Thanks for your comment. We also believe that Christ died once for all, and is today at the right hand of the Father with all power and authority, and that as He ascended from the Mount of Olives, so He will come again in the clouds in glory to judge the living and the dead. Of course when He returns in glory, He will come unveiled, as it were, not in the appearance of bread or wine.

But we also believe that Christ now gives Himself to us in the Eucharist, which He instituted on Holy Thursday, when He took bread and said “This is My Body; do this in remembrance of Me.” So this discussion (on this thread) is about the way in which Christ is present with us now in this sacrament, until that longed-for day when He comes again in glory. We receive Christ in the Eucharist regularly because we love Him, and because He established this sacrament as a means by which He nourishes us spiritually, giving us Himself in a supernatural way through this sacrament.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

But how can one substance (Christ’s Body) have two types of accidents representing it; some in the mode of non-inhering accidents and some inhering ones in the mode of substance?

This would be a problem if there were two sets of contrary *inhering* accidents. They would be incompatible with each other. It is precisely because the non-inhering accidents are non-inhering, that they can be different from the inhering accidents.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

Thank you, that really helped. There’s just one more thing that is confusing me about inherence. You said that “In the Eucharist, however, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in the substance; they are miraculously sustained.” In Eucharistic miracles, the accidents of flesh also do not inhere in the substance of His Body, and Christ’s Body’s inhering accidents are in the mode of substance.

But how can one substance (Christ’s Body) have two types of accidents representing it; some in the mode of non-inhering accidents and some inhering ones in the mode of substance?

Thank you,

Christie

When I am picturing this double miracle, what it seems to imply is that there are two modes of presence of the flesh of Christ — in the mode of substance (as always occurs in Mass) underneath the mode of accident (as in the Eucharistic miracle). Is that so?

Yes, in the sense that Christ’s flesh can be present substantially and (a) His inhering accidents present in the mode of accident [as when He walked around Galilee], or (b) under the accidents of bread and wine, His inhering accidents present in the mode of substance [as in the Eucharist under ordinary conditions], or (c) under the accidents of flesh or blood, His inhering accidents present in the mode of substance [as in the case of Eucharistic miracles].

I don’t understand how a heart muscle can be His flesh, while His flesh is also a substance in the mode of substance.

The substance of a thing determines what it is, regardless of its accidents. So the substance is Christ, because of transubstantiation. But His inhering accidents are present in the mode of substance; the non-inhering accidents are present in the mode of accidents having quantitative dimension.

What does “inhere” refer to?

By nature, accidents have their being only in and from substances. They cannot exist on their own. This ontological union of accidents and substances is called inherence. Accidents inhere in substances. In the Eucharist, however, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in the substance; they are miraculously sustained. It is not the case that part of Christ’s physical body becomes bread-shaped, or bread-textured, at the moment of consecration.

If the accidental form doesn’t inhere in Christ’s substance, then is it really His flesh?

Yes, because, the substance of a thing determines what it is, regardless of its accidents.

Can you explain how these Eucharistic miracles (like wine actually showing the accidents blood for instance) wouldn’t qualify as being cannibalistic or under the error of Capharnaitism if one were to drink it?

They wouldn’t be cannibalistic for the same reason I laid out in comment #28 above. The Capharnaite notion is that Christ would give us a piece (part, chunk) of His body. And what St. Thomas says above about Eucharistic miracles avoids that. These Eucharistic miracles seem not to be intended to make us wish to eat or drink the Host or Precious Blood under the accidents of flesh and blood, but to give divine witness to us regarding what it is we are receiving when we receive the Body and Blood of Christ sacramentally in the Eucharist. That is, no one is expected to eat or drink the result of these Eucharistic miracles.

Also, I asked “Why is that?” in reference to the accidents of bread changing into accidents of flesh, because I thought the accidents of Christ’s flesh would’ve been the things to change, not the bread. How does one know it’s the bread’s accidents changing and not the accident’s of Christ’s body which are usually in the mode of substance

St. Thomas gives two reasons, in the article I linked above:

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. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Luke 24:31) that our Lord “vanished out of sight” of the disciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper semblance.

