Problem with Transubstantiation

[rom422]

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.

Although sacrifice demands death, the essence of the sacrifice consists in the offering or oblation. In the example of Abraham, for example, we see that God was pleased with His offering (or sacrifice) although the actual death of his son, Isaac, never took place. At the Last Supper Christ said, “This is my blood of the New Testament, which SHALL be shed for many” (Mark 14:24). In other words, at that first Mass Christ made an offering of His Body and Blood. This was a true sacrifice although the actual crucifixion would take place later. It was not necessary for the validity of the sacrifice and the sacrament that His death actually take place first.

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.

The last paragraph of your quotation from St. Thomas is significant. Just as sight requires Christ’s Body to be spatially extended in order to be visible to us, so spatial extension is also required for His Body to be capable of being altered by us. Strictly speaking, there is nothing we can do to touch and alter the Body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, because His dimensive quantity is not extended in space. Only the accidents of the bread or wine can be touched, but not His Body. In the Blessed Sacrament He is untouchable. For example, He is not hurt if the Host is accidentally dropped on the ground. And His Body does not burn if the apparent bread is put on fire. His Body does not divide if the apparent bread is divided, and His Body remains one and the same Body in each divided particle. Therefore, if I receive Holy Communion by the tongue, I do it out of respect for His Real Presence and to conform to a tradition that dates back to the time of the Apostles, and not because I’m afraid that my hands are not clean enough, nor that I would be able by my bare hands to materially defile His Sacred Body.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Hmmmn. Rom422 I am not sure that these two sentgences can be joined even by the Divine power…

Can God draw a triangle where the 3 angles do not add to 180 degrees?
The essence of a triangle says nothing of the 180 degree thing (ie a proper accident of triangles). Even God cannot make a logical contradiction true by a miracle. Why should dimensive quantity without spatial extension (a proper accident) be presumed any different? (I am not saying some examples of proper accidents cannot be treated as you suggest - but it appears not all can be).

If the above observation is valid then it would seem more satisfactory to simply affirm that spatial extension is not a proper effect/aspect of dimensive quantity. However this can only be known to faith and is not capable of being proven by reason (yet).

If it is not a proper effect/aspect of dimensive quantity then no logical contradiction is involved in Jesus’s body having no spatial bulk. Speculating as to how that can be done still requires a miracle - but at least it isn’t an impossible miracle like drawing a triangle without the proper “effect” of its angles adding to 180?

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.

Can you reference this clause in Aquinas for me?

(BTW I think Aquinas’s example of the effects of fire being separated from the essence of fire (the burning bush) seems to falls over in the light of modern chemistry. (That doesn’t mean that the principle he is elucidating falls over - it just seems a poor example).
Real fire, by definition, is caused by the rapid “oxidation” of a combustible material. If the bush was not being consumed then not only did it not get damaged by the heat of the flame - it was not feeding the flame either. Was the fire was being fed by invisible combustible material created on the spot ex nihilo? I think Ocham would advise us to consider simpler miraculous happenings (a vision?) first.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hi rom, you are most welcome.
… 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) …I think I’ve been taken to task a couple of times over it, if I recall correctly.
VC

VC from my reading of Aquinas, esp in SCG, what you opine re glorified body before his death cannot be disputed .

…and that Christ is present with His own natural accidents

IYes it seems we have to accept that Jesus’s proper accidents are present.

Personally I am unable to determine the status of Christ’s bodily spatial extension:
(a) whether it is a proper accident which may mean it must be present - but somehow its proper species is blocked) or
(b) it is not a proper accident in which case it is not even present. This would be a more “natural” miracle - in fact it may even be a preternatural gift Jesus enjoyed even in his life-time (did he not “slip” through hostile crowds set on killing him). Very speculative of course.

Linus mentions 2nd substance as an “explanation” but I am not quite sure how that helps.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Hi Linus - I don’t see any article link here. Can you clarify?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… so spatial extension is also required for His Body to be capable of being altered by us. Strictly speaking, there is nothing we can do to touch and alter the Body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, because His dimensive quantity is not extended in space. He is not hurt if the Host is accidentally dropped on the ground. And His Body does not burn if the apparent bread is put on fire.

Yes, exactly .

Unless I have missed something “impassibility” is intrinsic to not spatially extended and calls to qualities of glorification (impassability) are unnecessary.

BTW examples of this impossible “hurting” of Jesus are much closer to home than the above. When Jesus asked us to eat his flesh the word “eat” actually implies “grind”. Obviously Jesus is not tortured by us grinding the blessed host in our mouths in the few seconds before it dissolves and the Sacrament no longer subsists.

