TRANSUBSTANTIATION ON THE POPE FRANCIS CONFIRMED THE TRADITION

.

The reigning Pope, with the words "so that Jesus may be in the bread and in the wine" he means that Christ comes in the bread and in the wine, not to stand beside him or enter into him, like sugar in coffee, as Luther believed, but transustanziarlo, ie to change it in his body, so that taking Communion does not mean eating bread, even in the presence of Christ, ma eat the body of Christ.

.

.

Author
Giovanni Cavalcoli, o.p.

.

PDF print format article

.

.

.

His Holiness Francis I during a Eucharistic celebration

The audience the 7 March last [cf. WHO] the Holy Father treated the Eucharistic Prayer of the Holy Mass e, referring to the Eucharistic consecration formula pronounced by the celebrant, He has had the following words:

.

"Invoke the Spirit because it is, and in the bread and wine there is Jesus. The action of the Holy Spirit and the effectiveness of Christ's very words uttered by the priest, make really present, under the species of bread and wine, his Body and his Blood ".

.

The Pope's words at first they might seem to make sense Lutheran, namely that the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist is to be understood, as Luther believed, as the presence of Jesus in the bread. In the event to, in Luther, with the consecration of the bread is not changed, that is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, but the bread remains bread, and there is only the presence of Christ in the bread, even after invoking the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

.

the Supreme Pontiff Francis I, Eucharistic celebration

You must open a parenthesis to clarify that in dogmatic theology, specifically in dogmatic sacramental, with the term transubstantiation [from Latin, trans-substantiatio], It indicates the conversion of the bread into the substance of Christ's body, the substance of the wine, the substance of the Blood of Christ. This term refers to the passage of a substance into another. During the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Although the species of bread and wine remain unchanged in their color and flavor - and these are shown in the philosophical and theological language as so-called “damn external” —, the substance, namely the substantial element, persist despite appearances “accidental” the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, really present, living and true, in body, soul and divinity.

.

Dad, with words "So that Jesus may be in the bread and in the wine" means that Christ comes in the bread and in the wine, not to stand beside him or enter into him, like sugar in coffee, as Luther believed, but transustanziarlo, ie to change it in his body, so take Communion does not mean eating bread, even in the presence of Christ, but eating the body of Christ.

.

the Supreme Pontiff Francis I, Eucharistic celebration

In fact, the Council of Trent He explained that the truth of the real Eucharistic presence supposed, after the words of the Eucharistic Prayer containing the so-called formula consecratory, the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Christ [see WHO], how accurate immediately after the Pontiff. This means that the Catholic and the Lutheran explanation of the real presence is not, as he believes Andrea Grillo [see WHO], Two possible explanations both legitimate, the fact - which is both dogma of faith - the Real Presence, because they are mutually exclusive according to the principle of non-contradiction, whereby, if true one o'clock, It can not be true the other, in conclusion: both can not be simultaneously true.

.

For here it is not subjective opinions or appearances or diversity of viewpoints, as claimed by Andrea Grillo. No. There is more at stake objective truth, It must apply to everyone and are entitled to the consent of all and that reflects the reality as it is in itself; It is so universal truth, one for all and valid for all.

.

Luther says in fact that the Bread remains bread. The Church says instead: bread is no longer bread. Luther says Christ is in the bread. The church, instead, as reported by the Pope says that the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Christ. Now, if true one o'clock proposition, the other is necessarily false. Unless we distinguish the more so since no. But the Council of Trent told us what is the real one. So, Lutheran is false.

.

the Supreme Pontiff Francis I, Eucharistic celebration

Luther, in explaining the words of Christ «this is my body», He interprets them as if Christ would say something other than what it actually says. It's time to justify the assumption. It is known to dell'impanazione theory or consubstantiation: Christ is not under the species some bread transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, but Christ is in the bread and with the bread. So, on the table there is only the body of Christ, but there are the bread and the body of Christ. Non a substance, the body of Christ, but due: the bread and the body.

.

Luther changes the words of Christ. Rather than «this is my body», She makes him: «I am in this bread». It is clearly seen that Luther unfortunately refuses the distinction between substance and accidents, which serves as usefully to accept the dogma of transubstantiation and then to interpret correctly the words of the Lord, in particular the «this» [in Greek this, in Latin hoc].

.

