Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore,
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived:
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.
On the cross thy godhead made no sign to men,
Here thy very manhood steals from human ken:
Both are my confession, both are my belief,
And I pray the prayer of the dying thief.
I am not like Thomas, wounds I cannot see,
But can plainly call thee Lord and God as he;
Let me to a deeper faith daily nearer move,
Daily make me harder hope and dearer love.
O thou our reminder of Christ crucified,
Living Bread, the life of us for whom he died,
Lend this life to me then: feed and feast my mind,
There be thou the sweetness man was meant to find.
Bring the tender tale true of the Pelican;
Bathe me, Jesu Lord, in what thy bosom ran
Blood whereof a single drop has power to win
All the world forgiveness of its world of sin.
Jesu, whom I look at shrouded here below,
I beseech thee send me what I thirst for so,
Some day to gaze on thee face to face in light
And be blest for ever with thy glory's sight.
Amen.
I am still engaged in something of a eucharistic dispute, though why there is a dispute is a 'mystery beyond human comprehension'. On a post entitled 'The Head of the Church' I received a comment from someone called Lorenzo. Here is his comment:
Transubstantiation does not mean that Christ is locally present in the host. It's a common misunderstanding. There is a change in substance, not in the accidents, and place (locality) is an accident. That is orthodoxy, shame an Anglican has to remind you. He he.
Well, how to respond? Christ is truly present in the Sacred Host, something ensured by the change in substance following the heavenly exchange on the Altar that the Church has taught, always and everywhere, means that the one who consumes the consecrated Host consumes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Church has always taught that which I believe, that the change in the bread and wine is substantial in its becoming for us the Body and Blood of the Lord. Therefore, the Eucharist retains its outward appearance of bread and wine, to the senses also, retaining the accidents of bread and wine, but its very substance has changed.
Now I would say that none of the above contradicts what I said, that the Lord Jesus, truly and substantially present in every particle of every consecrated Host, is the Head of the Church (as the Church teaches) and is truly present therefore, reserved in every Tabernacle. Therefore, the Head of the Catholic Church, her Divine Spouse, is locally present in every Catholic Church until the End of Time. Unlike Anglicans, this is one reason why Catholics genuflect before the Tabernacle when we pass it and, too, why we double genuflect (kneel) when the Lord is exposed on the Altar, for Dominus est!
It is the Lord. It is not a sign or symbol of the Lord. It is the Lord! If place, reserved in every Tabernacle, is an 'accident' then it is an accident that God willed to happen so that He may always be found in every Catholic Church. It goes without saying that this is a good reason to pray in a Catholic Church - because the Lord is truly there in a unique way in which He is not to be found in an Anglican Church. It is right and truly fitting for the Catholic to worship, adore, glorify, pray to and intercede before the Blessed Sacrament, since that one who does so is insodoing adoring, worshipping and praising God Himself.
Then, in comes good Father John to agree with Lorenzo, maintaining that...
'I completely uphold the doctrine of the real presence and Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity in the sacred species - otherwise I wouldn't be a Catholic priest.'
Great. What's not to like? However, then I am accused of heresy for the following reason...
The difference is that Christ's real presence in the sacred species is a mystery beyond human comprehension, the process of which we cannot fully understand or explain in human words. To claim that the bread and wine PHYSICALLY become Christ's body and blood is to insist that they literally become human flesh and blood. Note that the doctrine says REAL PRESENCE ie body, blood, soul and divinity. It deliberately does not say physical presence. It is a frequent misunderstanding, most often by those of a 'traditional' bent.
Got that, readers? Apparently, there is no physical presence of the Body and Blood, Soul, Humanity and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. If I may suggest, such an assertion that there is no 'physical presence' of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist would be to deny what the Lord Himself has said: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you." I wonder whether this is a bit like those who say that there was a resurrection of the Lord Jesus, but not a physical one - that would just be silly, wouldn't it?
Ah, says Father John...
Eucharistic miracles are a completely separate and unrelated phenomenon to the real presence. The bread and wine remain bread and wine in physical terms although they change substantially (ie in substance). The change is sacramental. If the Eucharistic species were placed under a microscope, it would still be seen to be bread and wine (outwardly).
