The Consecrated Species, under the Microscope

[steph_86]

Hi everyone,

I have a question that I have been pondering for quite some time. My central and main question is this:

If it were possible to take a consecrated Host and look at It under the microscope, what would our eyes be able to see?

As the doctrine of **transubstantiation **teaches:

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).

Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
carm.org/transubstantiation

I have no doubt about this teaching, which refers to what has been termed the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine.

However, how can we comprehend it philosophically and scientifically? In Thomistic philosophy, a distinction is made between substance and accident.

According to the Thomistic Philosophy web site, substance is said to be of “what does not exist in another & not said of another”, while accident is said to be of “what exists in and is said of another”.

The text goes on further by taking the example of the color “white” and of “Socrates”. The color “white” is said to be of “this thing”, to exist in “this thing”. “Socrates” however, is said to be “this thing”, “Socrates” is “this thing”, which is to say that “Socrates” is a substance; more precisely, a substance of body and soul, of matter and of form.

Going back to the doctrine of transubstantiation and of its necessary consequence, which is the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, it is said that only the appearances, or more precisely, the accidents of the Bread and of the Wine remain.

What does that really and actually mean?

In natural philosophy, Aristotle defined there to be nine accidents in total:
Quantity, Quality, Relation, Action, Passion, Time, Place, Disposition (the arrangement of parts), and Rainment (whether a thing is dressed or armed, etc.).

To be quite honest, I do not understand the majority of the above terms. However, my question on the matter of transubstantiation remains:** If it were possible to take a consecrated Host and look at It under the microscope, what would our eyes be able to see?
**
That is, if it were possible to look at a consecrated Host under the microscope, would the chemical composition of the consecrated Host be the same as that of an unconsecrated host? The same question applies to the consecrated Wine? Would the chemical composition of the consecrated Wine be the same as that of an unconsecrated wine? After all, it seems that upon consumption, for example, the consecrated Wine retains the same taste as that of regular, unconsecrated wine.

Upon thinking about these questions, I noticed that among the nine accidents, is termed what is called “disposition” which the author defined as “the arrangement of parts”. Can this definition be said to refer to what can actually be understood to be the chemical composition of the species in question?

The above quotations can be found on the following web-site:
Thomistic Philosophy
aquinasonline.com/

Finally, to put these matters in a more fitting perspective, I would like to present an event that occurred in the 8th century AD: the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano.

A Basilian monk, living at the time, was having issues of faith and was experiencing doubts concerning the Real and Substantial Presence of Christ in the consecrated species of the Bread and Wine. After having pronounced the words of the Eucharistic consecration, “the monk saw the host change into a living piece of Flesh, and the wine change into real blood, which thereupon coagulated and split into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size”.

In 1970, a scientific analysis was made on the elements and among the results, it was found that:

The Flesh is real flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

Even more wondrous were the following findings:

“The five globules contained in the reliquary, when weighed either separately or together, totaled the same weight: 15.85 grammes.”

The above quotations can be found at the following web-sites:
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy
michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano 8th Century A.D.
trosch.org/inx/lanciano.html

An important element concerning the findings about the five globules and their equal weights, either individually or together, is that their finding seems to corroborate and confirm the teaching of “the totality of the Real Presence” of Christ:

While the three foregoing theses contain dogmas of faith, there is a fourth proposition which is merely a theological conclusion, namely, that even before the actual division of the Species, Christ is present wholly and entirely in each particle of the still unbroken Host and in each drop of the collective contents of the Chalice. For were not Christ present in His entire Personality in every single particle of the Eucharistic Species even before their division took place, we should be forced to conclude that it is the process of dividing which brings about the Totality of Presence, whereas according to the teaching of the Church the operative cause of the Real and Total Presence is to be found in Transubstantiation alone. No doubt this last conclusion directs the attention of philosophical and scientific inquiry to a mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body, which is contrary to the ordinary laws of experience. It is, indeed, one of those sublime mysteries, concerning which speculative theology attempts to offer various solutions [see below under (5)].

Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section2

Either way, I hope all these resources can help generate a concise and well-informed discussion concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation, the matter of the Real Presence of Christ and how the mode of His Presence affects the consecrated species physically.

 

[someperson555]

i always wished the church would conduct such a test. i would be very interested in the results.

i think one test could prove the existence of God if the church would allow it…

 

[Glennford]

If it were possible to take a consecrated Host and look at It under the microscope, what would our eyes be able to see?

You’d see bread, and wine. The accidents.

 

[steph_86]

You’d see bread, and wine. The accidents.

Do you mean by that statement that, the chemical composition of the consecrated Bread and of the consecrated Wine remain the same?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Do you mean by that statement that, the chemical composition of the consecrated Bread and of the consecrated Wine remain the same?

Exactly. The accidents are physical. The substance is not.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you mean by that statement that, the chemical composition of the consecrated Bread and of the consecrated Wine remain the same?

Anything that could be physically observed, or measured, or experienced – all would remain the same, before the consecration and after.

 

[someperson555]

Exactly. The accidents are physical. The substance is not.

interesting, so in the eucharist, is the transubstantiation just spiritual?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

interesting, so in the eucharist, is the transubstantiation just spiritual?

It’s “deeper”, so to speak, than spiritual. It’s what it means to be bread and wine. It’s no longer bread and wine, even physically. The accidents of the bread and wine are there, yes, but they are now simply the physical qualities of Jesus. The Eucharist IS Jesus, not just physically and not just spiritually, but completely.

 

[steph_86]

Exactly. The accidents are physical. The substance is not.

By physical you also mean material, I presume. Does that mean that the substance is immaterial? If so, what does that actually mean? The concept of substance is really difficult for me to grasp.

 

[steph_86]

It’s “deeper”, so to speak, than spiritual. It’s what it means to be bread and wine. It’s no longer bread and wine, even physically. The accidents of the bread and wine are there, yes, but they are now simply the physical qualities of Jesus. The Eucharist IS Jesus, not just physically and not just spiritually, but completely.

Would it be correct to say that the accidents are to be said of Jesus, that is, that the accidents are to be said to subsist in Jesus? Essentially, can they be said to be predicated to Jesus?

 

[steph_86]

Anything that could be physically observed, or measured, or experienced – all would remain the same, before the consecration and after.

Essentially, under the experience and the perception of the five senses, the species would remain the same. That is quite astonishing to ponder and contemplate.

 

[Usagi]

As I understand it, the accidents of bread and wine that remain after the consecration don’t inhere in any substance. This is an exception to the usual rule that you cannot have an accident without an underlying substance. Part of the miracle of Transubstantiation is that God holds the accidents of bread and wine in existence even after their substance has been changed into that of Jesus.

As to the original question, “substance” is a purely philosophical concept, not a scientific one. The substance of a thing is “what it is” at the deepest level. Substance cannot be empirically perceived or measured, whether by our senses or the best possible instruments. Science deals entirely and solely with what Aristotle and Aquinas call accidents. As a result, no empirical observation or test would detect any difference between unconsecrated elements and consecrated ones.

Catholics insist that the change is not merely spiritual because Christ’s Eucharistic presence truly includes His glorified Body and Blood as well as His Soul and Divinity. However, we usually refer to “real,” “true,” or “sacramental” presence rather than “physical” presence, because the latter might be taken to mean something empirically detectable.

Usagi

 

[Glennford]

From Aquinas’ Tantum Ergo

Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail;
Lo! o’er ancient forms departing,
newer rites of grace prevail;
faith for all defects supplying,
where the feeble senses fail.

---

There’s a tremendous amount of information on this topic in Catholic history, you could spend a very long time on it, and probably a human being could do a lot worse with their time.

