Verbum Caro...discuss this please!

[jpjd]

Hi VC,

In post #32 of this thread, you said:

“Christ’s body is composed of substance, as well as accidents intrinsic to it. If Christ’s body is truly present, then by natural concomitance those intrinsic accidents are also present. Perhaps what causes some confusion is that we often think that because transubstantiation describes the change of substance into substance that only the substance becomes present. But that is not necessarily the case. The substance becomes present by virtue of the change but the accidents become present by virtue of natural connection.”

My question is, how do we know this (the part that I put in bold)?

It seems rather nonsensical that one substance (bread) changes into another (Christ) and so we have only one substance present, and yet not only do the “old” (visible bread) accidents remain, but now (you say) we also have present “new” (invisible Christ) accidents. We have two sets of accidents present with one substance!

If the accidents become present by virtue of natural connection, then wouldn’t they also leave by virtue of natural connection? And yet, apparently they don’t since the bread’s accidents remain.

Therefore, if bread’s accidents can be separated from its substance, then why not Christ’s accidents be separated from its substance? Why do you say that Christ’s accidents are indeed present?

 

[WatchingMedia]

I noticed that you are a Catholic.
The best and easiest answer comes from the Pope and Church leaders regarding Tansubstantiation.

See the definition on page 902; then see pages 339 through 347, and in particular paragraphs 1374 through 1377.
Catechism of Catholic Church, Second Edition, first printed in US in March 2000.

 

[WatchingMedia]

My eyesight is not the greatest (neither is my typing). Should be “Transubstantiation”.

 

[jpjd]

Thanks, WatchingMedia, but my question goes much deeper than the usual transubstantiation discussion. Verbum Caro has in previous threads talked about the presence in the Eucharist of not only the accidents of bread but the accidents of Christ. To the best of my knowledge, the CCC does not address the accidents of Christ, and I’m trying to find out more about this from Verbum Caro, since he is the only one I’ve heard about this from (although he says it is discussed in theology textbooks).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi jpjd,

I’ll do my best to shed any light that I can, with the caveats that 1) some of this is speculative theology (not my speculations, mind you, this is traditional theology), 2) we are dealing with mystery that precludes us from knowing everything about what is going on, and 3) we have to be careful to recognize the limits of our imagination (since our imagination works with images, and some things can’t be imaged).

jpjd:

It seems rather nonsensical that one substance (bread) changes into another (Christ) and so we have only one substance present, and yet not only do the “old” (visible bread) accidents remain, but now (you say) we also have present “new” (invisible Christ) accidents. We have two sets of accidents present with one substance!

Yes, there are two sets of accidents present, but only one set present (Christ’s) with the substance. That other set of accidents (the accidents of bread) shouldn’t be present but are. Those bread accidents don’t inhere in any substance at all. It’s those accidents being present that are odd, not Christ’s. The substance of His body and its accidents being together is completely natural, and expected. Wouldn’t it be odd, rather, to assume that His own accidents are stripped from Him?

jpjd:

If the accidents become present by virtue of natural connection, then wouldn’t they also leave by virtue of natural connection? And yet, apparently they don’t since the bread’s accidents remain.

Yes, that’s exactly right. The accidents of bread should indeed leave. They shouldn’t exist at all because, being accidents, they should be dependent on their underlying substance (the substance of bread). When the substance of bread isn’t there any longer then there shouldn’t be the accidents of bread (because of that natural connection between substance and accident). The fact that they do remain, without an underlying substance to be connected to, is completely and utterly supernatural.

jpjd:

Therefore, if bread’s accidents can be separated from its substance, then why not Christ’s accidents be separated from its substance? Why do you say that Christ’s accidents are indeed present?

I say it mainly because it is a common theological teaching. (It’s not my idea!) St. Thomas taught it, and those who followed him. It is implicit in the doctrine of the Real Presence, as the whole Christ is present (i.e. not just His substance, but His entire humanity).

But, ultimately, it just makes sense. The Real Presence is about Christ being present, as He really is. There really isn’t any reason to pose an additional unnatural event – the stripping of Christ’s accidents from Him.

I expect that there is much more that can be said here – and it is a complex topic. I’ll do my best to continue to answer whatever questions you might have. I can suggest that if you begin to research this question about Christ’s accidents you should find much support for the above. Again, this isn’t my opinion or my theory (I do agree with it though.).

I should also mention an important point, although it might risk taking us off topic, that these accidents that I speak of are present in a unique manner or mode.

