Transubstantiation and Eucharistic miracles

[Nita]

…At this point, I’m not sure there is anything as a definitive answer. . .

This has been my position (eg. my posts #18 and 24) – with the exception that I have maintained that it had ceased to be the “substance” of Our Lord’s Body when the consecrated host lost the appearances/accidents of bread. The basis for saying this is the teaching contained in CCC #1377.
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures **as long as **the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ
I always value your (name removed by moderator)ut VC. Could you tell me how you understand the “as long as”?
The only possible way I can see for it to be interpreted in such a way as to still allow for the Eucharistic presence (a presence of “substance”) after the Eucharist species (bread) no longer subsists, would be to interpret the “as long as” in the same way as “until” is interpreted in Mt. 1:25. ("… but knew her not until she had borne a son;"). In other words “as long as” addresses only the time up to the occurance of the miracle, but does not speak to the time subsequent to the miracle. Somehow or another tho, I don’t think that’s what the authors of the Catechism meant.

 

[Wesley7]

I believe Eucharistic miracles are possible.

 

[grannymh]

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.

That is correct. My apology, I assumed that my reference was referring to any of the various recognized Eucharistic miracles.

 

[grannymh]

I believe Eucharistic miracles are possible.

Absolutely, Eucharistic miracles are possible. Praise God!

 

[Nita]

Nita

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.

In these cases other accidents and their substance (dye) may be present with the consecrated Host and its substance, but the Eucharistic species still endures.

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.

I really don’t know if any of the miracles were known to happen that instantly, such that the appearances of bread ceased right at the moment of the words of consecration.

Another possibility that crossed my mind in regard to Lanciano, was the possibility that the doubting priest never intended what the Church intends. And therefore, no valid consecration would have occurred. Of course, that is really wild speculation to which we cannot know the answer.

Edit note:
I noticed our 2 posts, #39 and 40, were made at the same time. But time had run out for editing so I could not redo my post.

 

[Wesley7]

Can praying the Rosary for many years produce a real miracle? . .

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Nita,

I used dye only to illustrate the idea that accidents can’t mean any accident. You could have a change in color due to sun exposure, perhaps. Nor can accidents mean all accidents, because you could have corruption without a change oof shape, for instance. It was to illustrate that “so long as the accidents subsist” needs some qualfications. On a phone, canmt write much, but what do you make of Aquinas that I mentioned?

 

[grannymh]

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.

From your reading of the links I provided you, would you conclude that flesh and blood appeared during the words of Consecration in 750? See top left of first link. Obviously, the Divine Christ has the power to choose the “appearances” of His Real Presence.

Caution. One needs to be careful not to take sentences from this section out of context. For example. The last sentence uses the phrase “still intact”. This is not referring to the year 750 but rather to the present and what can be expected of a piece of detached flesh. See point 5 in report which found that there were no traces of preservative substances used in antiquity for the purpose of embalming.

Please, note that my use of “detached flesh” does not imply that Christ died during this particular Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in 750. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice. What I am saying is that there is a comparison between the appearance of flesh and the appearance of bread in that both appearances do eventually decompose. This is what CCC 1377 refers to when it says: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Emphasis is mine.

What is important about Eucharistic miracles is that they focus on the Divinity of Christ. The Catholic Eucharist is not a symbol.

Eucharistic miracles are important today because they bring us into the spiritual realm where God calls us to share in His life through knowledge and love.

In a sense, the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus Christ personally saying to all of us – Here I am. Know Me and love Me as I know you and love you.

 

[grannymh]

Can praying the Rosary for many years produce a real miracle? . .

Praying the Rosary brings us in contact with the life of Christ and His Blessed Mother.
The Rosary is directed to Mary in her role as an intercessor of our prayers. In other words, she pleads our case before God. From my own experience, I know Mary acts as our protector as I have witnessed a saved pregnancy and a peaceful death each one connected to someone(s) who were praying the Rosary.

I have no doubt that praying the Rosary for many years has produced many real miracles. The real miracles may not be the expected ones or they may not be known to the person praying, but they do occur.

 

[po18guy]

The great blessing is that, for the vast majority of us, we need no such miracle to instill or restore belief in us. We are completely satisfied with the miracle that is the Holy Eucharist. Thanks be to God that nothing else is currently required. It is a sign of His majesty that the Eucharist, as it is, remains completely unfathomable to mankind.

 

[Nita]

Nita,

… On a phone, canmt write much, but what do you make of Aquinas that I mentioned?

You’re making me study - and I can’t claim being busy on the phone.

In Aquinas III, 76, 8 (which you referenced in Post #32), I understand him to be saying that in a miracle (such as Lanciano), he considers that the Euchistic presence (substance) of Jesus still abides; but the miraculous flesh that is outwardly visible/present is not Our Lord’s flesh.
(Is this how you understand his words?)
…an appearance which really exists outwardly. …and it remains so not for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it is the proper species of Christ’s body. …
But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ’s body under its proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament. …

I note that the very first reason he gives for holding the opinion that the Body and Blood of Our Lord is still truly present (after the miraculous change in accidents) is because
"the same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, * which would not be done if Christ were not truly there*, to Whom we show reverence of latria. Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament."
That statement directly bears on one of the reasons I gave for** not holding **that the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus still resides in the Lanciano host. Part of that host/flesh was severed and given over to scientists for testing. Such a thing would never be done with a Consecrated Host - precisely because we believe it is Jesus truly present in it.

Now that I have pulled the book out, I think I’ll do some more reading of the surrounding articles.

 

[Nita]

The great blessing is that, for the vast majority of us, we need no such miracle to instill or restore belief in us. We are completely satisfied with the miracle that is the Holy Eucharist. Thanks be to God that nothing else is currently required. It is a sign of His majesty that the Eucharist, as it is, remains completely unfathomable to mankind.

If I had to choose between spending an hour before the Lanciano monstrance or an hour before the tabernacle - I’d choose the tabernacle.

 

[Nita]

You’re making me study - and I can’t claim being busy on the phone.

In Aquinas III, 76, 8 (which you referenced in Post #32), I understand him to be saying that in a miracle (such as Lanciano), he considers that the Euchistic presence (substance) of Jesus still abides; but the miraculous flesh that is outwardly visible/present is not Our Lord’s flesh.
(Is this how you understand his words?)
…an appearance which really exists outwardly. …and it remains so not for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it is the proper species of Christ’s body. …
But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ’s body under its proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament. …

I note that the very first reason he gives for holding the opinion that the Body and Blood of Our Lord is still truly present (after the miraculous change in accidents) is because
"the same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, * which would not be done if Christ were not truly there*, to Whom we show reverence of latria. Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament."
That statement directly bears on one of the reasons I gave for** not holding **that the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus still resides in the Lanciano host (Post #15). Part of that host/flesh was severed and given over to scientists for testing. Such a thing would never be done with a Consecrated Host - precisely because we believe it is Jesus truly present in it.

Now that I have pulled the book out, I think I’ll do some more reading of the surrounding articles.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You’re making me study - and I can’t claim being busy on the phone.

I recall I made you break out the books once before when I impertinently claimed that Christ is present with His bodily accidents in the Eucharist, do I recall that correctly?

In Aquinas III, 76, 8 (which you referenced in Post #32), I understand him to be saying that in a miracle (such as Lanciano), he considers that the Euchistic presence (substance) of Jesus still abides; but the miraculous flesh that is outwardly visible/present is not Our Lord’s flesh.
(Is this how you understand his words?)

