Transubstantiation and Eucharistic miracles

[JonNC]

I am posting this thread here, instead of the non-Catholics forum, because I do not wish to see a debate on whether or not Eucharistic miracles are true, and also I do not wish to appear to be baiting.
My question is simple (or perhaps simple-minded in my case ). My understanding of Transubstantiation is that the substances of bread and wine are changed into the substances of the body and blood of Christ, yet the accidents - what our senses perceive remain.
In the case of Eucharistic miracles, the accidents are changed as well, correct? If so, how does the Catholic Church explain this vis a vis Transubstantiation?

Sources would be helpful, since I couldn’t find anything about Eucharistic miracles in the CCC.

Thanks in advance,
Jon

 

[Aelred_Minor]

My guess (and that’s all it is) is that the transubstantiation takes place first and then after this, if only a fraction of a second after, the miraculous change in appearance happens, which in some cases may cause the Real Presence to actually cease if the change is great enough to change the accidents into that of something other than bread or wine (for example, a change into a piece of heart muscle).

 

[JimG]

My understanding of Transubstantiation is that the substances of bread and wine are changed into the substances of the body and blood of Christ, yet the accidents - what our senses perceive remain.
In the case of Eucharistic miracles, the accidents are changed as well, correct? If so, how does the Catholic Church explain this vis a vis Transubstantiation?

Yes, that is correct, and it’s one reason why I find it unconvincing to point to Eucharistic miracles as proof of transubstantiation.

Of course, even in a Eucharistic miracle, the substance has changed into the body and blood of Christ. It’s just that the accidents of bread and wine do not remain, but rather some form of the accidents of flesh and blood.

From what little I have read, Eucharistic miracles seem not to be intended as a proof to the general public. Rather, they seem to have been given to particular priests who may have been having doubts. But only God can speak for the purpose of miracles.

I should also note that Eucharistic miracles are not part of the deposit of faith. Whether one accepts them as true miracles or not is up to the individual.

 

[ChristiAmor]

"Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts–sight, taste, smell, touch–do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! “Transubstantiation” merely labels it.

In everyday life, it is not uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it." :aok:

catholicapologetics.org/ap060500.htm

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I am posting this thread here, instead of the non-Catholics forum, because I do not wish to see a debate on whether or not Eucharistic miracles are true, and also I do not wish to appear to be baiting.
My question is simple (or perhaps simple-minded in my case ). My understanding of Transubstantiation is that the substances of bread and wine are changed into the substances of the body and blood of Christ, yet the accidents - what our senses perceive remain.
In the case of Eucharistic miracles, the accidents are changed as well, correct? If so, how does the Catholic Church explain this vis a vis Transubstantiation?

Sources would be helpful, since I couldn’t find anything about Eucharistic miracles in the CCC.

Thanks in advance,
Jon

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[po18guy]

Jon, here (same link as just given by Jim Dandy - the fastest index finger in the west) is a site that might have your info. This page has links at the bottom that explain the nature and limitations of Eucharistic miracles - which remain private revelation. Maybe shoot them an email for your answer.

I note that there is no Eucharistic miracle that has occurred to unconsecrated bread or wine. Thus, it appears that the approved miracles are actually a simple furtherance of the basic public miracle of the transubstantiation. The miracle is a further step, not necessary or required for the average believer, and whose purpose seems to be encouragement and elimination of doubt. The miracles’ nature as private revelation also indicates that they are intended mainly for a given individual - perhaps the first one to encounter them - as a sign if you will, for those who may harbor doubt in their hearts.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, all, for your replies and links.

Is it safe for me to assume, then, that the accidents remaining is not a necessity in regards transubstantiation or the real presence.

Jon

 

[Nita]

Thanks, all, for your replies and links.

Is it safe for me to assume, then, that the accidents remaining is not a necessity in regards transubstantiation or the real presence.

Jon

My understanding is that it is Our Lord’s substance only as long as the accidents of bread and wine are present. When they cease to be present, it is no longer Our Lord. Am away from home presently, but will see if I can track down something official on line to support the above.

Edit:
Found something:
CCC 1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures **as long as the Eucharistic species **subsist. …

 

[JonNC]

My understanding is that it is Our Lord’s substance only as long as the accidents of bread and wine are present. When they cease to be present, it is no longer Our Lord. Am away from home presently, but will see if I can track down something official on line to support the above.

Edit:
Found something:
CCC 1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures **as long as the Eucharistic species **subsist. …

Thanks, Nita. And this is the crux of my question regarding Eucharisit miracles. If in a Eucharisitic mriacle the accidents of bread and wine nolonger exist, is it still His body and blood?

Jon

 

[Nita]

Thanks, Nita. And this is the crux of my question regarding Eucharisit miracles. If in a Eucharisitic mriacle the accidents of bread and wine nolonger exist, is it still His body and blood?

