No, it is real at the most fundamental level. The substance, the what-it-is, becomes Jesus Christ. It still has the appearances of molecules and atoms and sub-atomic particles, but it is no longer physical matter, it is Jesus Christ.
Oh, I did not know that putting a consecrated Host under a microscope would be a desecration. But it does make sense to me.
Exactly. The accidents are that which is perceptible to the senses, either directly or using any scientific instrument. All you can perceive is the accidents, not the substance.
and accident
We cannot comprehend it philosophically and/or scientifically, it is a miracle. I think that all we can really say about Christ’s substance is that the nature or essence of Christ in his glorified body is there but so also are his accidents ( according to Thomas). But his accidents are hidden behind the appearances of bread and wine which through a miracle at every consecration, adhere in nothing, being made to appear only by the power of God.
It means that the body of Christ and the Blood of Christ are really present ( i.e. and thus the whole Christ - body, blood, soul, and Divinity are present in the bread and in the wine.)
But it is the glorified body of Christ that is present. His glorified body is not the same as it existed on earth before his Resurrection. In fact the doctrine does not use the terms matter and physical. Yet, before the Resurrection we can assert with confidence that his body and blood were real matter and really physical in the earthly and scientific sense. But we know that, while his glorified body is matter and physical, it is matter and physical in a sense we cannot comprehend. Certainly a body that can pass through doors and that can consume food but not require it, and move from place to place instantaneously is something quite different. Yet, Christ calls it real flesh, flesh we must consume. More than that we cannot assert.
Yes. Post #12 answers this nicely
Be careful about attributing definitions used in philosophy or science to the same terms in Doctrine. In the doctrine of Transubstantion the term " substance " is used but not defined. We cannot assume automatically that it means the same thing as it means in Thomism ( in fact he used the term in at least two ways). Yet Thomas said that all the accidents of Christ is present, including the arrangement of the parts of his body and his dimensions, etc. But the Church does not go so far, saying only that the whole Christ is present in his glorified body.
We are talking about a miracle after all. And indeed it does lend credence to the doctrine of the Real Presence.
The way I understand it is that my body is the accidents of me, but I (babs57) am the substance of me.My substance is WHO I am.
Well, in a way, but not quite. I agree that the substance is who you are, but it is also what you are. The accidents are the sense perceptions of that whatness. I can only perceive you through sense perceptions, and those sense perceptions which impinge on my senses are not you. If you disappear but the sense perceptions remain, I would think you were still there.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation says that upon consecration, the substance of the bread and wine depart, to be replaced by the body and blood of Christ. Now my question is this: Body and Blood are themselves accidents (correct me if I’m wrong), so how can an accident replace a substance? Therefore is it more correct wording to say that the substance of the bread and wine are replaced by the substance of Christ?
Marc, if you are going to talk publically about the Eucharist you have to be absolutely correct. What you just said is incorrect. The accidents are not the " physical qualities of Jesus. " All you have to do is read the Catechism. Paragraph 1376 " …Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offeribng 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…" Thomas Aquinas tells us that this means that the accidents inhere in no subject. That means they are not the " physical qualities of Jesus. " They are the physical qualities of bread and wine except now the substance of the bread and wine are gone and they no longer have a substance in which to inhere. They are there to veil or hide the Divine Presence but they do not inhere in Christ or any other subject/substance. Their whole purpose is as a sacramental sign of Christ’s Presence behind or under the accidents.
That is incorrect, it really is " molecules and atoms " and it is physical matter, or more properly physical accidents. It is just that now they have no subject or substance in which to inhere. The physicality of a thing was taught by St. Thomas and Aristotle to be accidents. Normally these accidents inhere in a substance/subject. But in this case they do not. But they are real and physical accidents.
Location and spatial extension are accidents, not substance. The accidents (what we can perceive through our senses) of bread and wine remain, but they do not inhere in any substance. Under those accidents of bread and wine, but not inhering in them, is the totality of Jesus, body and soul, humanity and divinity. We do not perceive his accidents but he is there whole and entire, under the smallest particle of the host or the smallest drop from the chalice. When the communion host is broken, we do not thereby break Jesus. He remains whole and entire under the appearances of each fragment of the host.
If it’s His glorified body in the Eucharist, what was it at the Last Supper when He instituted the Eucharist since He hadn’t been glorified yet?Bread and wine.
We cannot comprehend it philosophically and/or scientifically, it is a miracle. I think that all we can really say about Christ’s substance is that the nature or essence of Christ in his glorified body is there but so also are his accidents ( according to Thomas). But his accidents are hidden behind the appearances of bread and wine which through a miracle at every consecration, adhere in nothing, being made to appear only by the power of God.
It means that the body of Christ and the Blood of Christ are really present ( i.e. and thus the whole Christ - body, blood, soul, and Divinity are present in the bread and in the wine.)
But it is the glorified body of Christ that is present. His glorified body is not the same as it existed on earth before his Resurrection. In fact the doctrine does not use the terms matter and physical. Yet, before the Resurrection we can assert with confidence that his body and blood were real matter and really physical in the earthly and scientific sense. But we know that, while his glorified body is matter and physical, it is matter and physical in a sense we cannot comprehend. Certainly a body that can pass through doors and that can consume food but not require it, and move from place to place instantaneously is something quite different. Yet, Christ calls it real flesh, flesh we must consume. More than that we cannot assert.
Yes. Post #12 answers this nicely
Be careful about attributing definitions used in philosophy or science to the same terms in Doctrine. In the doctrine of Transubstantion the term " substance " is used but not defined. We cannot assume automatically that it means the same thing as it means in Thomism ( in fact he used the term in at least two ways). Yet Thomas said that all the accidents of Christ is present, including the arrangement of the parts of his body and his dimensions, etc. But the Church does not go so far, saying only that the whole Christ is present in his glorified body.
We are talking about a miracle after all. And indeed it does lend credence to the doctrine of the Real Presence.
He was celebrating the Passover that night, his glorified body and blood were present by anticipation. When he said the words of consecration he bore his real body in his hands and his real blood in the chalice. The words of consecration constitute a sacrifice, a giving of his life, a spilling of his blood. He was anticipating his death by this sacramental sacrifice. And is it so much more wonderful that he should make his glorified, physical body present, before the physical passion, than that he should make his real, physical, glorified body present at all throughout history, while he is also present with the Father in Heaven.
Not that I’m doubting you, but do you have any sources for this?
The only proof I have is negative. There is a complete absence of any discussion I can find on that point in any documents I have seen, including the Catechism, comments of the Fathers, the Popes, etc. On the other hand we have a multitude of comments stating that we receive the Glorified Body of Christ in Communion and there is no distinction between the First Sacrifice on the Eve of the Pasch when Christ celebrated the first mass and the masses we celebrate today. One must then assume that even at the First Mass, it was Christ’s Glorified Body that was received. Remember that a Mass is always a sacrifice and the only thing that could have been sacrificed at that first mass, just as today, was the Body of Christ. And once the sacrifice is made what do you have? You have the Resurrected, Glorified Body of Christ, then and now. By anticipation then, as a continual sacrifice now.
Thanks Linus!
I did find a bit in the Catholic Encyclopedia which supports what I said.