 

[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.

How do you so assuredly know what Melchisedek could/couldn’t confer ?

He was priest of the most high, forever that priest, w/o beginning or ending. He was the first to bless mankind with bread & wine. He chosen to bless Abram, the greatest patriarch of all time. God, making eternal covenant with Abram. Certainly Christ was present at that blessing, and the subsequent one with Isaac on the Holy Mount--------truly and substantially present, a real presence.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Blue Horizon;10396072:

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.

Linus

Hi Linus,

The portion of the Credo that is illustrative is the following:

We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross

, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven

You can see here the contrast made between the Body which was to be offered on the cross (at the last supper) and the Body gloriously in heaven (at our liturgy). Note that this is an echo of Aquinas in that the body Christ had at the Last Supper was manifestly a body that was passible, capable of suffering, i.e. Non-glorified, because it was about to be offered on the Cross.

As to the issue you mention regarding sacrifice, in addition to the other explanations offered, I think that perhaps the simplest and safest explanation would be that just as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary as it is now offered by Christ so too the Last Supper was the sacrifice of Calvary then offered by Christ, by way of anticipation. Essentially, by applying to the Last Supper the words of Trent about the Mass: “For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering . . .the manner alone of offering being different.”

As an aside, I wonder that if one were to hold that a sacrifice is not possible without a death that we could run into some major difficulties with the Mass as a sacrifice, since Christ certainly is not dying or killed or dead at the Mass as His Body and Blood cannot be physically seperated after the Resurrection.

Enjoying our conversation. Thanks,
VC

 

[brb3]

Psalms 41:9…

Teaches that the first Lord’s Supper, received by the 12, was the Real Presence,… Jesus’s Body referenced.

 

[rom422]

Can God draw a triangle where the 3 angles do not add to 180 degrees?
The essence of a triangle says nothing of the 180 degree thing (ie a proper accident of triangles). Even God cannot make a logical contradiction true by a miracle. Why should dimensive quantity without spatial extension (a proper accident) be presumed any different? (I am not saying some examples of proper accidents cannot be treated as you suggest - but it appears not all can be).

If the above observation is valid then it would seem more satisfactory to simply affirm that spatial extension is not a proper effect/aspect of dimensive quantity. However this can only be known to faith and is not capable of being proven by reason (yet).

If it is not a proper effect/aspect of dimensive quantity then no logical contradiction is involved in Jesus’s body having no spatial bulk. Speculating as to how that can be done still requires a miracle - but at least it isn’t an impossible miracle like drawing a triangle without the proper “effect” of its angles adding to 180?

First of all, mathematical entities like “triangles”, “circles”, etc., are not substances. They are quantitative forms abstracted from material things. They have a quiddity (or “whatness”), but not essences. Strictly, therefore, they have no “accidents” (proper or otherwise) because accidents are modifications of substantial being.

There is a difference between the “properties” of mathematical entities as understood by the mathematician, and the physical “properties” of bodily substances as understood by the philosopher. Mathematical properties can actually be deduced from the definition of mathematical entities. These so-called properties are implicitly contained in the quiddity, although not explicitly expressed in the definition. For example, the fact that the interior angles of a plane triangle add up to 180 degrees, is a mathematical property deduced from the definition, - or from other propositions that are derived from the definition, - of the triangle. Since this property is not an “accident” but is really an implicit part of the quiddity of a triangle, it follows that God cannot – without contradiction - make a triangle whose interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees.

Physical properties, as understood by the philosopher, are proper accidents (which means that they are not part of the essence, although they necessarily proceed from the essence) of material things. Because they are not part of the essence, they are technically separable from substance. HOWEVER, we have no example of that in the material world. The bodies in the world of our experience usually exist with modifications or accidents, and accidents usually exist in the substances that they modify. It is only in the Blessed Sacrament that we see accidents miraculously existing without a substance – the accidents of the bread – and we also know this only by faith.

Now, if the accidents of the bread can, by God’s power, be made to exist without substantial support, then by God’s power it is also possible that a bodily substance exist without any accidents. One might be led to think then that the Body of Christ might, after transubstantiation, simply exist in the Blessed Sacrament in this way, that means, as a pure substance, without quantity or any accidental modifications whatsoever. This would surely explain why we can’t see nor touch Him. But the problem with this view is that we also know - on faith - that the Whole Christ is in the Eucharist, not just His bodily substance, but all its accidents and modifications; and not just His Body, but also His Soul and Divinity. St. Thomas is very clear on this. He said, “By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones, the nerves, and the like” (ST, Part III, Q. 76, Art. 1, Reply to Obj. 2), that means, including all the bodily parts!