Jon

No.
We still treat it respectively, but it is no longer the Real Presence.
Another ordinary example has to do with the cleansing of the altar linens. (I take care of the altar cloths in our Church.) We soak them until any Eucharistic crumbs or wine spills are dissolved. At that point it is considered that the Eucharistic presence of Jesus is no longer there. However respect is still shown when disposing of the water in which the cloths were soaked. It is either poured down the sacrarium (special sink in Church) or, if I take it home to soak it, I pour the water directly into the ground in a spot not generally walked on (eg. close to the foundation of our house).

 

[JonNC]

No.
We still treat it respectively, but it is no longer the Real Presence.
Another ordinary example has to do with the cleansing of the altar linens. (I take care of the altar cloths in our Church.) We soak them until any Eucharistic crumbs or wine spills are dissolved. At that point it is considered that the Eucharistic presence of Jesus is no longer there. However respect is still shown when disposing of the water in which the cloths were soaked. It is either poured down the sacrarium (special sink in Church) or, if I take it home to soak it, I pour the water directly into the ground in a spot not generally walked on (eg. close to the foundation of our house).

Thanks so much, Nita.

Jon

 

[grannymh]

I am posting this thread here, instead of the non-Catholics forum, because I do not wish to see a debate on whether or not Eucharistic miracles are true, and also I do not wish to appear to be baiting.
My question is simple (or perhaps simple-minded in my case ). My understanding of Transubstantiation is that the substances of bread and wine are changed into the substances of the body and blood of Christ, yet the accidents - what our senses perceive remain.
In the case of Eucharistic miracles, the accidents are changed as well, correct? If so, how does the Catholic Church explain this vis a vis Transubstantiation?

Sources would be helpful, since I couldn’t find anything about Eucharistic miracles in the CCC.

Thanks in advance,
Jon

This is an extensive source. therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

Click English. There is a lot of good general information. Scroll down and there will be a list of Eucharistic miracles by country plus separate categories at the end. Click individual location or name to get to information about the miracle. This is very informative.

Somewhere on this site, there should be a catechesis of Eucharistic Miracles.

Usually the accidents remain in an Eucharistic miracle; for example, the Host will bleed. Check out the miracle which saved her and her convent. therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Assisi.pdf

My favorite miracle is the one which took place in Siena, Italy. The Hosts have remained fresh and intact for centuries. therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Siena.pdf

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks, all, for your replies and links.

Is it safe for me to assume, then, that the accidents remaining is not a necessity in regards transubstantiation or the real presence.

Jon

In the normal miracle that is transubstantiation, the accidents do remain. However, Eucharistic miracles go beyond the miracle at the consecration for a specific purpose, and in a specific time and place. As He does with all private revelation, the Lord acts in ways that are intended to lead doubting hearts to belief, or believing hearts to deeper belief. This is an extraordinary situation, and I have not located the holding on such miracles yet.

We all stand to learn something here.

 

[grannymh]

In the normal miracle that is transubstantiation, the accidents do remain. However, Eucharistic miracles go beyond the miracle at the consecration for a specific purpose, and in a specific time and place. As He does with all private revelation, the Lord acts in ways that are intended to lead doubting hearts to belief, or believing hearts to deeper belief. This is an extraordinary situation, and I have not located the holding on such miracles yet.

We all stand to learn something here.

I understand what you are trying to say by using the term normal miracle. However, Eucharistic miracles are a separate category because Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharistic. The literature for Eucharistic miracles will refer to Transubstantiation as the Greatest Miracle etc. When I wrote about the Eucharistic miracles, The Real Presence of Jesus during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was front and center.

While a specific miracle did take place at a certain time and place, the fruits of many of the miracles continue today.

Pardon me, I do not understand what you are trying to locate–“holding”. Did you try the links in post 12? I realize that the website can be difficult to navigate. However, a few years back, I did use that website in conjunction with hosting a poster display from the Vatican International Exhibition, The Eucharistic Miracles of The World.
If I can help you, please do not hesitate to ask.

 

[Nita]

In the normal miracle that is transubstantiation, the accidents do remain. However, Eucharistic miracles go beyond the miracle at the consecration for a specific purpose, and in a specific time and place. As He does with all private revelation, the Lord acts in ways that are intended to lead doubting hearts to belief, or believing hearts to deeper belief. This is an extraordinary situation, and I have not located the holding on such miracles yet.

We all stand to learn something here.

Are you looking for something regarding miracles where the Eucharistic species (accidents) remain? (Eg. hosts that bleed but retain the accidents of bread.) I don’t know for sure, but since Church teaching is that it is Our Lord’s body and blood as long as the accidents of bread and wine remain, my guess is that it would still be regarded as Our Lord being substantially present.

However, in the Lanciano miracle where the host lost the accidents of bread and was changed into heart tissue, it would no longer be considered to be the body and blood of Our Lord. Thus, a tiny segment(s?) was cut off and given to scientists for laboratory testing. I don’t think this would have been allowed if the Church considered Our Lord to still be substantially present in the tissue.