God bless. I look forward to any continued discussion.
VC

 

[jpjd]

I should also mention an important point, although it might risk taking us off topic, that these accidents that I speak of are present in a unique manner or mode.

Thanks for replying VC! I understand your explanation. I may have more questions after I mull it over a bit. (BTW, I didn’t mean to imply that this line of thinking was all your idea. You were just the first to bring it to my attention.)

Meanwhile, I would be interested in hearing about how these accidents are present in a unique manner or mode.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks for replying VC! I understand your explanation. I may have more questions after I mull it over a bit. (BTW, I didn’t mean to imply that this line of thinking was all your idea. You were just the first to bring it to my attention.)

Meanwhile, I would be interested in hearing about how these accidents are present in a unique manner or mode.

jpjd,

You are very welcome, and I’m glad that I was able to contribute something. I’ll keep an eye on the thread for any other questions that develop (not that I will necessarily have any good answers).

In the meantime – the concept that the accidents are present in unique mode. This is because Christ Himself is present in a unique mode. I find it one of the most subtle and difficult things to understand.

Here is the Council of Trent alluding to it:

our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive

So, this new manner of existing is distinguished from the natural mode by which He exists in Heaven.

St. Thomas posits that Christ is here present “in the manner of a substance”. But, note, that it is Christ who is present, the whole Christ in His full humanity, that is present “in the manner of a substance” and not just His substance. After all, if we merely wish to say that the substance of Christ is present in the manner of a substance we haven’t really said anything at all, since all substances are present in the manner of a substance!

Much more to say here about this new mode. Like I mentioned, it can be challenging. It certainly challenges me – and I don’t have a full grasp of it.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

jpjd,

I wanted to add, regarding the accidents of Christ being present but in a unique manner, something that you probably already realized but that just hasn’t been articulated yet in this thread:

We don’t perceive those accidents. That is unique, because normally accidents of a body are perceptible. This is because are senses are ordered towards that kind of thing – accidents of bodies. That is all our senses can perceive directly, in fact.

But we don’t perceive Christ’s accidents. This doesn’t change the fact that they are accidents, but it does mean that these bodily accidents are present in a unique manner.

And, this isn’t a case of the accidents of bread somehow obscuring the accidents of Christ, so that if you could remove the accidents of bread or see “behind” them then you would see the accidents of Christ. The accidents of Christ are present in a unique manner such that they just aren’t perceptible in themselves.

VC

 

[jpjd]

Well, I have to say, I’m not grasping the difference between Christ being present in the manner of a substance and Christ being present in the manner of His substance.

As for Christ’s accidents being imperceptible, on the one hand that makes sense that a supernatural substance would have imperceptible accidents. But on the other hand, it brings up a question of why would there be such a thing as accidents in the supernatural world.

Why would accidents exist in the supernatural world where there is no space and time as we know it in the natural world? How would glorified bodies use the 5 senses of their natural bodies in a supernatural world? Or maybe there is some other faculty that we don’t know of now that we will use in the supernatural world to perceive supernatural substances. What I’m really thinking is, isn’t it possible that a supernatural substance would have no accidents? But then again, if the heavenly beings had no accidents, how would they recognize one another.

Never mind. I’m just getting myself confused!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well, I have to say, I’m not grasping the difference between Christ being present in the manner of a substance and Christ being present in the manner of His substance.

jpjd,

Maybe you were referring to my statement “it is Christ who is present, the whole Christ in His full humanity, that is present ‘in the manner of a substance’ and not just His substance.”

The distributed clause in that sentence was meant to be “that is present”. So, what I was trying to convey was that it seems like it wouldn’t be saying much at all to say that Christ’s substance is present in the manner of a substance. But saying the whole body of Christ (with its accidents) is present in the manner of a substance says something about a new manner of being present.

But. . . maybe we ought to stick with the main idea: Christ doesn’t lose His accidents.

VC

 

[jpjd]

Your answer did raise another question for me though. You said in a previous post:
“the whole Christ is present (i.e. not just His substance, but His entire humanity).”
What is the difference between His “substance” and His “entire humanity”.

However, this topic just keeps getting deeper and it becomes more difficult to discuss it through the written word. I wish I could discuss it in person. At this point, I think I will just end the discussion and take it on trust that Christ’s substance and accidents are present in the appearance of bread and wine. I trust the great thinkers that came before me and I have no need to re-invent the wheel.

