Transubstantiation and Eucharistic miracles

[grannymh]

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. 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.

Please read these two links. There are pictures of the Miracle of Lanciano.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

Note the terms “miraculous flesh” and “miraculous blood”. Also note, that the miraculous flesh and miraculous blood followed the natural law of flesh and blood just as today’s host follows the natural laws for bread.

From post 18
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.

In practical terms, in some of the Eucharistic miracles, the Consecrated Host took on a property not associated with bread. For example, a Host would bleed. Some scientists would call this an extraordinary phenomenon.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Cascia.pdf

 

[grannymh]

“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.

That is an excellent explanation. Thank you.

 

[Nita]

Please read these two links. There are pictures of the Miracle of Lanciano.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

I’ve been to Lanciano and been fortunate enough to view the miraculous host.

Note the terms “miraculous flesh” and “miraculous blood”. Also note, that the miraculous flesh and miraculous blood followed the natural law of flesh and blood just as today’s host follows the natural laws for bread.

Yes, it’s “miraculous flesh” - that is, it came to be there through a miracle (miraculously); its continuation to remain there without corrupting is an ongoing miracle. I don’t think anyone is denying or disputing that.

Taking the Lanciano miracle as an example:
The question is whether the underlying “substance” in which the accidents of human heart tissue reside is the “substance” of Jesus – the “substance” of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. For where any part of His resurrected body is, there He also is. (It would be different for parts of our body after death because they have not been resurrected yet and reunited to our soul).

Or is it just the substance of a human heart - united to any person.

Do you think that if the Church taught and believed that the heart tissue in that miracle is still the Real Presence of Jesus - that it is truly Jesus present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity -. that they would cut off a piece and hand it over to be subjected to laboratory testing?

I read your earlier posts also, and I’m not sure just what position you are putting forth regarding the underlying “substance” of miraculous hosts that no longer retain the accidents of bread but have taken on accidents of other things (eg, heart tissue). Are you saying the miraclous Lanciano host is still the Real Presence of Jesus? If so, could you give some Church teaching that would support that position? To me, the CCC #1377 is pretty clear that we teach the Real Presence only as long as the Eucharistic species of bread remains.

 

[dingodile]

So, if I’m understanding this correctly, when the accidents of the host miraculously change, it is no longer sacramentally authentic; it serves a different purpose. The Body and Blood of Christ are no longer present and it is a “mere” sacred artifact. This logically entails that a second transsubstantiation occurs. It has ceased to be the substance that it was.

 

[Nita]

So, if I’m understanding this correctly, when the accidents of the host miraculously change, it is no longer sacramentally authentic; it serves a different purpose. The Body and Blood of Christ are no longer present and it is a “mere” sacred artifact.

Correct. But an amazing miraculous “artifact”. Especially in the case of Lanciano where the miracle is ongoing.

This logically entails that a second transsubstantiation occurs. It has ceased to be the substance that it was.

No, it would not be a case of “transubstantiation”. The substance of Jesus is no longer present, but** His substance was not transformed or converted **into some other substance.

In the terminology of the Church, “transubstatiation” means the conversion of the substance of one thing into the substance of another. The following quote from the Council of Trent should clarify:
"…and now this holy Synod declares it again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a conversion takes place **of the **whole substance of 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 conversion is appropriately and properly called transubstantiation by the Catholic Church.

The substance of Jesus’ body and blood are not converted into something else. His substance is no longer present, but the Church has not said anything about the manner in which His substance leaves, or no longer remains present. Neither does it define the manner in which the new substance (of heart tissue in the Lanciano miracle) becomes present. I don’t know if it even holds that a substance is necessarily present. God is all-powerful, if He chose, He could make the accidents of heart tissue present without there being any underlying “substance”!

 

[Nita]

Or is it just the substance of a human heart - united to any person.

.

I just noticed an error in my above sentence from Post #22
I meant to say “…- NOT united to any person.”

 

[grannymh]

Yes, it’s “miraculous flesh” - that is, it came to be there through a miracle (miraculously); its continuation to remain there without corrupting is an ongoing miracle. I don’t think anyone is denying or disputing that.

I was at Lanciano as part of a Bob and Penny Lord Pilgrimage.

Both the flesh and blood are corrupted in the sense that they follow the path of human tissues, normal and fresh. One can understand this when one studies the pictures on these links and reads the text.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

What are being conserved are the remains, not the living flesh and blood which was present in 750 at the Church of St. Francis during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The remains are referred to as relics. A secondary miracle, not the Eucharistic miracle itself nor the greatest Miracle of all which is the Eucharist, is that these relics have survived so that contemporary scientists can examine them.