 

[Glennford]

From Aquinas’ Tantum Ergo

Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail;
Lo! o’er ancient forms departing,
newer rites of grace prevail;
faith for all defects supplying,
where the feeble senses fail.

---

There’s a tremendous amount of information on this topic in Catholic history, you could spend a very long time on it, and probably a human being could do a lot worse with their time.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

For all of you who are questioning this, there is nothing to debate here. The mystery of the Holy Eucharist is just that, a mystery beyond human comprehension. That is why our religion is referred to as Faith. Without Gds gift of Faith, you can’t and won’t believe. And all the logic in the universe will not change that.
For those of you who state you are Catholics and are questioning this, I suggest you ask Gd to grant you the grace to believe in Transubstanciation and the Holy Eucherist when you say your prayers. It is the foundation point of our Religion.

 

[steph_86]

For all of you who are questioning this, there is nothing to debate here. The mystery of the Holy Eucharist is just that, a mystery beyond human comprehension. That is why our religion is referred to as Faith. Without Gds gift of Faith, you can’t and won’t believe. And all the logic in the universe will not change that.
For those of you who state you are Catholics and are questioning this, I suggest you ask Gd to grant you the grace to believe in Transubstanciation and the Holy Eucherist when you say your prayers. It is the foundation point of our Religion.

I hold no doubt concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation and of the Real Presence of the Lord. I merely seek to understand certain points of our Faith. Faith and Reason do go hand in hand. At the same time, it must be recognized that indeed, there will always remain a measure of ineffability and of mystery as regards any article of our Faith whether this concern the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption or the Real Presence.

God does not forbid that we seek to understand. But what He does condemn is the exclusive reliance on human reason and the rejection of Faith which builds upon Reason, which is superior to Reason, and which enlightens and purifies Reason.

 

[bzkoss236]

However, how can we comprehend it philosophically and scientifically? In Thomistic philosophy, a distinction is made between substance and accident.

Philosophic Answer:
The simplest way I can explain this would be to say that it can be thought of as though the soul was changed. As if, say, another soul was put in your body as opposed to the one you have at this point in time. It would still look, smell, sound, and in all manner of senses be you, and may even continue to act as you would, considering it would share your memories stored in your brain. However, it would no longer be you, because your soul would not be in your body. The soul in this case is the substance, or its “is-ness”, what it actually is.

Scientifically:
There is not way to determine it scientifically, because it is a metaphysical change, which is something that things in the physical world cannot measure. Per my example above, the person in all scientific measures, would be you, but metaphysically it isn’t. The scientifically measured stuff is the accident, or what it appears to be. Almost as if something is wearing a disguise; a really good one.

Hope this helps.

 

[roveau]

When you put the Consecrated Species under the microscope, even the strongest atomic microscope you will see, in the greatest detail, the components of bread and the components of wine, and the Council of Trent statement will still stand! To do this though would be a desecration.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

By physical you also mean material, I presume. Does that mean that the substance is immaterial? If so, what does that actually mean? The concept of substance is really difficult for me to grasp.

Yeah, you and me both…

The substance is immaterial in this instance. I’ll explain what I mean. In every single circumstance BUT the Eucharist the substance can be identified by the accidents. They naturally coexist with each other.

The Eucharist is a miracle; it is God intervening in the laws of nature. In this unique instance we know (and the only reason we know is due to the words of Holy Mother Church and Our Lord in the Bible) that the substance has somehow mysteriously changed despite the accidents remaining.

This doesn’t happen, except when God wills it. Otherwise substance and accidents will naturally be mutually dependent.

Make a little more sense? I hope so.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If you read Scripture you will see that after the Resurrection, Christ only reveals himself to the faithful. I don’t think anyone trying to put the Eucharist under the microscope will see anything special. Either that person is a doubter, or a believer who is filled with pride (which is a sin) anxious to gloat over other people of his/her scientific proof. Neither will see Christ.