What does Aquinas mean when

[ZoeTheodora]

What does Aquinas mean when he says Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist is not “local”?

This is a topic of intense debate at another site. Several non-Catholic participants in the discussion seem to be suggesting that St. Thomas’s teaching allows us to see the Anglican and Calvinist views of the Real Presence as essentially the same as the Catholic view.

I am very confused. Please help.

Thanks…

ZT

 

[LuigiColetta]

I posted your question on the Ask an apologist thread. It is a very interesting question and I don’t know very much about Aquinas…

 

[Malachi4U]

Zoe,

Perhaps you could give us a link to the other forum to see what has been said. We might even join in.

Also could you give what the position is of ‘them’ and where the source is or from so we can look it up.

We just need some more information to help out.

 

[Scholastic]

St. Thomas teaches the Christ’s “quantitative dimensions” are not in the eucharist. Otherwise, the eucharist would be the shape and size of Christ’s body, instead of having the size and shape of bread. Since, the eucharist does not possess Christ’s quantitative dimensions it does not exist in a circumscribed place(in loco). If you want to see what St. Thomas says himself about this see his Summa Theologica, third part, q. 76 a. 5.

 

[Origen]

Aquinas is also saying that Christ is not located in multiple churches at the same time when the Eucharist is offered. He is not localized to time and space as the bread and wine is. Thus, after the words of consecration, the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ, but Christ is fully present at each and every location at which the Eucharist is at that moment being offered; and it is the same Christ Jesus, not multiple presences.

 

[Origen]

ADDENDUM:

This issue became a point of controversy during the Reformation.

Martin Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation and held that the bread and wine co-existed with the body and blood of Jesus Christ

It was said that Luther’s teaching implies a multiplication of Christ’s body, causing it to be locally present wherever the Eucharist was present. This is called the theory of “ubiquity.”

The Calvinists rejected the theory of ubiquity, just as Catholics do. But this in no way means that Calvanists and Catholics agree on all matters about the Sacrament.

 

[roemer]

It would be well for you to study Thomas more throughly; you can’t quote him in sound bites or phrases and expect to understand him.
A big clue that you haven’t studied him in any depth at all is that you call him “Aquinas”. That’s llike calling me “Evanston”, where I was born…
Call the man St. Thomas or Thomas Aquinas, or just Thomas .
His students are called Thomists, not Aquinians or Aquinists or such.

 

[space_ghost]

ZoeTheodora:

What does Aquinas mean when he says Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist is not “local”?

This is a topic of intense debate at another site. Several non-Catholic participants in the discussion seem to be suggesting that St. Thomas’s teaching allows us to see the Anglican and Calvinist views of the Real Presence as essentially the same as the Catholic view.

I am very confused. Please help.

Thanks…

ZT

I’m always amazed how anyone can give Aquians any serious discussion and be protestant… they have to attack the real presence, for to believe is to be 99% catholic…

 

[JimG]

Origen:

Thus, after the words of consecration, the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ, but Christ is fully present at each and every location at which the Eucharist is at that moment being offered; and it is the same Christ Jesus, not multiple presences.

Yes, perhaps the question is: if the appearances of bread and wine under which Jesus is hidden were to disappear, would we then see Jesus in bodily form? Apparently the answer is that although Jesus is present in bodily form, (through transubstantiation) we would not perceive him that way because substance is not directly perceptible by the senses, only the appearances (accidents) are.

Here is an article from Homiletic and Pastoral Review which addresses these issues quite well.

Since Jesus has but one body, he is not multiplied in the Eucharist. The Jesus you receive is the very same Jesus your neighbor receives. In this way we are really drawn together by being united with the one body–truly a communion, a realization of the communion of saints, in which we are included.

JimG

 

[ZoeTheodora]

roemer:

It would be well for you to study Thomas more throughly; you can’t quote him in sound bites or phrases and expect to understand him.
A big clue that you haven’t studied him in any depth at all is that you call him “Aquinas”. That’s llike calling me “Evanston”, where I was born…
Call the man St. Thomas or Thomas Aquinas, or just Thomas .
His students are called Thomists, not Aquinians or Aquinists or such.

Excuse me? What is that all about?

In my post, I referred to him both ways–as Aquinas and as St. Thomas. It’s perfectly permissible to refer to him both ways. And yes, I’m well aware that his followers are called Thomists.

I am a Catholic, fyi. On another board, I have been defending the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist against non-Catholics’ claims that the supposedly “pluriform” Patristic and Scholastic record allows us to “think outside the box” and reinterpret the Real Presence so it’s more consonant with, say, Calvinist virtualism.

If I’m reading them aright, several of these non-Catholics seem to be arguing that St. Thomas’s business about the Real Presence not being “local” gives them a sort of loophole, a pretext for their reinterpretation…

That is the background for the question I posed in my original post. I am seeking assistance in dealing with these non-Catholics’ claims. I do not claim to be an expert on St. Thomas. If I were, I wouldn’t have asked the question.

Can one not ask a simple question on this forum without getting a snippy lecture?



Blessings,

ZT

 

[ZoeTheodora]

JimG:

Yes, perhaps the question is: if the appearances of bread and wine under which Jesus is hidden were to disappear, would we then see Jesus in bodily form? Apparently the answer is that although Jesus is present in bodily form, (through transubstantiation) we would not perceive him that way because substance is not directly perceptible by the senses, only the appearances (accidents) are.

Here is an article from Homiletic and Pastoral Review which addresses these issues quite well.

Since Jesus has but one body, he is not multiplied in the Eucharist. The Jesus you receive is the very same Jesus your neighbor receives. In this way we are really drawn together by being united with the one body–truly a communion, a realization of the communion of saints, in which we are included.

JimG

Thank you, Jim, Origen, and everyone else who was so kind as to respond to my question.

That’s pretty much what I thought St. Thomas meant, but I was starting to doubt my own understanding after being engaged in this other discussion at the other board. Sophistries abounded there, and they always fog my brain up.

Thank y’all!

ZT