Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on the Real Presence

[AugustineH354]

I hope this has not already be discussed, and if so, I have missed the thread/s.

Ratzinger/Benedict XVI said some very interesting things concerning the real presence of the Eucharist in his book God is Near Us. Please note the following:

…in the language of the Bible, the word “body”—“This is my Body”—does not mean just a body, in contradistinction to the spirit, for instance. Body, in the language of the bible, denotes rather the whole person, in whom body and spirit are indivisibly one. “This is my Body” therefore means: This is my whole person, existent in bodily form. What the nature of this is, however, we learn from what is said next: “which is given up for you”. That means: This person is: existing-for-others. It is in its most intimate being a sharing with others. (Page 79.)

What is given us here is not a piece of a body, not a thing, but him, the Resurrected one himself—the person who shares himself with us in his love, which runs right through the Cross. This means that receiving Communion is always a personal act. (Page 81.)

So far, so good, we continue with:

…the word “substance” was used by the Church precisely to avoid the naïveté associated with what we can touch or measure. In the twelfth century the mystery of the Eucharist was on the point of being torn apart by two groups, who each in its own way failed to grasp the heart of it. There were those filled with the thought: Jesus is really there. But “reality”, for them, was simply physical, bodily. Consequently, they arrived at the conclusion: In the Eucharist we chew on the flesh of the Lord; but therein they were under sway of a serious misapprehension. For Jesus has risen. We do not eat flesh, as cannibals do. That I why others quite rightly opposed them, arguing against such primitive “realism”. (Page 84.)

When material things are taken into our body as nourishment, or for that matter whenever any material becomes part of a living organism, it remains the same, and yet part of a new whole it is itself changed. Something similar happens here. The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different. That has an important consequence, which at the same time demonstrates more clearly what is meant here: Wherever Christ has been present, afterward it cannot be just as if nothing happened. (Page 86.)

And lastly a quote from Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s God and the World:

Anyone can see that the wine remains wine…

But this is not a statement of physics. It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more physical level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its most inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them. (Page 408.)

Now, I must admit I am somewhat confused, for it seems to me that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is saying that the transformed bread and wine does not physically become human DNA, but rather, the transformation transcends the physical and is metaphysical in nature.

Looking forward to others comments.

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[Windmill]

We speak of a sacramental change, not a physical change. The physical is more concerned with accidents and those things that follow physical laws of nature. Transubstatiation does not say that the physics of the host are changed, but the metaphysics, the substance.

I don’t see a problem here.

 

[Shiann]

DNA, like the look, feel, and taste of the bread, is just an accident of the bread. Accidents do not change in consecrated hosts- but the substance changes.

I also do not see a problem. In fact it is quite beautiful and succinct.

 

[katherine2]

Shiann:

DNA, like the look, feel, and taste of the bread, is just an accident of the bread. Accidents do not change in consecrated hosts- but the substance changes.

I also do not see a problem. In fact it is quite beautiful and succinct.

very true. And the other merit of this expression is that it putsat ease many of our Protestant brothers and sisters who have misimpressions as to Catholic teachings.

 

[Jayson]

Indeed, this is a very enlightening explaination, especially for those who are struggling with the real presence because they don’t fully understand what it means.

 

[AugustineH354]

Thank you so much for your replies.

Now, could someone explain exactly what “substance” means? What is the “substance” of a human?

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[Shiann]

AugustineH354:

Thank you so much for your replies.

Now, could someone explain exactly what “substance” means? What is the “substance” of a human?

Grace and peace,

Aug

Here is an example of an items physicality and substance provided in Wikipedia’s description of Metaphysics. Remember this philosophy follows that line of thinking developed by Aristotle. Just Google “Aristotle Metaphysics” for Aristotles original writings on this subject. It is quite enlightening.:

The apple is an excellent example of a physical object: one can pick it up, throw it around, eat it, and so on. It occupies space and time and has a variety of properties. Suppose we ask: what are physical objects? This might seem like the sort of question to which one cannot give an answer (“What is, what is?”). What could one possibly use to explain what physical objects are? But philosophers actually do try to give some general sorts of accounts of what they are. They ask: Are physical objects just bundles of their properties? Or are they substances which have those properties? That is called the problem of substance or objecthood.

Catholics believe that things are SUBSTANCES which have properties. (accidents).