Eucharistic miracles are not a completely seperate and unrelated phenomenom to the real presence. They are a revelation, a reminder to the whole Church of what Holy Communion truly is. How could they possibly be 'unrelated'? Would the Lord do such a thing if the Church did not doubt? There would surely be no need, just as there would be no need for St Anthony to order a heretic to starve his mule for three days, before the mule is brought to him at Benediction, so that the mule, rather than the heretic would honour the Blessed Sacrament, by kneeling, since dumb animals can reverence that which intelligent men scorn.
It is rather concerning that someone who considers themselves an authentic well-informed catholic would misunderstand one of the central doctrines of the church. I should not need to provide documentary evidence about this as there is plenty of information freely available.
Well, seek and ye shall find, Father John, but why I should have to look for Church documents condemning the idea that the bread and wine become truly the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in a substantial change that means the Head of the Church is present in every Catholic Church and that in your hands, as a Priest, you hold Almighty God at the words of consecration is, to me a 'mystery beyond human comprehension'. The Eucharist is a mystery of faith. That does not mean that we should doubt!
30 comments:
I think I recently had a comment from "Father John". He (if it was he)took exception to my post on the Pope's having washed female feet. I deleted his comment.
I too have met "Father John"s, whose form of attack on Catholic beliefs is something like: "Your understanding is much too crude. We have moved on from such un-nuanced beliefs."
As if Faith were constantly evolving into something more refined.
Jesus was so unrefined when He explained the Matter that, according to St John, many of his disciples left him. He clearly needed someone to explain His Body and Blood in a more nuanced way.
For what it is worth, my understanding of Transubstantiation or the Real Presence is probably identical to yours.
God bless!
that's a doozy "eucharistic miracles are separate". how can there be a eucharistic miracle without the Eucharist?
So, now do I have to take my microscope to Mass to make sure, for the satisfaction of 'priests' like John, that my Faith in the Real Body, the Real Blood, the Real Soul and Real Divinity of Our Lord, doesn't make the mistake of Really believing they are Real? This sounds so newchurch. it's real but it's not real. the vii 'virtue' of the endless equivocal - in other words, faithless relativistic mish-mash. that way you can believe while not really having the burden of believing.
http://catholictradition.org/Eucharist/real-presence.htm
it is Faith first that unites the Body of Christ - therefore if I believe in the Real Presence as Real and John doesn't, I guess, we are not both in the Body of Christ. You decide who's in and who's out.
Have you verification that the commenter is a priest of the One Holy and Apostolic Church? I think you ought to get same. It is not fitting for a priest to be badgering a Catholic who upholds the Deposit of Faith and morals.
There is an obvious logical fallacy in the initial statement:
"Transubstantiation does not mean that Christ is locally present in the host. It's a common misunderstanding. There is a change in substance, not in the accidents, and place (locality) is an accident. That is orthodoxy, shame an Anglican has to remind you. He he."
Here your interlocutor is arguing that there is indeed a change in the accidents by denying that Christ is locally present in the host. On the contrary, just as the substance of bread was locally present in the unconsecrated host, the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are locally present in the consecrated hosted. To argue otherwise would be to say that the accidents have changed after the consecration. The doctrine of transubstantiation does not teach this.
The use of the word "physical" is a red herring and a road that is probably best not trodden. Philosophical concepts of substance and accident transcend modern scientific concepts of physicality. If any direct correlation could be drawn, the physicality of an object would pertain to the accidents of the object and hence would not ordinarily change after transubstantiation.
In the exceptional cases of eucharistic miracles, then obviously the accidents do change as well, and hence one could say accurately that Christ was present both physically and substantially.
Most of the problems in the Church today centre in the loss of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Christ said we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood - This is impossible unless he makes Himself 'locally' and personally present to each one of us.
O my God I believe in You and all Your Church teaches because You have said it and Your Word is true.
St Paul was pretty clear: 'he who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon himself'. 1 Cor.
but I suppose if one undiscerning one can equivocate over this as well.
p.s. in article 21 of Anglicanism's 39 articles, they deny that the Mass is even a sacrifice. article 25 also denies that ordination is a sacrament, so they don't even have a sacramental let alone sacraficial priesthood by their own reckoning.