There is another secondary miracle in the blood of the miracle. This is known as the miracle within the miracle and is explained on link 2. This is not the same as the Eucharistic miracle itself.

From post 1. 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?

In order to answer the first question, I need to demonstrate that not all Eucharistic miracles involve a complete transformation of all accidents at the time of the miracle. I have done this through various links to the Vatican International Exhibition, The Eucharistic Miracles of the World.

In order to answer the second question, I need to demonstrate that the relationship between the Eucharistic miracle and The Miracle of Transubstantiation is not exactly a vis a vis, face to face, proposition according to Catholic teaching. Another poster has already explained that the category of Eucharistic miracles is considered private revelation. A reference to private revelations is paragraph 67 of the* Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition.* In addition, please reread post 19 by po18guy very slowly. It contains important elements which differentiate the Greatest Miracle of the Real Presence and an Eucharistic miracle.

Once this is understood, then, in order to answer the second question, one has to go beyond the explanation of substance/accidents to Who is the Person Who is present?

 

[You]

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

The change was often as a result of the disbelief or failing belief of the priest.

 

[Nita]

What are being conserved are the remains, not the living flesh and blood which was present in 750 at the Church of St. Francis during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The remains are referred to as relics. A secondary miracle, not the Eucharistic miracle itself nor the greatest Miracle of all which is the Eucharist, is that these relics have survived so that contemporary scientists can examine them.

I still can’t tell from what you’ve said in your post, just what you hold the “substance” of the miraculous Lanciano heart tissue to be.

Because you seem to be taking issue with the information I’ve given, I am sort of presuming you believe the “substance” in the heart tissue is the same as the “substance” that was present in the consecrated host – that is, the substance of the Body of Our Lord. Am I correct in presuming this?
But you say that it is the “remains” - “not the living flesh…” In what sense do you mean “remains”? (As your 1st link notes, the tissue tests out to be “living” flesh.) What is the “substance” of these remains, the substance in which the accidents of living heart tissue reside?

Could you be more specific on which points we disagree (quote the particular sentence/s of mine)? And then explain in what way you disagree.
Or, am I presuming wrongly - and you’re not disagreeing with my posts.

 

[dingodile]

The substance of Jesus’ body and blood are not converted into something else. His substance is no longer present, but the Church has not said anything about the manner in which His substance leaves, or no longer remains present. Neither does it define the manner in which the new substance (of heart tissue in the Lanciano miracle) becomes present. I don’t know if it even holds that a substance is necessarily present. God is all-powerful, if He chose, He could make the accidents of heart tissue present without there being any underlying “substance”!

If they are not converted, then either they are replaced by another substance or, as you speculate, there is no substance, only accidents.

If it is a replacement, then the replacing substance is either some existing substance or newly created for the purpose. If there is no substance then what remains is something akin to a mirage, an appearance not associated with any substance. Maybe “apparition” is the right word for that.

 

[grannymh]

So, if I’m understanding this correctly, when the accidents of the host miraculously change, it is no longer sacramentally authentic; it serves a different purpose. The Body and Blood of Christ are no longer present and it is a “mere” sacred artifact. This logically entails that a second transsubstantiation occurs. It has ceased to be the substance that it was.

This is not correct because you are not specifying the change, provided that there was a change, which happened at the time of the miracle.

Furthermore, the common definition of artifact is an object produced or shaped by human craft, especially one of archaeological or historical interest. On the other hand, Catholic theology regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist is that Jesus Christ is both True Man and True God.

Technically, an Eucharistic miracle is not transubstantiation because Transubstantiation has already taken place. An Eucharistic miracle follows the Real Presence. Why? Because only the Real Presence of Jesus has the power to effect any and all Eucharistic miracles.

All of the various Eucharistic miracles point to the Divinity of Christ, which, by the way, is not diminished by the accidents of bread and wine.

 

[Nita]

If they are not converted, then either they are replaced by another substance or, as you speculate, there is no substance, only accidents.

If it is a replacement, then the replacing substance is either some existing substance or newly created for the purpose.

If there is no substance then what remains is something akin to a mirage, an appearance not associated with any substance. Maybe “apparition” is the right word for that.

It would have to be very loosely “akin” since you can’t get ahold of mirages or apparitions and put them under microscopes, perform tests on them… – as was done in the Lanciano miracle.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Nita (especially), et al.,

This is a very interesting question, and I’ve seen it approached in various ways.

At this point, I’m not sure there is anything as a definitive answer. . . I’m inclined to think that there may be more assent to, and therefore a probable opinion, along the lines of what St. Thomas says in III, 76, 8.

You’ll note that he distinguishes between “objective” and “subjective” types, where Lanciano would be the “objective” kind, some sort of real outward change. He seems to be saying that in such a case, the accidents of bread and wine undergo a change into different accidents, and that the substance (and accidents!) of Christ remain as before, present by virtue of the sacramental change. But, just as the accidents of bread and wine don’t inhere in Christ’s substance, but in no substance at all, so too these new accidents (say, fleshiness) not inhere in any substance.

How can this be when we know (and Aquinas mentions elsewhere) that the sacramental presence of Christ remains so long as accidents of bread and wine remain? I don’t know, exactly. I think Aquinas mentions something along the lines that there is an accident that remains of the bread or wine. . . namely the dimensive quantity, i.e. that there is a “thing” there extended in space. So long as there is extension in space, that accident, that quantity, is the accident that acts as the hinge between the other accidents of bread and the new accidents of the miraculous flesh.

There is probably much more that can be explored here, of course.

Nita, I think you are right insofar as you say that a) there is no further substantial change and b) that the accidents don’t inhere in any substance. The only question, to my mind, is whether or not after the miraculous change one would say that substance (and accidents!) of Christ are still present. Perhaps this is something that must be looked at on a case by case basis. . . but I’m leaning towards the notion that the Real Presence remains until there is such change in the new accidents (i.e. fleshiness, etc) that we would consider it to signal a substantial change (were there a substance present). . . for instance if you burned the flesh into ash.

Any thoughts?
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If they are not converted, then either they are replaced by another substance or, as you speculate, there is no substance, only accidents.

I think that is correct.

dingodile:

If there is no substance then what remains is something akin to a mirage, an appearance not associated with any substance. Maybe “apparition” is the right word for that.

I don’t think that is quite right from a Catholic perspective. In a “normal” Eucharistic change, there is an appearance not associated with any substance – in other words, the appearances of bread do not inhere in, they are not the accidents of, Christ. They just exist independently of an underlying substance. But we don’t consider this a mirage or apparition. . .in the sense that these are real accidents. . . they have a reality all their own, and the exact same reality they had when they were inhering in the substance of bread.

The further miraculous accidents of “flesh” would exist in the same fashion. . . inhering in no substance at all, yet having their own reality. Normally a substance is required to uphold accidents in being – but in this case (and the case of the Eucharist proper) God circumvents the “middle man” and uphold the accidents directly in being.

VC

 

[grannymh]

I still can’t tell from what you’ve said in your post, just what you hold the “substance” of the miraculous Lanciano heart tissue to be.

Because you seem to be taking issue with the information I’ve given, I am sort of presuming you believe the “substance” in the heart tissue is the same as the “substance” that was present in the consecrated host – that is, the substance of the Body of Our Lord. Am I correct in presuming this?
But you say that it is the “remains” - “not the living flesh…” In what sense do you mean “remains”? (As your 1st link notes, the tissue tests out to be “living” flesh.) What is the “substance” of these remains, the substance in which the accidents of living heart tissue reside?

Could you be more specific on which points we disagree (quote the particular sentence/s of mine)? And then explain in what way you disagree.
Or, am I presuming wrongly - and you’re not disagreeing with my posts.

We are on different tracks when it comes to the reality of an Eucharistic miracle which occurred in Lanciano, Italy. Before I present the points where we disagree, I would like to know your reaction to the pictures and text on the two Lanciano links which I gave you.

Personally, I study the reality of both the year 750 and the year 1971 as presented in the two links I gave you. There is also the reality of the year 2011.

But you say that it is the “remains” - “not the living flesh…” In what sense do you mean “remains”?

A picture is worth a thousand words which is why I will wait for your reaction to the pictures on the two Lanciano links.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

 

[grannymh]

The change was often as a result of the disbelief or failing belief of the priest.

Any kind of change to the appearance of the Consecrated Bread and Wine is the result of the Divine Power of Jesus Christ, Himself, truly present under the ordinary appearances of ordinary bread and wine.

 

[grannymh]

Nita (especially), et al.,

This is a very interesting question, and I’ve seen it approached in various ways.

At this point, I’m not sure there is anything as a definitive answer. . . I’m inclined to think that there may be more assent to, and therefore a probable opinion, along the lines of what St. Thomas says in III, 76, 8.

