding of force/inertia appears manifestly incorrect. Then there is the simple issue of the number of teeth in a horses mouth).

LOL. I remember that story. When it comes to questions about the “accidents” or the observable characteristics of a substance, then there is no substitute to direct observation. In other words, you can more easily determine the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth by looking at it directly than by making a priori arguments based on the animal’s nature. HOWEVER, the method of direct observation fails when it comes to transformations taking place in the level of “substance.” If you only observe what happens to the bread at mass, you will miss the transubstantiation that is taking place. And that is the risk you are taking when you abandon philosophy in favor of a science that is restricted to the mathematical description of observable phenomena.

This separation of the forces of “truth” was practiced by its greatest exponents even back in the 1600s. As F Bacon said, “we do not presume by the contemplation of nature to attain to the mysteries of God…only let men beware…that they do not unwisely confound these learnings together.” Newton was similar, acknowledging God was responsible for every sparrow that fell to the ground - he sought only to explain how the sparrow might make that fall.

Exactly! As a scientist, Newton was only interested in describing physical phenomena in terms of mathematics. He was not interested in explaining things in terms of their causes. His interest was merely to find out the equations that would best describe the motion of a falling body, not what caused the fall. This approach may be valid for the scientist, as scientist. But do not think that you can explain everything else (including theology) in this manner. For example, you can’t explain the Fall of Man in the same way that Newton described the fall of a sparrow.

I see no reason why our deeper understanding of the empirical world at sub-atomic level (better than Aristotle) could not see the rise of new principles that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas conceived of. One day these may also be used to explain the mystery of the Eucharist.

Maybe. But let us focus on science and philosophy, not scientism.

 

[Michael1966]

Hi Rom,

I think you might have misunderstood me. I was not saying science explained the Eucharist - far from it! The parallel I was drawing is that we realise scientific descriptions of matter are only models or partial insights into reality (observing shadows of the true form, if you will). I think we should see philosophical reflections on matter with the same appreciation - they are bound to be imperfect simplifications of reality. They are not reality themselves, but human ideas and constructs used to explore reality. What matters to me is that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Philosophical reflections on how we might think about that are definitely secondary (and always imperfect) for me.

God bless +

 

[brb3]

Both science and philosophy are evolving. Both require Metaphysics.
Mankind’s first attempts at science was the study of the sky/astrology.
And, today we have the scientific discipline of Cosmology … nevertheless, very metaphysical !!

So, Metaphysics is very old, yet very new. It will always be with us…
The Apostles grasped the concept of Transubstantiation …and taught it to the Bishops, who were the major practitioners. And, they called it Transmutation … which Justin Martyr gave to recorded history, in 2nd century.

It’s still a mystery, in 2013. … a Supernatural miracle, that can’t be observed & tested…thus outside the realm of science. But, not beyond the realm of metaphysics…where Faith rules !!

 

[rom422]

Hi Rom,

I think you might have misunderstood me. I was not saying science explained the Eucharist - far from it! The parallel I was drawing is that we realise scientific descriptions of matter are only models or partial insights into reality (observing shadows of the true form, if you will). I think we should see philosophical reflections on matter with the same appreciation - they are bound to be imperfect simplifications of reality. They are not reality themselves, but human ideas and constructs used to explore reality. What matters to me is that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Philosophical reflections on how we might think about that are definitely secondary (and always imperfect) for me.

God bless +

Now I will drink to that, Michael

You are right. Philosophy is not perfect. And the worship of Christ in the Eucharist is more important than philosophy. Near the end of his life St. Thomas said that his writings appeared to him as “so much straw.”

Still, they were good writings. It was also said that one day, while praying at a Dominican priory in Naples, our Lord appeared to him and said, “Thomas, you have written well of me. What would you have for a reward?” St. Thomas replied, “Only you, Lord.”

Today is Sunday. Please say a prayer for me.

God bless!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Both science and philosophy are evolving. Both require Metaphysics.
Mankind’s first attempts at science was the study of the sky/astrology.
And, today we have the scientific discipline of Cosmology … nevertheless, very metaphysical !!

So, Metaphysics is very old, yet very new. It will always be with us…

Exactly!
Not only do they both require metaphysics…but metaphysics is in turn “informed” by nature. (In so far as metaphysics abstracts the most universal of concepts from beings then “new beings” (new particles/fields) may suggest new conceptualisations).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How can I not rise to the defense of philosophy when a suggestion is being made to replace the methods and concepts of philosophy by the methods and concepts of science.

No suggestion like this is being made from my quarter Rom422. (The two worlds don’t intersect and largely get on like neighbours either side of a 10 foot high wooden fence.)
I was prob saying the opposite - the high priests of Science look to be in desperate need of philosophy (even a little of the Aristotelian variety) “to get a grip” on the very strange reality that sleeps under the hood of elementary particles :bigyikes:.

Yep, there’s a lot of scientism around - but then what peaceful protest isn’t smeared by a minority of thugs out for a fight. Like Aquinas says, I always try to debate the “other side” by interpretting ambiguity as benignly as possible.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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. …The so-called “proper accidents” are predicable of a subject as its properties. … 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.

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?

 

[rom422]

(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.

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.

(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.

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.”

(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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

Linus

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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

 

[brb3]

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.

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.

Linus

Yes, the Eucharist received by the 12 was fully efficacious, to the 11 who received in faith. Christ had not yet suffered & rose from death, nevertheless the species were blessed & fully transmutated into the RealPresence. God is not bound by time, even the species used to bless Abram by Melchizedek…were fully efficacious.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Likewise, I should add, the mode of Christ’s presence is identical in the Eucharist at the Last Supper and now at Holy Mass, though the body in the former was not a glorified body. The mode is always sacramental, and He (substance and accidents!) are made present in the manner of a substance.

VC

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon
But could God allow Aristotle’s understanding of the dimensive quantity [where spatial extension is a necessary concomitant] to be present in the Eucharist … yet by a miracle block/veil its expressed sensible species in some way (e.g. the subtility of a glorified body…?) …this … it seems to me, militates against his [Aquinas’s] whole cosmology.

Gentlemen, please note that I myself did not accept that Jesus’s possibly glorified body (the quality of subtlity) was a good explanation for the existence of dimensive quantity AND spatial extension but without perception of existing spatial extension.

Rom422, I accept your insightful observation that Jesus’s glorified body was not present in the Eucharist at the Last Supper (though it is now) and therefore glorification cannot be speculated as the mechanism to explain absence of sensible species of Jesus’s body.

Linus, I believe Rom422 is correct. Aquinas appears to affirm as much in the SCG:
" If during the three days that Christ lay dead this Sacrament had been celebrated, the Soul of Christ would not have been under the species of bread, because it was not really united with His Body: nor would His Blood have been under the species of bread, nor His Body under the species of wine, because of the separation of the two in death. But now, because the Body of Christ in its nature is not without His Blood, the Body and Blood are contained under both species;" (SCG 64)