It is rather concerning that a priest (i.e. the accident, Father John) should defend an heresy like he does. Jesus-Christ is physically present, that is what substance means. What Father does not seem to quite grasp is that change in substance is not in an ontological way (only), but in a real substiantial way, me thinks, physically. Otherwise, we fall into what Protestants believe when they say Jesus is with them until the end of times without the Eucharist. He is there, in thought.
Worrying that someone who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for us has not grasped that yet.
There is absolutely no doubt in Catholic theology that Jesus is locally present in the Eucharist. That is why we have Eucharistic adoration!
To say that no accidents change during consecration is absurd. When we say He is locally present we are talking about the substance, and what we are physically receiving in the here and now is substantially Our Lord. So he is locally present.
And Jesus is, indeed, LITERALLY present in the Eucharist. The term literal is not synonymous with physical, it is the opposite of figurative. Literal and "real" can be used interchangeably.
The substance of the bread has literally been changed, and so what was once bread is now LITERALLY Jesus. The bread in the priests hand is no longer bread, but Jesus' Body. The wine is no longer wine, but His Blood. We would be speaking irreverently if we continued to call it bread an wine (even if it "remains" so in appearance). The whole point of consecration is to implement this special, local change. Let's just say if you asked an angel what we has looking at when you were holding the Eucharist, he would not say "bread."
It is a mystery of faith in the sense that God does not change the appearance of the bread and wine; those "accidental" aspects remain the same so that only those with the gift of faith can "see."
The point of the Eucharistic miracles is similar to the episode where Jesus asks, "Which is easier, to say your sins are forgive, or to say rise and walk…" It is precisely to strengthen the belief of those who are trying to see past appearances with the eyes of faith. It is a proclamation confirming those who believe that he is indeed literally present, though still partially hidden under the appearance of bread and wine.
I agree that the term physical is confusing, because both substance and appearance are physical. but Fr. John's appeal to "expert" knowledge to end the debate is a little obnoxious, but then again, so are we!
Don't know if you remember Laurence but a while back I complained about the new Translation- that it shouldn't touch the beginning of the Creed as 'of One being with the Father' is a more accurate translation of homoousios that consubstantial - because people confuse substantia with substance and some who have been contaminated with post Lockean metaphysics confuse the material cause [what it's made from]of an object with its accidents...
i.e. Father John is Saying Our Lord makes His Real Body & Blood out of Bread and Wine like a Steel Robot making a Copy of itself out of Gold and downloading a copy of its brain into the Gold robot so now the gold robot is just as much the steel robot in its form but the gold robot is NOT the steel robot in its substance - in the same way the bread and wine Jesus is not the resurrected body Jesus.
This is heresy.
The Bread and Wine are annihilated in material cause - substance - and the substance becomes the real resurrected Body of our Lord and Saviour in the APPEARANCE [via the accidents of whiteness/redness/taste/smell etc] of bread and Wine which is no longer any such thing.
See the problems?
If we left BEING alone and hadn't replaced it with an only semi-accurate latin word SUBSTANCE [latin doesn't have an exact word! - it caused other Christological problems with prosopon, physis, natura etc in the subtle but important differences between the greek and latin]
The Eucharist IS the Resurrected body, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ - the REAL thing not a substitute made from something else...
TWO
TRUTHS
To the Nuclear
Plant I went
With wafered host
I was hell-bent.
Exposed the wafered un-
Consecrated host
To radiation
Now, nuked toast.
Offered heretic
"Taste and see."
"Oh no!" He cried
"That's not for me!"
"But look, " I said,
"Nothings changed...
A still white wafered
Host arranged."
"Though looks the same,
Could do much harm!"
The heretic knew
Exclaimed alarm.
As Catholics know
A spiritual radiation
Daily at Mass
Transubstantiation!
Oh my goodness, this is heresy. Transubstantion is clearly the teaching of the Catholic Church wherein the substance of the bread and wine are actually changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.
What we see are the accidents, but the substance become Christ truly God and truly Man.
Luther abandoned the literal sense and for this he was condemned.
Father John has deviated from Church teaching.
"by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the 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 change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. Council of Trent
Two more points:
The reason it is local is because it is the substance of THIS bread, not that bread, not all bread, but the bread in the priest's hands that will become substantially changed. It is purely local. After the consecration you can say that what you are holding is substantially Our Lord.