You’ll note that he distinguishes between “objective” and “subjective” types, where Lanciano would be the “objective” kind, some sort of real outward change. He seems to be saying that in such a case, the accidents of bread and wine undergo a change into different accidents, and that the substance (and accidents!) of Christ remain as before, present by virtue of the sacramental change. But, just as the accidents of bread and wine don’t inhere in Christ’s substance, but in no substance at all, so too these new accidents (say, fleshiness) not inhere in any substance.

How can this be when we know (and Aquinas mentions elsewhere) that the sacramental presence of Christ remains so long as accidents of bread and wine remain? I don’t know, exactly. I think Aquinas mentions something along the lines that there is an accident that remains of the bread or wine. . . namely the dimensive quantity, i.e. that there is a “thing” there extended in space. So long as there is extension in space, that accident, that quantity, is the accident that acts as the hinge between the other accidents of bread and the new accidents of the miraculous flesh.

There is probably much more that can be explored here, of course.

Nita, I think you are right insofar as you say that a) there is no further substantial change and b) that the accidents don’t inhere in any substance. The only question, to my mind, is whether or not after the miraculous change one would say that substance (and accidents!) of Christ are still present. Perhaps this is something that must be looked at on a case by case basis. . . but I’m leaning towards the notion that the Real Presence remains until there is such change in the new accidents (i.e. fleshiness, etc) that we would consider it to signal a substantial change (were there a substance present). . . for instance if you burned the flesh into ash.

Any thoughts?
VC

If you would kindly study the pictures in the two links to the Lanciano miracle, you will see that the appearance of real flesh and real blood in the year 750 has indeed changed naturally according to medical knowledge. Even then, there is a “miracle within a miracle.”

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

You are correct in that each Eucharistic miracle has to be examined case by case.
For example, the Eucharistic miracle in Siena is a real miracle precisely because the accidents or appearance of the Sacred Hosts did not change. Pope John Paul II prayed before these Hosts of the miracle because Jesus was truly present. therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Siena.pdf

 

[Nita]

We are on different tracks when it comes to the reality of an Eucharistic miracle which occurred in Lanciano, Italy. Before I present the points where we disagree, I would like to know your reaction to the pictures and text on the two Lanciano links which I gave you.

Personally, I study the reality of both the year 750 and the year 1971 as presented in the two links I gave you. There is also the reality of the year 2011.

A picture is worth a thousand words which is why I will wait for your reaction to the pictures on the two Lanciano links.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

I asked you first!!! Now you’ve replied again and I still don’t know!!!

I have already said that I believe it is a miracle where the host was miraculously changed into what appears to be, and scientifically tests out to be, living heart tissue. That is, it now has all the accidents of living heart tissue. I do not know if there is an underlying substance for those accidents, OR, if there is one, what that underlying substance is – except that I do not believe it is the substance of the Body of Our Lord that was present in the consecrated host prior to the miracle. The basis for this belief is the paragraph from the Catechism which I cited previously.

I have also said that the Church does not definitively tell us the answer as to whether there is an underlying substance in these types of miracles or what the substance is. I quoted from “Fundamentals…” which gave the theological opinion that when the Eucharistic species corrupts it probably assumes the substance that corresponds to the accidents it then has. (Post #18)

 

[Nita]

Any kind of change to the appearance of the Consecrated Bread and Wine is the result of the Divine Power of Jesus Christ, Himself, truly present under the ordinary appearances of ordinary bread and wine.

Unconsumed Consecrated Bread will normally corrupt over a long period of time and lose its appearance of bread. I don’t think this is considered to be a result of Jesus exercising His Divine power.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Nita:

I have also said that the Church does not definitively tell us the answer as to whether there is an underlying substance in these types of miracles or what the substance is. I quoted from “Fundamentals…” which gave the theological opinion that when the Eucharistic species corrupts it probably assumes the substance that corresponds to the accidents it then has. (Post #18)

Nita

I think it useful to distinguish between the case of corruption (digestion, dissolution, rotting, etc) which happens as a matter of course and the eucharistic miracles
.

When it is stated that the real presence persists so long as the accidents persist it means, in practical application, that if there is such a change in the accidents that it would qualify as a substantial change then we say it is a substantial change, in so far as the substance of christ is no longer present. But not all changes of accidents signify a substantial change. . .for instance changing the color of the eucharist by dyeing it, say.

Now certainly the eucharistic miracles involving a change of accidents of bread to flesh would qualify as a substantial change. . .but the distinction here is that either the change happens immediately at the consecration and so accidents of bread and wine were never the outward sign of the sacrament in the first place or the miraculous change takes place in the later, but even here the change isn’t a natural one. I don’t think the idicator applies as readily in these cases as in natural corruption.