The Lutheran thesis of Christ It empties into the bread of his own and original meaning of the Eucharistic Mystery; says nothing, that does not correspond to what is the general presence of Christ in all things. According to Luther, the Last Supper, Jesus would not have said anything special or new compared to what the apostles already knew. By eating the bread consecrated by Christ, they do not eat the body of Christ, but simply a bread in which Christ was present, as well as He is present in the hearts of good men and all creatures in the universe.

.

the Supreme Pontiff Francis I, Eucharistic celebration

So that 'hoc It is no bread, but it is not the body until Christ did not finish pronouncing the words of consecration. In the moment in which pronounced that 'hoc, She was happening transubstantiation. It happened in the course of speaking of our Lord and because of his words. Likewise it happens over pronounce the words of consecration by the priest while ruling.

.

The Holy Father recalls then rightly and appropriately that the body of the Lord is hidden under the «species» some bread. What does it mean «species»? We must not think of the "species" in the biological sense or logic. The word, from the Latin species, in this case it means "appearance", "Semblance". One thing may have the appearance of another, so this conceals itself, its essence or its substance under that aspect. For instance, at Pentecost the Holy Spirit appeared in the aspect of tongues of fire [cf. At 2, 4-11], the baptism of Christ under the appearance of a dove [cf. Mt 3, 13-17].

.

But we must be careful here what the Church meant by the word species. It not intended to refer to an appearance or semblance deceptive, purely subjective, as it could be a dream, hallucination or an optical illusion. It is not that the consecrated host you look bianca, small round, because it really is. It is really, certainly and objectively. The senses retain their veracity, it is not vain appearances; It remains sensitive truths. The host is really white, small round. This is the meaning of the sentence of the Fathers: the host seems Bread, but it is not bread: It is the body of the Lord. And saying "it seems" - as the Church will explain later - the Fathers intend: really grasp the species, even if the substance of the Body of Christ is hidden and is seen only with the eyes of faith.

.

Wanting to use a prudent reserve Kant's concept of phenomenon, we could say that the He sees the believer in the consecrated Bread phenomenon, but he does not see the what in see, that does not see the bread. But he knows that thing in itself, ie the substance of the bread, there is not, but in its place is the body of Christ. It certainly will not be Kant, simple philosopher, to give this assurance, but obviously it is faith. However Kant, with the concept of thing in itself, as Aristotle with the concept of substance, It can help us to distinguish what in the host capture the senses by what means the intellect.

.

The disadvantage of Kant compared to Aristotle is that while for Aristotle the substance - in Greek οὐσία, ousia — it is intelligible and conceptualizable, ie you can know and express the essence, Kant, instead, the thing itself exists, it is designed [dal greco provided], but it is not known; therefore it can not be conceptualized, because for Kant the speculative concept only captures the phenomenon, for which the substance, Kant, It can not be a given ontological, but it is only empirical or at most is a requirement logic of predication. It is evident then that, with a similar concept of substance, Kant one can not speak of transubstantiation.

.

It must be said then that the Kantian duality phenomenon-what itself on the one hand it helps to understand the effect of transubstantiation, but another is misleading. It helps, as such duality tells appearance at the sense - the phenomenon - the sensible qualities which suppose a thing in itself unattainable by the way, but only by the intellect [provided]. The phenomenon, so, It is not pure appearance [Schein], but event [apparition] sensible, objective, some of the real and true.

.

the Supreme Pontiff Francis I, Eucharistic celebration

But this duality, for another towards, It does not help, because it implies a thing in itself, is certain real [res = thing in itself] and independent of the subject, but unknowable in itself, which is a phenomenon; but the phenomenon intellect offers its own object, that is not the thing itself.

.

Now the Eucharistic species refer yes to a thing in itself, but for the believer it is not unknowable or indefinable, because it is the Body of the Lord. If we want, we could say that is unknowable to pure reason, but not to faith. One simple reason as that of the non-believer, It would be convinced that behind the appearances of bread there is nothing but bread. The rest, it is normal for the reason to know the invisible and impalpable substance by means of the visible external accidents and palpable.

.

the Supreme Pontiff Francis I, Eucharistic celebration

It is only faith which tells us that behind the accidents of the bread is not bread but the body of Christ. Support, therefore, that after the consecration the bread remains bread, as supported by the presence of Christ, means ultimately not believe in the words of the Lord. Which means that faith alone saves admitting transubstantiation.

.