 

[rom422]

Can you reference this clause in Aquinas for me?

It is not easy to find a direct clause from St. Thomas’ ST that would satisfy you, because St. Thomas did not exactly use the term “spatial extension,” nor did he discuss the formal nature of quantity and its effects in the articles dealing with the Eucharist. His thoughts were actually scattered in several of his expositions and philosophical treatises, and I myself had to consult his commentators, particularly John Poinsot (otherwise known as John of St. Thomas) to get a fuller understanding on this matter.

However, I propose the following summary:

1. Accidents have effects, because accidents are always a modification of the substance.
2. Quantity is a proper accident of bodily substance. Its effect on a substance is twofold: The primary effect (or the formal effect) of quantity is to order the parts of the body in relation to the whole, thus rendering the parts of the body to be integral, distinct parts. This is internal extension or “dimensive quantity,” and it is required if the body is to have really distinct parts.
3. The secondary effect of quantity is to order the parts of the body in relation to surrounding bodies, which is their external or spatial extension. This is what St. Thomas calls existence in a place “by way of commensuration.”
4. The second effect (external extension) locates a body in one and only one place. Multilocation - or the existence of an externally extended body in more than one place at the same time - implies having multiple relations with the same set of surrounding bodies. This is metaphysically impossible.
5. In the Eucharist Christ exists wholly with His dimensive quantity, but He does not exist there as in a place (by way of commensuration), but only after the manner of a substance – spaceless and spirit-like. He exists with His proper external extension only in Heaven.

Now, try to read the ST again with the above background and see if St. Thomas makes more sense.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus - I don’t see any article link here. Can you clarify?

Sorry to be so slow in answering, have been busy sholving snow, etc.

Here is the link; newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;10412982:

Hi Linus,

The portion of the Credo that is illustrative is the following:

You can see here the contrast made between the Body which was to be offered on the cross (at the last supper) and the Body gloriously in heaven (at our liturgy). Note that this is an echo of Aquinas in that the body Christ had at the Last Supper was manifestly a body that was passible, capable of suffering, i.e. Non-glorified, because it was about to be offered on the Cross.

As to the issue you mention regarding sacrifice, in addition to the other explanations offered, I think that perhaps the simplest and safest explanation would be that just as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary as it is now offered by Christ so too the Last Supper was the sacrifice of Calvary then offered by Christ, by way of anticipation. Essentially, by applying to the Last Supper the words of Trent about the Mass: “For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering . . .the manner alone of offering being different.”

As an aside, I wonder that if one were to hold that a sacrifice is not possible without a death that we could run into some major difficulties with the Mass as a sacrifice, since Christ certainly is not dying or killed or dead at the Mass as His Body and Blood cannot be physically seperated after the Resurrection.

Enjoying our conversation. Thanks,
VC

Thank you for your time and thoughts. On the other hand, even the first Eucharist was the same sacrafice at Calvary that we perpetuate at each Mass. So at the last Supper, we had the living earthly Christ offering His real body and his real blood which can only be obtained through a real sacrafice. And even if this was anticipated it was real. And if real it makes it very difficult to see how, even at the Last Supper, anything could be present other than the Glorified, living, body of Christ. If we can anticipate the actual sacrafice, surely Christ can make present His Glorified body by anticipation.

I don’t think this issue is a matter of Faith or universal teaching, so I’m not worried about it. It just seems to me that there is a lot of anticipation going on and that it could fall on either side of the issue with equal justification. Linus

 

[guanophore]

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”.

We can’t really ignore what does not exist. There were no Fathers who were Protesant!

The reference to “believe and you have eaten already” is a reference to spiritual communion.

 

[brb3]

We can’t really ignore what does not exist. There were no Fathers who were Protesant!

The reference to “believe and you have eaten already” is a reference to spiritual communion.

Well, some might of fallen into later error. Not a full-blown protestant ‘protest’ as Luther waged, but a subtle divergence from the mainstream. Like Tertullian and Origen seem to of done.

 

[Arthropod]

We can’t really ignore what does not exist. There were no Fathers who were Protesant!

The reference to “believe and you have eaten already” is a reference to spiritual communion.

And this quote is in relation to John 6. So do you believe that Augustine viewed John 6 as talking about some sort of spiritual communion and not transubstantiation?

 

[guanophore]

Well, some might of fallen into later error. Not a full-blown protestant ‘protest’ as Luther waged, but a subtle divergence from the mainstream. Like Tertullian and Origen seem to of done.