There is no doctrine that nothing accidental changes during the Eucharist. Accidental just means non-essential. Appearance is an accident, but so is the name given to something. Once a piece of bread becomes substantially our Lord, there is nothing to say that the accident of location cannot change.
You have written well Mr. B.!
Thank you!
Barbara
I think Pope Paul VI explained it fairly well in MF 1965.
Laurence,
There seems to be a little confusion about the teaching of the Church on this, partly due to an improper use of terminology. Let me see if I can help.
St Thomas states, "Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament." (ST III.76.5). The reason is that because of transubstantiation Christ is present substantially, and whilst normally the accidents (external observable characteristics) and substance are united such that the accidents inhere in the substance this is not the case with the Eucharist.
However, God is present everywhere (ST I.8.3), though not by dimensive quantity (after the manner of a thing), so since all the external activities of God are common to the three Persons (Council of Florence, DS 704) Christ is present everywhere. His presence in the Eucharist is different because He is there substantially in addition to the manner in which God is normally said to be omnipresent.
In short, Christ's body is not present locally in the Eucharist it is present truly and really, but substantially.
Speaking of Christ's 'physical presence' in the Eucharist is a misnomer that I would entirely avoid. He is present truly, really, sacramentally and substantially such that He is whole and entire under each species: body and blood, soul and divinity.
It is also true, I think, that the miraculous appearances of flesh or a child in the Eucharist is not entirely relevant to this dicussion. Firstly, because it is a matter of private revelation and need not be believed by the faithful, and secondly because the specific theological significance and its relation to the sacrament (grace imparted through signs) is difficult to ascertain.
I hope this helps, I might suggest altering your original article, or posting something else, as (with all due respect) it gives a false impression of the teaching of the Church; at least according to the mind of the Angelic and Common Doctor.
http://bit.ly/R3CeTH
http://bit.ly/R6LlCB
Bones. Relax. You are not a heretic. Only a slight tendency to go on a bit sometimes.
By the time I was fourteen, I could recite that Christ was fully present in the Sacred Elements, body , blood , soul, and Divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine – and within the dimensions of the bread and wine.
Admittedly it took me a little longer to grasp the significance of this, perhaps two or three years, but, not being a theologian thank God, just a simple scientist, that has since sufficed.
Whether Christ as a member of the Triune God and in no way constrained by the dimensions of space and time, doubles up, or whatever, in the space occupied by the Sacred Elements, I would leave to the theologians to discuss over coffee alongside their interminable reflections on the number of angels on the point of a needle, even a modern needle!
'The place is not empty where the body of Christ is. But properly speaking it is not filled by the substance of the body of Christ, which is not locally present, as we have just seen. It is filled by the sacramental appearance which are able to fill a place either because the dimensions themselves naturally do this or are enabled to do so by a miracle, just as they miraculously subsist as if they were substance.' Aquinas, ST III, 76 vi.
The Lord is not contained by the Sacrament, e.g. locally present (as a demon in an idol). He his fully present in sacrament, i.e. according to the power of His own pledged word in action (as you say, body, blood, soul, and divinity) - we are lifted up at the Sacrament, gloriously, into Him not He now limited to this or that single 'space' on earth.
The phusis or natura of the divine is divine and does not cease to be divine, even when it is united to the phusis or natura of creaturely things. The divine nature, reality, that is - perfect Spirit, was divine even in the Cloud of Presence (its material nature, the accidents, being unchanged). So too, in the hypostatic union of two natures - divine and human - in Christ, neither obliterated nor limited the other (the divine freely emptied its unlimitedness to allow human limitations to function as human).
The Eucharist is one such, very special indeed unique, expression of this emptying to fill fully in substance and without accidental suppression. It is the Word being true to His word, here it is the underlying meaning, sub stantia, being changed completely and without reserve while the sense-perceived appearance is yet retained. In the Eucharist we receive the gracious gift of our limited matter-bound means to have union with the unlimited perfect-Spirit of God in Christ Jesus, true God true man, seated at the right hand of the Father - even while really, truly, substantially present under sacramental reserve in the tabernacle: perceived by faith alone (not microscope or chemistry or vanity).
'The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Luke 22:19: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."' Aquinas, ST III 75 i.
Francesco Possenti puts it very well.
I agree with the double post above insofar as I think it is saying that Christ's physical body is not locally present in the Eucharist. Bravo for the precision!
However, is the writer further asserting that the Lord's sacramental body is not locally present? The bread and wine become the Body and Blood (Soul and Divinity) substantially, and these remain locally present. So how could be not say that Jesus' Body and Blood are locally present?
Just to clarify:
- I haven't disputed that there is a real change (in substance), just what that means
- yes using the description 'physical' is a red herring but it was Laurence who used it and insisted on it claiming I am a heretic
- this is not a new church understanding but the traditional orthodox doctrine
- Anglicans very often also genuflect before the blessed sacrament. In some circumstances their orders / eucharist can be valid so let's not be too quick to judge
- double genuflections before the exposed sacrament are no longer prescribed. I would argue that the type of reverence is less important than some kind of act taking place
- Eucharistic miracles are a separate phenomenon in so far as they can't be used as evidence that the Eucharistic species become physical flesh and blood in ordinary circumstances. I was simply trying to express that these miracles are extraordinary occurrences
- there would be no point taking a microscope into church as it would prove nothing, the accidents of the species remain physical bread/wine and that fact does not undermine catholic doctrine
- do you have any verification that any of your commentators are genuine priests/deacons? I know in many cases that priests commenting or referencing here are suspended or in schism (eg SSPX). I could comment using John only but when I have done so in the past my comments have been dismissed as nonsense / heretical etc
- I have affirmed my total belief in the doctrine of the real presence as the church understands it. Please don't allow your commentators to continue to libel / slander me. It's unjust!
- my understanding is the 'localism' is indeed not part of church teaching, maybe even a heresy, but the doctrine is complex. My understanding is that localism means that Jesus as a human person is present in the eucharist which is wrong.
- that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist is I believe also a declared heresy
- I most certainly am not saying anything about robots in my understanding of transubstantiation and think it is best not to go there or make such weird comparisons that are open to misinterpretation!
- the church's understanding of the Eucharistic is incomplete since it is a mystery beyond human understanding, we can only attempt to explain the mystery within the restraints of human understanding and expression
- transubstantiation is a philosophical conceptualisation of the Eucharistic and does not encompass all other modes of understanding
- depends what you mean by 'actual', if you mean a physical change in the accidents (which I would suggest many people wrongly do) then that's incorrect
- further comment to follow seperately
I posted my further comment on the next posting by mistake but hopefully you can read it there.
Eucharistic miracles and personal revelations do not need to be accepted by catholics as de fide. Personally I think there's too much emphasis on them by some and I feel they can lead to erroneous beliefs and problematic practices of popular piety. Also I would want to see the lab results of these tests before I could believe what happened - I imagine it's mostly folk lore. I've always thought that posting a fragment of the Eucharistic species for laboratory testing (which is what I've read elsewhere of the story) was disrespectful to say the least. Did they receive an automatic excommunication?
FR John - Go back to school please as you are embarrassing us more than yourself with your speculations, fallacies, inaccuracies, downright erroneous presumptions, your sophistry, your 'winging it' hoping no-one actually knows the facts or the metaphysicas or what the Church actually teaches...that you couldn't even bother to do a quick google search to check if you had a clue is - well? work it out.
There is ONE sacrifice of the Eucharist in which we participate through diachronicity - at the consecration we return to the Cross - as those at the last supper were thrust forward in time and location to calvary.
shame!
'In some circumstances [Anglican] orders / eucharist can be valid'
Eh??? No, I'm sorry, but if you venture onto a Roman Catholic blog you must expect some hard truths: Anglican orders are *not* valid, and never were, nor is their 'Eucharist' - whether they believe in it or not, kneel before it or not. That is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church ('Apostolicae Curae', reaffirmed by the 1998 Apostolic Letter 'Ad Tuendam Fidem' and in 2000 by the CDF declaration 'Dominus Iesus'.)
Moreover - and I never thought anyone would ever have to say this on a Catholic forum, but these are indeed strange times - Christ *is* *also* *physically* present in the Eucharist ('(Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity').