By remaining instead under the Kantian but we know that under the phenomenon is the thing itself, that might suggest the substance. Senonché, But as we said, for Kant the thing itself but is actually subsisting, indeed very certain and absolute, separate and independent from the intellect; ma, as is known, It is unknowable and indeterminable - is the "thing", not things - but for him the substance, multipliable and determined, only category intellect priori, that applies only to classify the phenomena and for which the intellect has need of an absolute subject and fixed below the becoming. Moreover, what the Church calls in the case of the Eucharist species, It corresponds to what in metaphysical and even in common parlance is called accident, additional properties ontological essence of things, necessary or contingent, Oh lost inamissibile, corrupting or perfective, invariably present in all material and spiritual realities created. The accident may fall under the direction as in the intellect. It concerns what the thing or of a reality appears to us immediately, so to speak to the surface, and emanating from within or from the bottom, or "heart" of the thing, said "substance", which is that for which a finite being there by himself and in himself, what in logic is the subject preaching, who speaks and the people talk about and to whom is attributed the predicate, that may be either substantive or accidental. But not predicated of accident except sostanzializzandolo. It is known as the "subject", through the use of the greek word ὑποκείμενον [ypokèimenon], which makes use of Aristotle and which literally means “stay under”; term then transposed in Latin - Under-iecto — to signify that it underlies or supports accidents.

.

Substance and accidents

.

the Supreme Pontiff Francis I, Eucharistic celebration

The substance [2] is the full body as subsisting and acting according to its essence or specific nature [second substance] an individual [substance before]. The substance can be natural or artificial, the artifact, work of art or technique. That nature is created by God and is formed from a single substantial form, for example the shape of the chemical substance and the soul of the living. That is the artificial product of man and it is a set or ordered composed of parts of different substances. The host is an artificial substance.

.

Need profound and essential intellect It is to know the substance of things, beyond the accidents maybe fleeting and ephemeral, object of the senses. The substance is what in the entity and in the real there is more consistent, more important, more appealing to the intellect, who only, and not the way, He knows how to capture the substance. Of course, for precise and above all historical and concrete knowledge, it is also necessary to know the accidents, especially those essential and excessive strains. Instead, in scientific knowledge, interested to know where the universal, learn the essential and fundamental, to the accidental knowledge it is of little interest. We know the substance by means of accidents, because the substance is learned in its accidents.

.

The substance of the bread is bread. But it is clear that when you say the "bread", He means the bread with its accidents. However, the substance of the bread is really distinct from its accidents, even if the substance is normally with its accidents and these are inherent to their substance. The substance can not be, normally, without its accidents.

.

In transubstantiation, so, the substance of the bread does not remain alone, It is not canceled, as indeed the Tridentine dogma teaches [3] "It is totally converted into the substance of the body of Christ". Only this substance the body of Christ has its accidents, it must be understood not in terms of the substance of the body of Christ resurrected and ascended to heaven, if only it has its accidents - that is, his glorious body that takes forever etched on it the signs of the passion -, but it's, for the divine power, pure substance free from accidents [substantially].

.

Master and Keeper of the faith in the chair

Because of this, the body of Christ in this way the substance in the Blessed Sacrament is independent from the place, space and time, and can therefore be present in all the tabernacles of the world until the end of the world. Indeed, place, time and space are accidents of substance. As for the Eucharistic accidents of bread and wine, is to remember that God Almighty, creator of the substance and accidents, It causes that they exist without their substance, being sustained by Him. And this is precisely what happens in the Eucharist.

.

Since in the Blessed Sacrament remain the eucharistic accidents, and these accidents within a short time or for various reasons are corrupted, the act of corruption, It is less than the actual presence, why are not the accidents of bread and wine, under which there is the real presence.

.

The moment of consecration Mass thus occur as three miracles, that only the eyes of faith can see: first, transubstantiation; second, God supports the Eucharistic accidents deprived of their substance; third, God dispenses from the possession of the proper accidents of the body substance of the Risen Christ under the Eucharistic species.

.

That's why the Body and Blood of Christ, actually present after the Eucharistic Prayer in soul, body and divinity, People of God acclaims: Mystery of Faith! Announcing the death of Christ and proclaiming his resurrection, until he comes.

.

Varazze, 28 April 2018

.

.

________________________

NOTE

[1] Synopsis dogmatic special, Desclée, Romae-Tornacii Paris, 1908, volume II, p.339.

[2] Two masterly treatises on the notion of metaphysical substance: Tomas Tyn, o.p, Metaphysics of substance. Participation and analogy entis, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2009; M.-D.Philippe,ON, L 'êthree. Search a first philosophy,Who are you, Paris 1972.

[3] Denz.1642.

.

.

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:

or you can use the bank account:
They were IT 08 (J) 02008 32974 001436620930
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanks [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]