Yes, there are some writings that are not consistent with orthodox Apostolic faith. However, departures from the doctrines of the faith are considered just that, not acceptable doctrinal “distinctives” as Protestants have today.

And this quote is in relation to John 6. So do you believe that Augustine viewed John 6 as talking about some sort of spiritual communion and not transubstantiation?

He wrote about both. Augustine was Catholic, and believed in the Real Presence. Spiritual communion is also part of Catholic faith.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is not easy to find a direct clause from St. Thomas’ ST that would satisfy you, because St. Thomas did not exactly use the term “spatial extension,” nor did he discuss the formal nature of quantity and its effects in the articles dealing with the Eucharist. His thoughts were actually scattered in several of his expositions and philosophical treatises, and I myself had to consult his commentators, particularly John Poinsot (otherwise known as John of St. Thomas) to get a fuller understanding on this matter.

Thanks for the reference to Poinsot.
Actually I believe Thomas did expressly talk about what we are calling “spatial extension.”
Apparantly he does so very specifcally, especially when he uses the word “corporeal”. For years I thought that meant “body” but it doesn’t. Apparantly “corporeal” in these contexts refers to the elemental constituents of material substance (ie the sensible four “elements”). Interesting!

However, I propose the following summary:

1. Accidents have effects, because accidents are always a modification of the substance.
2. Quantity is a proper accident of bodily substance. Its effect on a substance is twofold: The primary effect (or the formal effect) of quantity is to order the parts of the body in relation to the whole, thus rendering the parts of the body to be integral, distinct parts. This is internal extension or “dimensive quantity,” and it is required if the body is to have really distinct parts.
3. The secondary effect of quantity is to order the parts of the body in relation to surrounding bodies, which is their external or spatial extension. This is what St. Thomas calls existence in a place “by way of commensuration.”
4. The second effect (external extension) locates a body in one and only one place. Multilocation - or the existence of an externally extended body in more than one place at the same time - implies having multiple relations with the same set of surrounding bodies. This is metaphysically impossible.
5. In the Eucharist Christ exists wholly with His dimensive quantity, but He does not exist there as in a place (by way of commensuration), but only after the manner of a substance – spaceless and spirit-like. He exists with His proper external extension only in Heaven.

I have no problem with most of this but the problem still comes back to step 5.
There are various interpretations of how this could work. We still go round in circles as above it seems.

One thing for sure is that I (in agreement with Aquinas who is clear on this point) do not really agree with talk of His “spacelessness” as “spirit-like”. It is an exaggerated analogy at best if you are hinting at some sort of substantial “spiritualised matter” like a “ghost” of colloquial understanding. That is a sort of physicalism isn’t it.

Aquinas is at pains to say that not even a “glorified eye” can ever see this “spirit like” being. Jesus’s “spaceless presence” does not seem to exist in this manner. His bodily presence can only be “seen” (ie inferred) by the “eye” of reason/faith.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

First of all, mathematical entities like “triangles”, “circles”, etc., are not substances…
Physical properties, as understood by the philosopher, are proper accidents (which means that they are not part of the essence, although they necessarily proceed from the essence) of material things. Because they are not part of the essence, they are technically separable from substance. HOWEVER, we have no example of that in the material world. … It is only in the Blessed Sacrament that we see accidents miraculously existing without a substance – the accidents of the bread – and we also know this only by faith.

Now, if the accidents of the bread can, by God’s power, be made to exist without substantial support, then by God’s power it is also possible that a bodily substance exist without any accidents. One might be led to think then that the Body of Christ might, after transubstantiation, simply exist in the Blessed Sacrament in this way, that means, as a pure substance, without quantity or any accidental modifications whatsoever. This would surely explain why we can’t see nor touch Him. But the problem with this view is that we also know - on faith - that the Whole Christ is in the Eucharist, not just His bodily substance, but all its accidents and modifications; and not just His Body, but also His Soul and Divinity. St. Thomas is very clear on this. He said, “By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones, the nerves, and the like” (ST, Part III, Q. 76, Art. 1, Reply to Obj. 2), that means, including all the bodily parts!

Rom lets go back to why we are talking about proper accidents in the first place:

Quote: BlueHorizon
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 .

Rom:
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.

What you seem to be saying is that the (proper) accident of spatial extension is present but is somehow blocked in its realisation by a further miracle.

I am suggesting that there is an alternative, simpler explanation. Namely, despite the logical, empirical conclusions of men of reason - spatial extension is NOT a **proper **accident of material substances. Then there is no denial of dogma if we say that all Jesus’s proper bodily accidents are present in the Eucharist but not that of spatial extension.