To say 'that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist is I believe also a declared heresy' is itself a heresy - certainly *not* 'the traditional orthodox doctrine'.
(And to insert the tentative little phrase 'I believe' in there is ridiculous - sorry, there's no better word.)
Btw, we Catholics use capital letters for Eucharist, Catholic and Church, always, not just now and then. One can't help noticing that you give the word 'Anglicans' its capital, but you spell 'catholic' in lower case. And 'church understanding' has never been a Catholic term for doctrine, though often used by non-Catholic theologians.
You seem very keen to point out what Catholics 'don't need to' practice or believe, or what is (according to you) 'no longer prescribed' - Oh indeed, let's not embarrass God with too much reverence! :-)
I must say that in many other other respects (eg stylistically) you do not write at all like a Catholic, a priest, or a theologian (even a wacky one) but more like a wordy student, so forgive us our scepticism on this point - as we must forgive you yours about Catholic Eucharistic doctrine :-)
Laurence - a really good OP from you. Nice to see faith and freedom still flourishing on this blog. Nil carborundum!
Eucharistic miracles may be a proof if you believe in them, but it is clear that they are nothing but superstitious folklore, a quaint fancy of days gone by. Everything to do with God, including the Real Presence in the Eucharist, is a mystery beyond comprehension (St. Augustine: 'If you can understand it, it isn't God') accessible only to faith. Transubtantiation is not an explanation of a physical change - there can be no such explanation, since the change is not only physical, but an ineffable union of physical and spiritual. Catholics are really in the same situation as all Christians who celebrate the Eucharist, believing in faith that the Holy Spirit consecrates the elements so that in Holy Communion we receive the Real Body and Body of Christ. We have no more knowledge in such matters and cannot explain how this is any more than anybody can.
Eucharistic miracles are folklore of days gone by? We recently had an "incident" in Seattle with a bleeding Host. Holy Family Catholic Church in Seattle. Vatican officials showed up and took it back to Vaticanland. Takes a long time for them to acknowledge a miracle---which is a good thing.
Savonarola you certainly don't sound like your name-sake....
Eucharistic miracles have indeed happened on many occasions in the lives of the saints over the centuries - they are not superstions...
Our Lord can do what He wants when He wants - and sometimes He works these wonders...
If He calmed the oceans, changed water into wine, multiplied the loaves and the fishes, brought the dead to life again , and countless other miracles...all documented - then He can easily work Eucharistic Miracles...
No problem at all for Him...
Barbara
FR. John: Please read paragraph 46 of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Mysterium Fidei. Then read the whole document.
In the Baltimore Catechism for children there it is explained that at the moment of consecration Our Lord performs a dual miracle, the first being transubstantiation, and the second being the instantaneous appearance of the species of bread and wine. If it were not for this second miracle, we would be put off by having to ingest pieces of Our Lord's Body which is true food and His Blood which is true drink.
I cannot understand why a priest would argue with anyone about the Real Presence not being quite as real as one might have been mislead to believe. What is the point of that? Look up real presence on Catholic Answers. Read the statements of the Church Fathers. Read the sessions on the Eucharist at the Council of Trent. (No one would have accused you of heresy in that forum, Laurence.)
Just another quick point or two.
Re Cosmos: you ask, "is the writer further asserting that the Lord's sacramental body is not locally present?" Short answer: no. Christ's sacramental body, to use your phrase, is present locally in the Eucharist precisely because as the "sacramental body", It is united to the accidents of bread and wine. By which I mean that His "sacramental body" is the conjunction of the accidents of bread and/or wine with His substance (body and blood, soul and divinity) and as such can, in my opinion, be said to be present somewhere locally.
On the second point you make I would just refer you back to Aristotelian categories. Location is an accident, and thus since the accidents do not inhere in the substance of Our Lord in the Eucharist it is correct to say that His body and blood are not locally present in the Eucharist; but they are present: truly, really and substantially. (Cf http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm)
I would also warn any potential readers that the comments of "On the side of the angels" on the annhilation of the substances of bread and wine in the Eucharist, are completely contrary to the mind of St Thomas Aquinas and the majority of Catholic theologians, and should be read with this is mind. See Summa Theologiae III.75.3.
Post a Comment