Continued:

Here is another sort of question. We said that the apple has properties, like being red, being big, being juicy. How are properties different from objects? Notice, we say that things like apples have properties like redness. But apples and redness are different sorts of items, of things, of entities. One can pick up and touch an apple, but cannot pick up and touch redness, except perhaps in the sense that you can pick up and touch red things. So how can we best think about what properties are? This is called the problem of universals.

Here is where the accidents fit in. Bread has the accidents that which we can quantify, see, touch, taste, etc. DNA would fit into this list.

Continued:

Here is another question about what physical objects are: when in general can we say that physical objects come into being and when they cease to exist? Surely the apple can change in many ways without ceasing to exist. It could get brown and rotten but it would still be that apple. So there are some metaphysical questions to be answered about the notions of identity, or being the same thing over time, and change.

The apple in the above description changes its properties or accidents- and yet does not change its substance.

In the case of our consecrated Hosts and Wine, it is the SUBSTANCE that changes while keeping the properties of bread and wine.

The consecrated hosts are no longer bread and wine, but the whole completeness of the Lord. Body, soul, mind, and divinity- and it is ENTIRELY for us.

Miraculous!

 

[AugustineH354]

Hi Shiann,

Thanks for responding. You wrote:

The apple in the above description changes its properties or accidents- and yet does not change its substance.>>

Me: Understood. But what is the “substance” of an apple? What makes an apple on apple and not, say, an orange?

The Wikipedia states:

According to the substance theory, in at least some

sense, the substance can exist or can be distinguished from its properties. Even if it is physically impossible that a substance would lack any properties at all, we can speak of the substance itself as distinguished from its properties. A substance considered by itself, considered without any reference to its properties, is what has been called a “bare particular.” It is “bare” because it is considered without any properties, and it’s “particular” because it is not abstract. More about “bare particulars” in a minute. So there you have a very basic introduction to what the substance theory says. It says there’s a basic difference between substances, or bare particulars, and the properties that inhere in those substances. ([en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory))

And:

In philosophy, substance

means, approximately, that element of an object without which it would not exist. In the millennia-old Aristotelian tradition, as well as early modern traditions that follow it, substances are treated as having attributes and modes. ([en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance))

So, once again, what is “that element of an object [in this case an apple] without which it would not exist”?

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[milimac]

Thanks Shiann.

Another hangup that I think causes confusion is the word “substance”. I heard an explanation before that the original meaning of the word from its Latin means that which stands underneath something (sub = under, stancia = stands). In other words, what something really is.

Today our common use of the word “substance” is nearly always different from it’s original meaning. Today when we say the word “substance” we usually mean the stuff something is composed of. But when speaking of the Eucharist, the stuff things are composed of (bread, wine) are referred to as “accidents” (or what we’d ironically call substance with today’s usage of the word), and “substance” has its original meaning – what something really is.

There are plenty of examples in nature that we can use to demonstrate how the accidents can change but the substance does not (ex. it may now be rotten, but it’s still the same apple).

The Eucharist is the only thing I know of where the accidents remain the same but the substance changes. It’s difficult to even think of an analogy. A close parallel would be the Incarnation or even our own conceptions. It’s not that puzzling to me why many struggle with belief in the Real Presence. What’s puzzling to me are those who can accept the Incarnation, but not the Eucharist. They are both indetectible but miraculous.

 

[Shiann]

AugustineH354:

So, once again, what is “that element of an object [in this case an apple] without which it would not exist”?

Well the substance… (I agree with milimac, that’s a tricky word- but I think you follow the meaning in this case…)

Philisophically speaking it is the “bare particular”.

The substance of a thing is what is left minus all the properties of that thing.

The bare particular of the apple is the apple minus it’s color, taste, texture, flesh, seeds, DNA, juice, etc.

The bare particular of the Eucharist IS Jesus Christ in all his entirety.

 

[Shiann]

milimac:

Thanks Shiann.

Another hangup that I think causes confusion is the word “substance”. I heard an explanation before that the original meaning of the word from its Latin means that which stands underneath something (sub = under, stancia = stands). In other words, what something really is.

Today our common use of the word “substance” is nearly always different from it’s original meaning. Today when we say the word “substance” we usually mean the stuff something is composed of. But when speaking of the Eucharist, the stuff things are composed of (bread, wine) are referred to as “accidents” (or what we’d ironically call substance with today’s usage of the word), and “substance” has its original meaning – what something really is.

