In response to my last post about Eucharistic Adoration, a commenter, "Adoro," says that we do not and should not say a "physical" conversion occurs. This is my response.
---
Hi Adoro,
You should consider using your real name. It adds authenticity, relatability, and contributes to trust in this virtual world we call the Web. As our Lord said, I have said nothing in secret; the Gospel is not an anonymous matter.
Anyways, I don't know about not saying "physical." Nothing I've read (St. Thomas, Cath En, Catechesim, Trent, and more) says we shouldn't or don't say "physical." Granted, most of them also do not use "physical"; rather they say "substantial" and say "body and blood."
Catholic Christology hashed out at some pain that Christ has both Divine and human nature, i.e., part of his substance is human, and we say we partake of his "body and blood," both of which are physical in nature. Our doctrine is very clear that none of the substance of the bread and wine remain (and surely bread and wine are physical substances). In fact, Trent condemned as contrary to the faith the idea that "only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained."
That's why I say it is proper to say "not only physical," while it is not proper to say "not physical."
Now, I think the crux of the matter is a question of one's understanding of "physical." You and McBrien seem to mean it only to refer to the physical attributes (what in Aristotelian thinking are called "accidents"). In that sense--in terms of accidents or "species"--yes, there is no physical change, but that is precisely why there is a distinction made between accidents and substance in this matter--to highlight that the change affects the entire substance while retaining the outward appearances (accidents). As noted, substance in this case includes the physical because the substance of both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ have a physical nature--not just in the outward forms but essentially. And because the substance/essence of Christ includes natures that are not just physical but also spiritual, and not just human but also Divine, we also say that we partake "body and blood, soul and Divinity."
Regarding the concern about folks who take the understanding of the conversion to inaccurate extremes, that is no argument against transubstantiation itself (or a substantial physical change, which, again, is implied in the doctrine). Our doctrine also tells us that Christ's whole substance is contained in each and every particle of the consecrated host (see CCC 1377 and Trent Canon III of the 13th Session), so that excludes the idea that breaking or scratching or otherwise tearing the host injurs or tears Christ himself apart. People who think that need to be taught a right understanding of this doctrine, not to be taught that it is outmoded or have it substituted for a vague term like "sacramental," which while true does not help understanding much.
Now I acknowledge that these distinctions are unfamiliar to the average contemporary mind. But that does not mean that they are beyond the modern mind. We can have things like stem cells explained to us enough so that we grasp the important bits, even if we don't have degrees in advanced biology. In the same way, we can learn the stuff needed to get a sufficient understanding of transubstantiation.
Finally, to reiterate why all this is important, I'd like to quote a bit (more) from the old Cath En: "So the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation sets up a mighty bulwark around the dogma of the Real Presence and constitutes in itself a distinct doctrinal article, which is not involved in that of the Real Presence, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in that of Transubstantiation. It was for this very reason that Pius VI, in his dogmatic Bull 'Auctorem fidei' (1794) against the Jansenistic pseudo Synod of Pistoia (1786), protested most vigorously against suppressing this 'scholastic question', as the synod had advised pastors to do."
So we see that this tendency to dismiss transubstantiation as a "medieval" anachronism is not new at all; instead, rather, it is considered a "mighty bulwark." This is what I was trying to point out in my last post--that a proper understanding of and belief in transubstantiation is key to a proper, healthy understanding of the Real Presence. As McBrien and others have shown, one's understanding of this has very practical implications in how we worship God, and how we understand our relationship to him and to others, especially in the context of our liturgy.
I ask you, which abuse would be worse: an inaccurate, extreme concern for the Eucharist or a disregard, irreverence, and devaluing of it? So, even granting that an inaccurate understanding of transubstantiation can lead to the former, I suggest that this possibility is much less dire than the latter, which is a fruit of being wishy-washy and vague about the Real Presence.
Peace be with you.
I think there can be confusion when using the words "physical" about something we can't measure by physical sciences. The same confusion can arise for some people when we use the word "literal". (Instead of "literal", I think I would say "true" or "actual" or "genuine", which is what a person saying "literal" intends in this context anyway.)
ReplyDeleteAs for "physical", the only place I know the word has been used in conjunction with the presence of Christ under the Eucharistic species is this:
"Non enim sub praedictis speciebus iam latet quod prius erat, sed aliud omnino; et quidem non tantum ob fidei Ecclesiae aestimationem, sed ipsa re, cum conversa substantia seu natura partis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi, nihil panis et vini maneat eisi solae species; sub quibus totus et integer Christus adest in sua physica «realitate» etiam corporaliter praesens, licet non comodo quo corpora adsunt in loco."
"For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical «reality,» corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place." (Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 46)
So He is present in His physical reality, but not in a way one expects physical realities to be present, because each fragment of the Host is Him in His physical reality, yet there is not more than one Jesus.
This is why I would only use the word "physical" with a long footnote...
That's what I've been saying! :)
ReplyDeleteI've been trying to think of something to help contemporary folks understand the idea of species. The problem is that there's no natural analogy for transubstantiation. The closest I've thought of are things that seem to be something that in reality they're not. For instance, the Gestalt theory of closure (http://bit.ly/kl7w2); things appear to be one thing when they are really another.
The problem with that is that closure is a cognitive process, not a perceptual one, so it's not quite the same thing--if you are conscious of it and try, you can see what is really there, unlike with the Eucharist. But it does give a natural analogy that there are times when what we think we see is something different from what is really there.
In the end, I do think it takes a little effort to understand (in as much as we can) and, of course, faith to accept that the things making an impression on your senses are not the underlying reality.
For those who do make the effort to understand the ideas of substance and accidents and species, even if it is foreign to what you've learned to think about the world growing up, you can see the reason in it and see how it can help to get a better sense of the nature of the Eucharist, with all that such an understanding implies in terms of practical ramifications.
With apologies to Michel Foucault, "Ceci n'est pas le pain."
ReplyDeleteOn more thought, if you want to say "not physical" and mean "not the species," I think it requires an equally long footnote. So just don't say it! :)
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is why we normally just say things like "truly" and "really" and "is" the "body and blood, soul and Divinity"--because it sidesteps needing the footnote. But if we do that, we should avoid also inaccurate or, at least, imprecise equivocations like "not literally" and "not physically." ... if for no other reason than to avoid having others write long blog posts about it. :)
At the same time, I do think there is a place to make sure folks understand (or at least try to understand) transubstantiation. Seems to me it can only help folks have a richer experience of their faith.
"this is not a statement of physics. It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives Himself in them."
ReplyDeleteJosef Ratzinger, God and the World, see: http://www.adoremus.org/0604Ratzinger.html
See also Ratzinger, God is Near Us, p. 84.
It's interesting that then-Cardinal Ratzinger would say that given the excerpt that Jeffrey quoted from Mysterium Fidei (above). I'd have to assume that Cardinal Ratzinger meant to limit physical to that which is perceptible to the natural senses/mind.
ReplyDeleteYou might also be interested in this article that talks about different senses of "physical":
http://www.cts.org.au/0108/COMMENT.pdf
Makes a lot of the same points I do--in the context of the current cultural milieu, it can actually be helpful to make the point that it is physical in a certain sense (and then explain it as I have here).
I'll concede that there is precedent to say not physical as Ratzinger did there, but I would still suggest that it is better not to in our culture, and specifically the context of McBrien's remarks make the case that it would indeed be good to emphasize and explain transubstantiation and even go as far as to say it is indeed physical in a specific sense.