I am of course willing to accept the latter statement is wrong if it can be clearly shown that we have to believe that all Jesus’s bodily accidents (including “improper” ones) have to be present.

I am not sure that Jesus being “wholly present” has to be interpretted as saying that all bodily accidents also have to be present. Afterall, Jesus’s body is not “animated” either (at least that is what Aquinas seems to be saying). If His soul is present but not united with his body in the Eucharist (perhaps it is?) is Jesus “wholly” present.

Perhaps other can clarify this area.

 

[brb3]

Rom lets go back to why we are talking about proper accidents in the first place:

What you seem to be saying is that the (proper) accident of spatial extension is present but is somehow blocked in its realisation by a further miracle.

I am suggesting that there is an alternative, simpler explanation. Namely, despite the logical, empirical conclusions of men of reason - spatial extension is NOT a **proper **accident of material substances. Then there is no denial of dogma if we say that all Jesus’s proper bodily accidents are present in the Eucharist but not that of spatial extension.

I am of course willing to accept the latter statement is wrong if it can be clearly shown that we have to believe that all Jesus’s bodily accidents (including “improper” ones) have to be present.

I am not sure that Jesus being “wholly present” has to be interpretted as saying that all bodily accidents also have to be present. Afterall, Jesus’s body is not “animated” either (at least that is what Aquinas seems to be saying). If His soul is present but not united with his body in the Eucharist (perhaps it is?) is Jesus “wholly” present.

Perhaps other can clarify this area.

The RealPresence must be in the consecrated bread & wine. Metaphysically & physically present. The Jesus who taught “wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I AM there” …is certainly present in the Eucharist, …as the resurrected I AM.

 

[rom422]

What you seem to be saying is that the (proper) accident of spatial extension is present but is somehow blocked in its realisation by a further miracle.

Yes, that is what I was saying.

I am suggesting that there is an alternative, simpler explanation. Namely, despite the logical, empirical conclusions of men of reason - spatial extension is NOT a **proper **accident of material substances. Then there is no denial of dogma if we say that all Jesus’s proper bodily accidents are present in the Eucharist but not that of spatial extension.

Unlike a spirit, which is a simple substance, a body is comprised of parts and is divisible into parts. It is the accident “quantity” that extends the body into parts that are exterior to one another, and so it is truly a **proper accident **of bodily substance. Besides extending the body into distinct, integral parts, however, quantity also has the ordinary effect of extending the parts of the body in space, but this normal and ordinary effect can be blocked by a miracle.

In like manner thinking is a power that properly belongs to man. This power (intellection) is a proper accident of man, the natural consequence of his rational nature. That a man should **actually be thinking, **however, is not a proper but a contingent accident, and it can be prevented from happening, sometimes even permanently (for example, due to a brain injury.) So, the effect of a proper accident can be suppressed – sometimes by natural causes, sometimes by a miracle.

In the Eucharist, Christ’s Body possesses the proper accident of quantity by which His parts are made distinct from other parts. This quantified Body of Christ retains the aptitude to be extended in space, although its ordinary effect – the actual extension in space – is miraculously suspended. Therefore, we should never say that Christ’s Body in the Eucharist does not have the proper accident of quantity that all bodies have. His Body in the Eucharist is a quantified body, but not an actually spatially extended body.

Spatial extension is the proper effect of quantity. I never really called it a proper accident. However, I can accept the aptitude to be spatially extended as a proper accident of bodily substance. However, the fact that a body is actually extended in space is not a proper accident – AND YOU ARE QUITE CORRECT ON THAT!

I am not sure that Jesus being “wholly present” has to be interpretted as saying that all bodily accidents also have to be present. Afterall, Jesus’s body is not “animated” either (at least that is what Aquinas seems to be saying). If His soul is present but not united with his body in the Eucharist (perhaps it is?) is Jesus “wholly” present.

Christ’s Body in the consecrated bread is a Living Body. Therefore, it has a living blood and is animated by His Soul. Likewise, His Blood in the consecrated wine is a Living Blood in a living body. His Body and Blood, His Soul and Divinity, are therefore present in the consecrated bread. They are also present in the consecrated wine. Indeed, this is the reason why we Catholics, except the priest celebrant himself, need not receive communion in both species. By receiving the bread alone, you receive the Whole Christ. By receiving wine alone, you also receive the Whole Christ. If you receive both bread and wine, you don’t receive two Christ’s, but our one single Lord.