There are plenty of examples in nature that we can use to demonstrate how the accidents can change but the substance does not (ex. it may now be rotten, but it’s still the same apple).

The Eucharist is the only thing I know of where the accidents remain the same but the substance changes. It’s difficult to even think of an analogy. A close parallel would be the Incarnation or even our own conceptions. It’s not that puzzling to me why many struggle with belief in the Real Presence. What’s puzzling to me are those who can accept the Incarnation, but not the Eucharist. They are both indetectible but miraculous.

I couldn’t agree more!

 

[Shiann]

One other thing I wanted to mention was that Substance theory is what makes the Miracle of the Loaves and the Fish comparible to the Miracle of the Eucharist.

The substance of the loaves and the fish were seperate from the properties of 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. We could say that for all intents and purposes, only 2 fish and 5 loaves were detectable to senses and to intellect, but the fish and loaves in substance were immeasurable.

I know, clear as mud…

PS Please excuse my attrocious spelling. These phillosophical discussions always require that I type like mad to keep up with my thoughts… LOL

 

[milimac]

Shiann:

One other thing I wanted to mention was that Substance theory is what makes the Miracle of the Loaves and the Fish comparible to the Miracle of the Eucharist.

The substance of the loaves and the fish were seperate from the properties of 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. We could say that for all intents and purposes, only 2 fish and 5 loaves were detectable to senses and to intellect, but the fish and loaves in substance were immeasurable.

Perhaps, but it makes my head hurt. But even then, the Eucharist is different because it is repeated at every Mass. Also, while distributing 2 hosts and a small cup of wine to a parish of 1000 people where everyone gets a host and a big gulp of wine would be quite impressive, it’s not even in the same league as receiving Jesus.

Personally, I think the loaves and fishes miracle would be more comparable to the miracle of creation, where out of nothingness something came to be.

 

[Shiann]

milimac:

Perhaps, but it makes my head hurt. But even then, the Eucharist is different because it is repeated at every Mass.

Of course, I wasn’t discussing the PERPETUITY of the miracle of the Eucharist… only the REAL PRESENCE of it… the fact that the very substance of the bread and the wine are consecrated into the WHOLE ENTIRETY of Jesus Christ- while the properties of bread and wine remain.

Also, while distributing 2 hosts and a small cup of wine to a parish of 1000 people where everyone gets a host and a big gulp of wine would be quite impressive, it’s not even in the same league as receiving Jesus.

Again, while this is true, this isn’t what I was getting at.

My comparison only pointed out that it is the SUBSTANCE of the “bread and the wine” and the “loaves and the fish” that change, in order to make both miracles possible.

Personally, I think the loaves and fishes miracle would be more comparable to the miracle of creation, where out of nothingness something came to be.

Could very well be true. I won’t dispute that.

But again, the very fact that the miracle happened is because the very SUBSTANCE of the loaves and fish changed to make it possible.

You are espousing that MORE SUBSTANCE was made in that miracle. I can go with that…

 

[Jayson]

So, if I understand properly what’s being said by Shiann, if you take the example of an apple which has the substance of an apple and the accidents of an apple, and you make it into apple sauce, it still has the substance of an apple, but the accidents have become apple sauce.

Now, in the eucharist, you change the substance but not the accidents. So it looks and tastes exactly the same (has the same accidents), but the underlying substance has changed.

This makes perfect sense to me now.

 

[Shiann]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_30_106.gif

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

that is the Mystery of the holy eucharist… you cannot see it but its there!!

It is a matter of FAITH!

 

[JimG]

Jayson:

Now, in the eucharist, you change the substance but not the accidents. So it looks and tastes exactly the same (has the same accidents), but the underlying substance has changed.

This makes perfect sense to me now.

Yes. The differentiation between substance and accidents can be somewhat misleading to moderns, since the word ‘substance’ most often connotes something material to us.

In the Eucharist, by ‘substance’ we mean Jesus whole and entire.

And by accidents we mean the appearances. Appearances are anything perceptible to the senses–by any physical test whatsoever.

Jesus in the Eucharist does not “take on” the appearances of bread and wine. He does not ‘assume’ the shape and properties of a little white wafer. Those appearances do not “inhere” in Him.

Rather, he becomes present whole and entire, as a unity, under the appearances of the bread and of the wne. The appearances are the mask we see, and feel and touch. Hidden beneath them, but not within them, is Jesus, whole and entire.