 

[dingodile]

However, in the Lanciano miracle where the host lost the accidents of bread and was changed into heart tissue, it would no longer be considered to be the body and blood of Our Lord. Thus, a tiny segment(s?) was cut off and given to scientists for laboratory testing. I don’t think this would have been allowed if the Church considered Our Lord to still be substantially present in the tissue.

This is a bit confusing. I would have thought that substance, rather than accidents, are the bearers of identity. If the host was consecrated, then the substance was changed, no? And if the substance became the body of Christ, then I’d have thought it retained that identity until ingested. In a Eucharistic miracle, when the accidents change, does the substance change a second time?

 

[grannymh]

This is a bit confusing. I would have thought that substance, rather than accidents, are the bearers of identity. If the host was consecrated, then the substance was changed, no? And if the substance became the body of Christ, then I’d have thought it retained that identity until ingested. In a Eucharistic miracle, when the accidents change, does the substance change a second time?

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary confusion between Transubstantiation which is the greatest Miracle ever and hundreds of Eucharistic miracles which involve the substantially presence of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread and wine.

This link is to the Vatican International Exhibit of Eucharistic Miracles of the World.
Scroll down to "Miracles by Country and then to the additional categories following.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

For a modern Eucharistic miracle, check this link.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Frossard.pdf

 

[Nita]

This is a bit confusing. I would have thought that substance, rather than accidents, are the bearers of identity.

Yes, the substance is the bearer of identity.

If the host was consecrated, then the substance was changed, no?

Correct.

And if the substance became the body of Christ, then I’d have thought it retained that identity until ingested.

Not necessarily – anymore than the substance of bread had to remain in the unconsecrated host until it was ingested. The teaching of the Church is that the substantial presence of Christ remains “as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” (CCC #1377) This means that when the accidents of bread and wine no longer subsist in the Eucharist, the Eucharistic (substantial) presence of Jesus no longer endures.

For me, this teaching goes along beautifully with the institution of the Eucharist by Our Lord at the Last Supper. The Eucharist (His body and blood) that He gave to the disciples to eat and drink had the accidents of bread and wine.
*“This is my Body.” *
“THIS” was physical matter that had the accidents of bread. The “accidental” characteristics of bread and wine then seem to me to be a necessary aspect of recognizing whether the substantial presence of Jesus remains.

In a Eucharistic miracle, when the accidents change, does the substance change a second time?

Probably. To my knowledge, there is no definitive teaching regarding this, I can give you a quote tho from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” (p 387 in my book).
2. Cessation of the Real Presence
.,…When the species are corrupted, in place of the body and blood of Christ, those substances probably appear which correspond to the specific nature of the altered accidents.

An added note: In the miracle of Lanciano, the host has turned into heart tissue. However, this does not necessarily mean that the heart tissue is tissue from Our Lord’s actual heart.

 

[Nita]

Yes, the substance is the bearer of identity.

Correct.

Not necessarily – anymore than the substance of bread had to remain in the unconsecrated host until it was ingested. The teaching of the Church is that the substantial presence of Christ remains “as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” (CCC #1377) This means that when the accidents of bread and wine no longer subsist in the Eucharist, the Eucharistic (substantial) presence of Jesus no longer endures.

For me, this teaching goes along beautifully with the institution of the Eucharist by Our Lord at the Last Supper. The Eucharist (His body and blood) that He gave to the disciples to eat and drink had the accidents of bread and wine.
"This is my Body."
“THIS” was physical matter that had the accidents of bread. Therefore, the “accidental” characteristics of bread and wine then seem to me to be a necessary aspect of recognizing whether the substantial presence of Jesus remains.

Probably. To my knowledge, there is no definitive teaching regarding this, I can give you a quote tho from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” (p 387 in my book).
2. Cessation of the Real Presence
.,…When the species are corrupted, in place of the body and blood of Christ, those substances probably appear which correspond to the specific nature of the altered accidents.

An added note: In the miracle of Lanciano, the host has turned into heart tissue. However, this does not necessarily mean that the heart tissue is tissue from Our Lord’s actual heart.

 

[po18guy]

I understand what you are trying to say by using the term normal miracle. However, Eucharistic miracles are a separate category because Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharistic. The literature for Eucharistic miracles will refer to Transubstantiation as the Greatest Miracle etc. When I wrote about the Eucharistic miracles, The Real Presence of Jesus during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was front and center.

While a specific miracle did take place at a certain time and place, the fruits of many of the miracles continue today.

Pardon me, I do not understand what you are trying to locate–“holding”. Did you try the links in post 12? I realize that the website can be difficult to navigate. However, a few years back, I did use that website in conjunction with hosting a poster display from the Vatican International Exhibition, The Eucharistic Miracles of The World.
If I can help you, please do not hesitate to ask.

“Holding” meaning Church belief or teaching on the subject.

The point being that the daily or weekly consecration is the miracle that we observe through belief - since the accidents remain just as they were before. The “Eucharistic miracle” is a private revelation which may or may not also change the accidents. It all depends upon what the intended target of the miracle needs for the perfection of their belief, or the restoration of their faith in the Eucharist.