In addition to those reasons, there are others. Christ’s body is a human body, and has a human shape. That is its “proper species.” The notion that these cases of Eucharistic miracles are pieces of Christ’s body would mean either (a) that His physical body is mutilated by their dispersion and separation from the rest of His body, or that His human body is configured in a grotesque way — an ordinary human-shaped body accompanied by pieces of flesh and blood spread out in a spatial configuration corresponding to the location of each of these Eucharistic miracles around the world. Both implications are contrary to the principle that grace perfects nature.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

This is obviously difficult to wrap my mind around, given we are discussing miraculous events. However, I wanted to try and understand this double miracle a little more.

You said, “But if the person asks, “Is this flesh Christ’s body?” the answer would be “Yes.” It is flesh in its accidents under the mode of accidents, and, because in substance it is Christ’s body, therefore this flesh is Christ’s body.”

When I am picturing this double miracle, what it seems to imply is that there are two modes of presence of the flesh of Christ — in the mode of substance (as always occurs in Mass) underneath the mode of accident (as in the Eucharistic miracle). Is that so? I don’t understand how a heart muscle can be His flesh, while His flesh is also a substance in the mode of substance.

You also said, “Nevertheless the accidents do not inhere in the substance, and so we are not seeing the actual inhering accidents, but only the miraculously produced and sustained accidents.” What does “inhere” refer to? If the accidental form doesn’t inhere in Christ’s substance, then is it really His flesh?

Can you explain how these Eucharistic miracles (like wine actually showing the accidents blood for instance) wouldn’t qualify as being cannibalistic or under the error of Capharnaitism if one were to drink it?

Also, I asked “Why is that?” in reference to the accidents of bread changing into accidents of flesh, because I thought the accidents of Christ’s flesh would’ve been the things to change, not the bread. How does one know it’s the bread’s accidents changing and not the accident’s of Christ’s body which are usually in the mode of substance?

–Christie

However, I was originally thinking that the accidents of Christ’s Body, which are typically in the mode of substance in the sacrament, were what appeared in the ‘Eucharistic miracles’ in the mode of accidents. But you are saying that the accidents of bread change into accidents of His flesh.

To be clear, I am saying that in these unique cases of Eucharistic miracles, the accidents that had remained from the bread and wine and after consecration were present in the mode of accidents under quantitative dimension, are miraculously transformed into accidents of [i.e. sensible forms of] flesh or blood, and are present in the mode of accidents. (On the distinction between ‘mode of substance’ and ‘mode of accident,’ see the first link in comment #28 above.) Nevertheless, just as after the consecration the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in the substance of Christ’s body and blood, so in these Eucharistic miracles the miraculously produced accidents of flesh and blood do not inhere in the substance of Christ’s body and blood. It has the appearance of flesh, and in fact it is flesh. Nevertheless the accidents do not inhere in the substance, and so we are not seeing the actual inhering accidents, but only the miraculously produced and sustained accidents.

Why is that?

I don’t understand the question. Could you clarify?

Also, how can the accidents of His flesh be present (ex: the heart muscle) and at the same time His flesh remain only a substantial presence?

We have to be careful not to equivocate on the term “His flesh.” By that term we can refer to a piece or part of His physical body. We can also refer to the consecrated Host, which is truly His flesh, but is not a piece or part of His physical body. In the case of a Eucharistic miracle, His flesh is present in the latter sense of the term (i.e. by way of transubstantiation), but not in the former sense (i.e. piece or part). In the case of Eucharistic miracles, His flesh is present not by removing a part of His physical body in heaven, but by a double miracle, as I explained above. So if someone conceives of ‘piece’ as “part cut out,” and asks of some particular Eucharistic miracle, “Is this a piece of Christ’s body?” then the answer would be “No.” But if the person asks, “Is this flesh Christ’s body?” the answer would be “Yes.” It is flesh in its accidents under the mode of accidents, and, because in substance it is Christ’s body, therefore this flesh is Christ’s body. In such a case the accidental form of flesh is present in the mode of accident, but this accidental form is not the “proper species” of Christ’s body, says St. Thomas, because it does not inhere in Christ’s substance, just as the accidents of bread and wine do not, after the consecration, inhere in the substance of Christ’s body and blood.