Yes, precisely. I think he makes a good case for both.
"Nita:

I note that the very first reason he gives for holding the opinion that the Body and Blood of Our Lord is still truly present (after the miraculous change in accidents) is because
"the same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first,* which would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whon we show reverence of latria. Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament."*
That statement directly bears on one of the reasons I gave for** not holding **that the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus still resides in the Lanciano host. Part of that host/flesh was severed and given over to scientists for testing. Such a thing would never be done with a Consecrated Host - precisely because we believe it is Jesus truly present in it.

Yes, well, that might pose a problem! But, I’m not sure if it would affect the theological speculation behind all of this. . . only whether or not it was prudent to allow scientific testing on that miracle. Perhaps Lanciano and other instances allows for this because of the nature of the miracle. . . that this appearance of flesh didn’t change much over the years. It isn’t as if it was a consecrated host right off the altar. . . (that would never be permitted as you say). . . but coming to it after to many years. . . perhaps to verify that it wasn’t a forgery. . .

Now that I have pulled the book out, I think I’ll do some more reading of the surrounding articles.

Great!

I think it is pretty clear that, no matter what, there is no question of “whose” flesh it is at Lanciano (assuming it is a miracle) or in other Eucharistic miracles.

On the one hand, if Christ is there in a sacramental presence then the flesh could not be his, because it would only be a part of His flesh (as in Lanciano) and that wouldn’t be consistent with the totality of His presence but also, perhaps more significantly, it would be incompatible with the teaching that Christ is not locally present in the Eucharist.

On the other hand, if there is no sacramental presence, then you run into the similar objection for if it were Christ’s flesh then it is either a piece of Him or He is present under His own appearances and local, the latter entailing the Second Coming.

If it is the case that Christ is sacramentally present, as Aquinas seems to think He is, then the question of “whose” flesh it is completely dissolves. This is because the accidents of flesh would stand in the same relation to Christ as the accidents of bread do – namely they don’t inhere in Him and aren’t His accidents.

VC

 

[grannymh]

If it is the case that Christ is sacramentally present, as Aquinas seems to think He is, then the question of “whose” flesh it is completely dissolves. This is because the accidents of flesh would stand in the same relation to Christ as the accidents of bread do – namely they don’t inhere in Him and aren’t His accidents.

VC

If I may, I will use your “if it is the case that Christ is sacramentally present…” in order to present my two positions to Nita.

According to Catholic teaching, at Consecration, Christ is sacramentally present under the appearances of the species of bread and wine. In 750 A.D., the species on the altar was ordinary bread and wine. At Consecration, the “appearances” were not that of bread and wine, but were the appearances of human, not Divine, flesh and blood. As you pointed out, the accidents of flesh would stand in the same relation to Christ as the accidents of bread do–namely they do not inhere in Him and are not His accidents.

As True God, Jesus demonstrated His Real Presence with visible flesh and blood. This is my first position on the individual event in 750 A.D.

My second position concerns the relics which are conserved in Lanciano in this century. As one can tell by the pictures, the appearance of live flesh and blood has changed according to their nature. Again, the way the appearance of the flesh in 750 A.D. changed would stand in the same relation to Christ as the changes in the appearance of bread does. Thus, my second position regarding the relics in this century is that the Real Presence does not exist in the remnants of the 750 A.D. Eucharistic miracle.

People go to Lanciano, myself included, not to pay homage to relics per se; but to pay homage to Jesus Christ, True God, Who has the power to give Himself to us under the appearances of bread and wine. As scientific examinations have shown, these relics were at one time, real human flesh and blood. This realty is meant to increase our Faith in the words of Jesus Christ.(the Gospel of John, Chapter Six)

 

[Nita]

I recall I made you break out the books once before when I impertinently claimed that Christ is present with His bodily accidents in the Eucharist, do I recall that correctly?

You recall correctly. And I thank you again for the help.
Came across that section again now as I was reading.

 

[po18guy]

If I had to choose between spending an hour before the Lanciano monstrance or an hour before the tabernacle - I’d choose the tabernacle.

And, such it is with all private revelation. It is targeted, and belief in it is non-binding upon the faithful. It is for the Thomases of our time.