Thank you for discussing it with me though.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Your answer did raise another question for me though. You said in a previous post:
“the whole Christ is present (i.e. not just His substance, but His entire humanity).”
What is the difference between His “substance” and His “entire humanity”.

This might help, from Fr. Hardon:

Transubstantiation as we know, means, that what had been bread and wine in substance, are changed into the Whole Jesus Christ. So what becomes present on the altar is no longer, no longer the substance of bread and wine, that’s gone. By replacing the substance of bread and wine is both the substance of Christ’s Living Body and Blood and all the physical properties of Christ’s living humanity. . . . What replaces the substance of bread and wine, is the Whole Christ. Remember, the Totus Christus, the whole Christ, which means the whole of His Divinity and the whole of His humanity, but for one person, and consequently, there is no such thing as the ubiquity of Christ’s humanity. . . When God became man, He began it truly young. Where was His humanity? When He was conceived in Mary’s womb, His humanity was in Mary’s womb. On Christmas morning, where was His humanity? Well where else, in Her arms. Christ’s humanity was, wherever, well, His human nature, His living body, with His limbs, His face, His hands, feet, wherever therefore, Christ the whole Christ was present, was present also His humanity.

jpjd:

However, this topic just keeps getting deeper and it becomes more difficult to discuss it through the written word. I wish I could discuss it in person. At this point, I think I will just end the discussion and take it on trust that Christ’s substance and accidents are present in the appearance of bread and wine. I trust the great thinkers that came before me and I have no need to re-invent the wheel.

Well said, jpjd. That is my view too. I trust the great thinkers who came before us, and try follow them.

jpjd:

Thank you for discussing it with me though.

It is my pleasure. Thank you too.

VC

 

[JimG]

If I can just jump in and add a thought: It seems to me that sometimes Catholics inadvertently think of the Eucharist in a manner that seems more reflective of consubstantiation than transubstantiation.

In the Eucharist, Christ is entirely present, just as he would be if standing before you. The accidents of the bread and wine are not part of him, do not become part of him, and they do not inhere in him. They are not his accidents, but the accidents of bread and wine remaining after the bread and wine are gone.

After the consecration, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any substance. Since the substance of the bread and wine is gone, they cannot inhere in it. And they do not inhere in Jesus, as he has his own accidents.

I once heard someone say that in receiving the Eucharist they receive “a little piece of Jesus,” but that’s not correct. They receive all of Jesus. And Jesus does not “take on” the form of a little white wafer. The appearances of a little white wafer are appearances which do not inhere in Jesus or any other object. Jesus is wholly present beneath those appearances but not a part of them.

And as VC mentions above, Jesus is not stripped of his own proper accidents just because he becomes Eucharistically present.

Here is an article that may be useful.

 

[jpjd]

JimG!

That article is just what I was looking for! And in reading it, I can see everything that VC was trying to explain. I now understand why Christ in the Eucharist does not lose his accidents. That’s not to say that I completely understand accidents being in the manner of substance and not quantity. But I feel like I have taken a (tiny) step forward in understanding.

I always have had the greatest reverence for the Eucharist, but this just makes me marvel. Can’t wait for Mass tomorrow morning!

Thanks so much to both of you!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You are welcome.

And now you probably see why I keep bringing this up in on the forum? To know more about Christ in the Eucharist can lead us to love Christ more in the Eucharist.

I’m very fond of these two earth-shattering ideas: That Christ has His own proper accidents in the Eucharist, and that He gave the Apostles his non-glorified body at the Last Supper. (and the ideas are related)

And a thanks to Jim to for chiming in. Did you ever see that thread awhile back where I was taken to task for saying Christ had His accidents present in the Eucharist? I was told that I didn’t understand what accidents were. . .

VC

 

[jpjd]

I don’t remember the thread, but I’m glad you persevere in bringing up the topic!

I have to say, I don’t have a grasp on the other thing you mentioned:
“He gave the Apostles his non-glorified body at the Last Supper. (and the ideas are related)”

I will have to look up any threads on that and read them again.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

jpjd,

The short version is this: since Christ is really present in the Eucharist as He really is (accidents and all) then everything about Christ is present. So, when we receive Christ we receive Christ who has a glorified body, and whose body is locally in Heaven. If the disciples on the road to Emmaus received Holy Communion after the Ressurection, they received the Glorified Body that was locally on the other side of the table.

When the Apostles at the Last Supper (before the Resurrection) received Holy Communion they received the passible (non-Glorified) Body that was locally at the table with them.

Whatever Christ is, is what the Real Presence is.

VC