Also, if you have time, can you please explain how “substantial” presence is different from “physical” presence? It would make more clear to me how the Mass can be the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary even though simultaneously Christ’s actual blood is really, truly, sacramentally present. Vonier’s book attempted to do that but I just couldn’t understand it.

Physical presence generally refers to a substance being present such that its inhering accidents are present in the mode of accidents within dimensions. Substantial presence generally refers to a substance being present such that its inhering accidents are not present in the mode of accidents with dimensions, but are present also (and only) in the mode of substance.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

That definitely answered a lot of my questions. However, I was originally thinking that the accidents of Christ’s Body, which are typically in the mode of substance in the sacrament, were what appeared in the ‘Eucharistic miracles’ in the mode of accidents. But you are saying that the accidents of bread change into accidents of His flesh. Why is that? Also, how can the accidents of His flesh be present (ex: the heart muscle) and at the same time His flesh remain only a substantial presence?

Also, if you have time, can you please explain how “substantial” presence is different from “physical” presence? It would make more clear to me how the Mass can be the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary even though simultaneously Christ’s actual blood is really, truly, sacramentally present. Vonier’s book attempted to do that but I just couldn’t understand it.

Thank you,

Christie

Quick thought on #35: because of a change in the accidents (though not the substance) the appearance of bread and wine can be replaced by the accidents of flesh and blood. Now I might be making a technical metaphysical error by calling flesh and blood “accidents” here (let’s see what Bryan says)- but in any event, the issue is that under the accidents of bread and wine are substantially present the flesh and blood (and soul and divinity) of Jesus Christ in the Host. “Sacramentally” should not be taken to mean “some gnostic, merely spiritual” presence – Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity are really present under the accidents of bread and wine.

Best,
Frank

In order to answer that question, it is essential to distinguish between substance and accident. The Real Presence has to do with the substance of the Host and the Precious Blood, even while the accidents of bread and wine remain. (Hence the term “transubstantiation.”) Regarding cases of Eucharistic miracles in which flesh or blood appear, and not just to the beholder, or for a short time, but to all persons, and for a long time, St. Thomas provides an answer in Summa Theologica III Q.76 a.8, where he writes the following:

Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done “to represent the truth,” namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ’s body and blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (77, 2), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.

Thus, in answer to your question, the Real Presence, even in such cases, is “substantial,” i.e. by way of transubstantiation. But in these cases the accidents are not “unbloody.” Nevertheless, say, for example, that in the case in question the Host has become a piece of heart muscle (such as in this case). According to what St. Thomas says in the quotation above, Christ’s glorified body in heaven is not missing a piece of His physical heart. Rather, in such a miracle, we should think that the accidents of bread (under which is the substance of Christ’s body), are miraculously changed into the accidents of flesh. So the heart muscle in such a case is truly the flesh of Christ, as is the Eucharist at every mass, because it is so by transubstantiation. But unlike the Host at every mass, here in these unique cases (as laid out in the link you provided) the accidents are not “unbloody.” Nevertheless, this heart muscle (to continue with my example) is not such by having been cut out from Christ’s physical body such that He is missing a piece of His heart, but rather is formed by way of a miracle upon a miracle, namely, by the miraculous transubstantiation of bread into the Body of Christ (which takes place at every mass), and then by the miraculous transformation of accidental forms (under which is the Body of Christ), from the shape, color, texture, etc. of bread, into the shape, color, texture, etc. of flesh.

If that doesn’t answer your question, please let me know.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan