Part I Chapter V: Speculative Discussion of the Mystery of the Real Presence

Chapter V: Speculative Discussion of the Mystery of the Real Presence

CHAPTER V SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION OF THE MYSTERY OF THE REAL PRESENCE “First believe, then inquire/’ must be the loadstar of all theological speculation. Fides quaerit intellection. Though the Scholastics evolved a number of reasons why it is fit that Christ should be really and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist,1 after all is said, the human intellect, even when illumined by faith, can not fathom the mystery nor demonstrate its intrinsic possibility. The Eucharist belongs to the category of absolute theological mysteries. Christian philosophy can do no more than refute the objections raised against the dogma and show that it is not repugnant to reason. Unbelievers contend that the mystery of the Real Presence involves three glaring contradictions, to wit: (i) the existence of accidents without their natural subject; (2) a spiritual mode of existence on the part of a material body; and (3) the simultaneous existence of that body in many places. We will try to refute these three objections in as many Sections. lCfr. N. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der koth. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed.. § 56. 143 SECTION i FIRST APPARENT CONTRADICTION : THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES WITHOUT THEIR NATURAL SUBJECT In order to refute the first objection, it is necessary to answer three questions, viz,: (i) Do the outward appearances of bread and wine continue to exist without the substances of bread and wine as their connatural subjects? (2) Are these appearances (accidentia sine subiecto) physical entities or mere subjective impressions? (3) Are substanceless accidents possible, and if so, how can they be explained from the philosophical point of view ? The first of these questions can be answered with certainty of faith; for the second we have theological certainty only, while the third is a matter of speculation. i. The Continued Existence of the. Accidents of Bread and Wine Without Their Natural Substrata. — The dogma of Transubstantiation implies that the entire substance of the bread and the entire substance of the wine are converted, respectively, into the substances of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that the conversion takes place in such a way that “only the appearances of bread and wine remain.” 1 l Cone, Trid., Sess. XIII, can. a. 144 SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 145 Hence, what the senses perceive after the consecration are merely the appearances without their substances.2 a) If it be further asked, whether these appearances have any subject at all in which they inhere, the answer is that they are accidentia sine subiecto and owe their continued existence to a miracle. This is not an article of faith, but it is part and parcel of the traditional teaching of the Church.8 To deny it would be tantamount to asserting that the Body of Christ supplies the substance of the bread and becomes the subject of its remaining accidents.4 This is to be rejected because the Body of Christ sustains its own accidents, both natural5 and supernatural,6 and cannot assume those of a foreign substance ; and furthermore because it is both impassible and immutable, whereas the Eucharistic species are subject to change. ” It is manifest/* says St. Thomas, ” that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood, because the substance of the human body cannot be in any way affected by such accidents ; nor is it possible for Christ’s glorious and impassible Body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.” 7 Suarez adds that, as the Eucharistic Body of Christ ex2 V. supra, Ch. Ill, Sect. . 8 Suarez, Toletus, De Lugo, and others declare this to be a ” propositi fidei.” Their opinion is not shared by the majority of theologians, but all without exception defend it as absolutely certain. The proof of this assertion will be found in Theoph. Raynaud, S. J., Exuviae Pants €t Vini, Lyons 1665. 4 This is held by A. Leray, he Dogme de I’Eucharistie, Paris 1000. 5 Form, figure, etc 6 Impassibility, spirituality, etc.— V. Eschatology. 7 Summa Theo!., 3a, qu. 77, art. 1 : ” Manifestum est autem quod huiusmodi accidentia non sunt in substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi sicut in subiecto, quia sub’ stantia humani corporis nullo tnodo potest his accidentibus afiici, neque etiam est possibile quod corpus Christi gloriosum et impassible exis tens alteretur ad suscipiendas huiusmodi qualitates.’ 146 THE REAL PRESENCE ists in a spatially uncircumscribed and spirit-like manner,8 there is in the Holy Eucharist no substratum fit to assume quantitative and divisible accidents. Schell tried to solve this difficulty by declaring the Body of Christ to be the “metaphysical subject of the Eucharistic appearances.” 9 But this brings us no nearer to a satisfactory solution of the problem. How are we to conceive of the distinction between a physical and a metaphysical subject? The Body of Christ, as ens in se, is either the real subject of the Eucharistic accidents, or it is not. If it is, the metaphysical is at the same time the physical subject, and the objections remain. If it is not, then the Eucharistic appearances are clearly accidentia sine subiecto. The most that could be said is that the Body of Christ is the metaphysical subject of the Eucharistic accidents in so far as it radiates a miraculous sustaining power which supports the appearances bereft of their natural substances and preserves them from collapse. But in adopting this view we should be leaving the domain of material causes, to which a substance as the subject of accidents belongs, and entering that of efficient causes, in which the solution of the problem, as formulated by Dr. Schell, cannot be sought. b) The position of the Church may be gathered from the definitions of the Councils of Constance (1414-1418) and Trent (1545-1563)The Council of Constance, in its eighth session, approved by Martin V in 1418, condemned the following propositions of Wiclif: (1) The material substance of bread and likewise the material substance of wine remain in the Sacrament of the Altar; (2) “The acci8 V. supra., Ch. II, Thesis 4* PP» 98 *)q• Dogmatik, Vol. Ill, 2, p. 535, Paderborn 1891. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 147 dents of the bread do not remain without a subject.” 10 The first of these propositions involves an open denial of the dogma of Transubstantiation. The second might be considered as merely a different wording of the first, did not the history of the Council show that Wiclif had violently opposed the Scholastic doctrine of “accidents without a subject.” 11 Hence it was the evident intention of the Council to condemn the second proposition not merely as a conclusion drawn from the first, but as a distinct and independent thesis.12 We may therefore sum up the teaching of the Church in this proposition, which represents the contradictory of the one condemned : ” The accidents of the bread remain without a subject.” 18 This interpretation of the decree of Constance is confirmed by the Council of Trent, which defines : ” If anyone … denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, — the species only of the bread and wine remaining,— let him be anathema.”14 According to this definition something remains of the bread and wine after the consecration. Is it part of the respective substances of bread and wine? No; the whole substance of the bread has been converted into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ. What, then, remains ? The Council tells us that it is ” the species of 10 ” Art. 1. Sitbstantia pants ma- 12 Cfr. Hardouin, Coll. Cone, Vol. terialis et similiter substantia vini VIII, p. 404. materialis remanent in sacrament o 18” Accidentia panis manent sine altaris.” — Art. 2. Accidentia subiecto/’ panis non manent sine subiecto in 1 Sesf. XIII, can. 2: * Si quis eodem sacramento.” (Denzinger- … negoverit conversionem totius Bannwart, n. 581 sq.) substantias panis in corpus et totius 11 Cfr. De Augustinis, De Re substantias vini in sanguinem, Sacramentaria, Vol. I, and ed.t pp. manentibus dumtaxat speciebus 573 sqq> panis et vini, , . . anathema sit.” 148 THE REAL PRESENCE bread and wine.” These species must, therefore, be accidents, and, having by Transubstantiation lost their connatural subjects, which cannot be supplied by the Body of Christ, they are clearly accidentia sine subiecto. Such was the teaching of contemporary theologians, and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-quoted Tridentine canon, tersely explains: All the accidents of bread and wine we indeed may see; however, they inhere in no subject, but exist by themselves. 15 And: . . as the accidents cannot inhere in the Body and Blood of Christ, it remains that, in a manner altogether above the order of nature, they sustain themselves, supported by nothing else; this has been the uniform and constant doctrine of the Catholic Church.” 16 2. The Physical Reality of the Eucharistic Accidents. — Though such eminent theologians as Gregory of Valentia, Suarez, Vasquez, and De Lugo hold the physical reality of the Eucharistic accidents to be an article of faith, it is no more than a theological conclusion. Certain writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who inclined to Cartesianism, asserted that the Eucharistic appearances are optical deis Catech. Rom., De Euckar., qu. 6: ” Ac pants quidem et vini accidentia omnia licet videre, quae tamen nulli substantias inhoerent, sed per se ipsa constant.” 16 Ibid., qu. 43: ” Quoniam ea accidentia Christi corpori et sanguini inhaerere non possunt, relinquitur, ut super omnem naturae ordinem ipsa se, nulld olid re nisa, sustentent: haec perpetua et constats fuit cat ho lie ae Ecclesiae doc triha.” — On the whole subject see Billuart, De Mente Ecclesiae circa Accidentia Eucharistica, Leodii 1714.— Lately Dr. D. Coghlan has defended the opinion that the condemnation of Wiclif’s second proposition does not oblige us to hold that the accidents have, after the consecration, no subject whatever {De SS. Eucharistia, Dublin 19 13). For a criticism of this view see the Irish Eccles. Record, 1913, pp. 437 sqq. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 149 lusions, phantasmagoria, or make-believe accidents. This view is derogatory to the traditional belief of the Church, as laid down in the writings of the Fathers and the Schoolmen, and in the definitions of several ecumenical councils. a) The Fathers draw a clear-cut and sometimes even exaggerated distinction between the 44 visible sign” {species pants et vini) and the “invisibly present Body and Blood of Christ” {corpus et sanguis invisibiliter praesens). Some represent the sacramental sign as a “type” 44 symbol ” or 44 figure ” of the Body of Christ. This is ambiguous, but no doubt these Fathers regarded the sacramental sign as something as objective and physical as the Body itself. Atzberger17 summarizes their teaching as follows: “These Fathers clearly distinguish between the visible element and the invisible Body of Christ, and refer to the former as irpaypa imyeiov 18 as avro to vXucov,19 as ^atfo/icvos apro?,20 as alaOrjra irpdyfrnra21 as signum or sacramentum corporis Christi.22 When the Monophy sites concluded from the fact of the conversion of the bread and wine into the Flesh and Blood of Christ that there was also a conversion of our Saviour’s humanity into His Divinity, their Catholic opponents expressly declared that the mystical symbols do 17 In the continuation of Schee- 20 St Cyril of Jerusalem, Cateck, ben’a Dogmatik. Vol. IV, a, pp. Myst, IV, n. 9. 607 aq.v Freiburg 1901. 21 St. Chrysostom, Horn, in IB St. Irenaeus, Adv. Hoer., IV, Matth., 83, n. 4. c. 18, n. 5. 22 St. Augustine, C. Adimant., c lftOrigen, In Matth., XI, n. 14. 12, n. 3; Idem, Epist. 98, n. 9. ISO THE REAL PRESENCE not lose their ofecia 4>v

SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 151 extension and recognized only modal accidents metaphysically united with their substance. According to his theory, the Eucharistic accidents simply cannot exist without a subject, but disappear as soon as the substances of bread and wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ. To adapt the Catholic teaching to the “new philosophy/’ some theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries declared the Eucharistic species to be delusions caused by God in the senses. The inventor of this theory of apparences eucharistiques was E. Maignan, O. M.27 He was followed by J. Saguens, J. Perrimezzi, A. Pissy, Drouin,28 and Witasse.29 The Church at first showed great tolerance towards the Cartesians, but in course of time found herself compelled to oppose them. Thus, in 1694, the S. Congregation of the Index condemned the proposition that “The Eucharistic accidents are not real accidents, but mere illusions and optical make-believes.” 80 The great majority of contemporary and later theologians rejected the Cartesian theory as inconsistent with ecclesiastical tradition, contrary to the testimony of the senses, opposed to the true concept of Transubstantiation, repugnant to the correct notion of a Sacrament, which requires a visible sign, and incompatible with the phrase “f radio pants” applied to the Eucharist in Holy Scripture.81 27 PhUosophia Sacra, Vol. I, c. 22. 2BDe Re Sacramentaria, IV, 2, i a. 29 De Eucharistia, sect 2, qu. 2, art 3. 80 * Eucharistiae accidentia non accidentia re alia, sed tnerae illusi ones et praestigia oculorum sunt.* •l For a fuller discussion of the Cartesian theory we must refer the student to Billuart, De Eucharistia, diss, i, art 6, I a. The history of the controversy may be studied in Theoph. Raynaud, S. J., Exuviae Panis et Vini {Opera, Vol. VI, pp. 419 aqq.), Lyons 1665, and I. Salier, O. M., Historia Scholastica de Speciebus Eucharisticis, Lyons 1687. c) As for the conciliary definitions on this subject, it is not necessary to add a great deal to what we have previously quoted from the councils of Constance and Trent. The Cartesians claimed that the Council of Trent, in employing the term “species panis et znni”2 did not mean to say that the appearances of bread and wine after the consecration are real accidents.83 But it is a fact that the Council of Constance, in speaking of the same thing, deliberately uses the term accidentia!9 If Martin V in his questionary for suspected Wiclifites and Hussites again employs species,” this simply proves that “species” and “accidentia” were regarded as synonymous terms. There can be no doubt that the Council of Trent employs “species exclusively in its scholastic signification of species sensibilis” which is an “accidcns reale!’ and not in the Cartesian sense of “species intentionaHs,” which was a later invention. 3. The Philosophic Possibility of Absolute Accidents. — Leaving the domain of doctrine for that of philosophical speculation, we find ourselves on uncertain ground. To justify the Church’s teaching in the matter; however, nothing more is necessary than to show that the 89 Sess. XIII, can. 2. •i.Witasse, strangely enough, ting a hymn of praise to Providence for having preserved the Tridentine Council, as well as the Fourth Council of the Lateran before it (Cap. ” Firmiter,” apud Denzinger-Bann* wart, n. 430: * Corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continents*) from the terrible mistake of employing the term ” accidentia ” instead of ” species,” S4 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 666 sq. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 153 concept of absolute or substanceless accidents involves no metaphysical contradiction. a) Modal accidents, of course, by their very definition, cannot be separated from their underlying subjects. But there are other accidents (e. g. corporeal quantity), the separate existence of which involves no intrinsic contradiction. Accidents of the last-mentioned kind are called absolute, because their objective reality is quite distinct from that of their underlying substance.85 Aristotle defined quantity as a phenomenon of substance.86 It was merely a logical deduction from this statement to say, as the Schoolmen did, that quantity may be separated from its subject and, therefore, is capable of continuing to exist independently. There is no intrinsic contradiction involved in this assertion, for it has not been and cannot be proved that an accident derives its entire being solely from its underlying subject, or that actual (which differs from purely aptitudinal) inherence is of the very nature of an accident.87 For the rest, our knowledge of material substances and their accidental qualities is still so meagre that the greatest uncertainty exists among the learned concerning the nature of matter, one system pulling down what another has reared. To explain the spiritual by the material, as Materialism tries to do, is foolish, because matter is practically an unknown quantity, about which we know even less than we do about the soul, its 85 Suarez, Metapk, disp. 7, tect ravra -wpihr^ iicetvd fori ) oMa. I. 8TCfr. Palmieri, Instit. Philos., ZtMttaph., VI, 3 (ed. Bekker, Vol. I, pp. 366 §qq., Rome 1874; p. 1029, a, 13): Td Bk nijicot ko.1 Gutberlet, Allgemeine Metafihysik, wX&rot Kal P&0os woff6rriT4s rim. 4th ed., pp. 62 sqq., Minuter 1906; dXY ofa ofola’ to 70 iroabv ofa P- Coffey, Ontology, pp. 340 iqq., dXXA iiSKKop 5 iwdpx” London 94154 THE REAL PRESENCE qualities and powers. One of the keenest of modern philosophers, Leibniz (1646-1716), expressed himself as follows on this problem : 88 ” As there are many eminent and clever men, especially among the members of the Reformed Church, who, deeply imbued with the principles of a new and captivating philosophy [Cartesianism], imagine that they can clearly and distinctly perceive that the essence of a body consists in its extension, and accidents are mere modi of their substance and consequently can no more exist without, or be separated from, their subject than the uniformity of the periphery can be detached from the circle, … we deem it our duty to come to their aid… . We, too, have occupied ourselves assiduously with mathematical, mechanical and experimental studies, and at first inclined to the same view which we now criticize. But in course of time we were Compelled by our researches to return to the principles of the ancient philosophy [i. e. Scholasticism], … which are by no means so confused and absurd as they seem to those who ridicule Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and other illustrious men as if they were mere schoolboys/89 b) The old theology tried to prove the possibility of absolute accidents on the basis of Hylomorphism. Some present-day theologians would like to come to an understanding with modern science by adopting Dynamism. There are other philosophical systems which openly contradict the 88 Leibniz, Systema Theol, c. 48 sq., Paris 1719 89 On the separability of absolute accidents from their underlying subjects see further T. Pesch, S. J., Philosophic Naturalis, pp. 399 9W>» 2nd ed.f Freiburg 1897; J. Rickaby, S. J., General Metaphysics, pp. 267 sqq., New York 1890; H. Haan, S. J., Phihsophia Naturalis, pp. 19 sqq., Freiburg 1894. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 155 Church’s teaching, but they are equally opposed to reason and experience. a) Aristotelean-Scholastic Hylomorphism holds that bodies are constituted by the union of primordial matter (materia prima, v\rj Trp^rq) with a substantial form (forma substantiate, popfrj owriwSip, cvtcAc’xcui) ; that there is a real distinction between corporeal substance and its quantity ; that the two are separable, and that by divine power the latter can exist without the former. The Schoolmen explain this as follows: A body (corpus, fay Seuripa) is a substance composed of matter and form. Quantity (quantum, iroaov) is that by which a body has extension in space. The two notions and their underlying entities are entirely distinct from each other, and therefore separable. Quantity is perceived by the senses, whereas substance can be recognized only by the intellect. It is objected that this theory, by separating quantity from substance, raises an accident, which is ens in alio, to the rank of a substance (ens in se), which would be an intrinsic contradiction. St. Thomas refutes this as follows : ” The other accidents which remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains : first of all, because something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents is perceived by the senses, nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first disposition of matter is dimensive quantity; … third, because … dimensive quantity is the principle of individuation. 40 At the present time it is necessary to take 40 Summa TheoL, 3a, qu. 77, art quantitate dimensiva pants vel vini 2: * Necesse est dicere, accidentia remanente: prima quidem per hoc alia, quae remanent in hoc sacra- quod ad sensum apparet, quantum mtnto, esse sicut in subiecto in esse ibi cohratum et aliis accident* 156 THE REAL PRESENCE into consideration the theory that colors and sounds as such are not inherent in bodies but have their objective raison d’etre in the undulations of the ether.41 p) By Dynamism we here understand not the philosophic system associated with the names of Herbart, Ulrici, Kant, and Schelling, but the theory which holds that elementary substances are endowed with certain fundamental energies whose effects are distinct from both and can therefore be supplied by the First Cause. This theory was broached by Leibniz and developed by Franzelin.42 Hurter explains it briefly as follows: The fundamental power of matter, to which all others, such as the force of gravity, density, and color, may be reduced, is energy or the power of resistance (vis resist entiae, ivcpyaa). As force is not conceivable without its manifestation, or energy without its effect, it is necessary to distinguish between vis and impetus, eWpyoa and evipyrffm. While energy enters into the essence of matter, its manifestation or effect (tvipyrj/m) is really distinct from it, and may miraculously continue after the material substratum is gone. This explanation has the advantage of conforming more closely than any other yet proposed, to modern physics, which reduces the powers of nature to pure movements and applies to them the mathematical principles of mechanics.48 Since Newton three systems of natural philosophy have successively attracted the minds of men: the dynamic theory (Newton), the kinetic thebus affectum, nec in talibus sensus decipitur; secundo quia prima dispost I to materia* est quantitas dtmensiva …; tertio quia … quantitas dimensiva est quoddam indwiduationis prtncipium.” 41 Cfr. Gutberlet, Psychologie, 4th ed., pp. 14 sqq.t Munster 1904. 42 De Eucharistia. the*, ia. 43 Cfr. A. Secchi. VUnita dell* Forze Fisiche, Rome 1864; German tr.. Die Einheit der NaturkrafU, 9 Toll, 3rd ed., Leipzig 189a. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 157 ory (Lord Kelvin, Secchi), and the energetic theory (Ostwald). A close analysis shows that these theories are not opposed to one another but can be reconciled and combined at least in their main features. ” When physical science shall have attained its final perfection at some distant date in the future/’ says Father L. Dressel, S. J., ” it will see every natural process alike as dynamic, kinetic, and energetic, for one perception presupposes the others. Without movement and tension there is no energy. Energy in all its forms demands in the body which possesses it a disposition or condition by which it becomes effective.” 44 Since the traditional view can be easily reconciled with this teaching, it follows that the atomic theory, with which the dynamic, the kinetic, and the energetic theory alike stand or fall, is not opposed to the dogmatic teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, as some timid souls imagine. For this reason it would be unwise to reject a priori the solutions devised by Tongiorgi 45 and Palmieri 40 on the basis of the atomic theory, especially since these writers admit the objective resistance and the imponderable materia of ether, respectively, as objective realities in the converted substances of bread and wine. Even so staunch a peripatetic as Father Tilmann Pesch, S. J., believes that Tongiorgi’s as well as Palmieri’s views can be reconciled with the dogmatic teaching of the Church.47 Really the only thing that can be said against Tongiorgi and Palmieri is uLehrbuch der Physik nach den neuesten Anschauungen, Vol. II, 3rd ed.f p. 1036, Freiburg 1905. 46 Cosmologia, n. 237. 46 Instit. Philos., Vol. II, pp. 18a 6qq., Rome 1875. 47 T. Pesch, Inst. Phil. Nat., and ed., p. 401, Freiburg 1897: ” Et hate quid cm explicandi ratio ad Christianas doctrinas aetommodari fortasse satis potest. Adest enim signum sensibile obiectivum; servantur species panis et vini; id quod permanet, non pani inhaeret; accidentia manent sine subiecto; adest conversio, quum aliquid mane at commune.” 158 THE REAL PRESENCE that they do not sufficiently safeguard the identity of the Eucharistic accidents before and after the consecration. But this is not an insuperable difficulty, since even the quantitas separata of the Schoolmen cannot be conceived as a strictly identical, ever ready, and purely static reality.48 y) The Church, in teaching that the Eucharistic accidents continue to exist without a subject, does not wish to restrict Catholics to any particular view of natural philosophy, nor does she compel her theologians to base their teaching on medieval physics. All that she demands is that they eschew such theories as openly contradict her teaching and are at the same time repugnant to experience and sound reason, e. g. Pantheism, which deifies nature, Hylozoism (Panpsychism) in its different forms (the Monadism of Leibniz, the Voluntarism of Schopenhauer and Wundt, the ” Philosophy of the Unconscious 99 of Eduard von Hartmann), Monism, Cartesianism, etc.” 4. The Relation of the Eucharistic Species to the Body of Christ and the Mode of Predication Resulting Therefrom. — We have seen that in the Blessed Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine. How are reality and appearance united? Upon the answer to this question will depend the Eucharistic law of predication, i. e. the correct way of speaking of the Body and 48Cfr. G. C Ubaghs, Du Dyno* 49 Cfr. Gutberlet, Naturphilomisme dans ses Rapports avec la sophie, 3rd ed., pp. 5 iqq. Munster Saint e Eucharistie, Louvain 1861. 1900. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 159 Blood of our Lord in their relation to the accidents of bread and wine.50 a) What are the mutual relations between Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the Eucharistic ‘species? In answering this question we must beware of two extremes. The first of these is the assumption of a physical union between Christ and the Eucharistic accidents. This is impossible because the accidents of bread and wine cannot become accidents of Christ’s Body and Blood, nor are they capable of entering into a Hypostatic Union with His Person. The other false extreme against which we must guard is that the body of Christ, in consequence of a positive divine command, is united in a merely external way with the place in which the consecrated host happens to be.51 This view imperils the unity of the Holy Eucharist, makes it impossible to adore the host as such,52 and difficult to explain why the Sacred Body invariably accompanies the consecrated host. Some say that Christ voluntarily follows the host wherever it is carried. If this is true, the union existing between the Sacred Body of Christ and the Eucharistic species must be more than purely local. But if it is neither physical nor purely local, how are we to conceive this union ? Oswald says it is a ” relation of dependence,” which is a correct description but affords no explanation. Other theologians define the union between Christ and 60 On predication in general see si This view was defended . by Pohle-Preuss, Christohgy, pp. x86 Duns Scot us. sqq. 52 V, supra, pp. 136 sqq. i6o THE REAL PRESENCE the Eucharistic accidents as a unio physica effectiva, because the preservation of the substanceless accidents is due not directly to God but to a miraculous power proceeding from the Eucharistic Body of Christ, which supports the appearances bereft of their natural substances and preserves- them from collapse.” b) This sacramental union (as it had best be called) between the Eucharistic Body of our Lord and the appearances of bread and wine results in a sort of communication of idioms,64 from which the following rules of predication may be deduced: (i) Predicates which suppose a physical union between Christ’s Body and the Eucharistic accidents must not be transferred from the latter to the former.. Hence it would be wrong to say : ” The Body of Christ is round, tastes sweet, looks white,” etc., or: “The Blood of Christ has a light color, tastes like sour wine, quenches the thirst,” etc. These predicates apply to the Eucharistic species exclusively. The chief offenders against this rule were the so-called Stercoranists, who were charged with believing that the Body of the Lord is digested and excreted (stercus, excrement) like any other food. Whether Stercoranism has ever had adherents within the Catholic pale is somewhat doubtful. Among those charged with this absurdity were Origen and Rhabanus Maurus, but in either case the accusation seems to be based upon a misunderstanding. Other Catholic writers suspected of Stercoranist views were Bishop Heribald 53 This is more fully explained 64 V. Pohle-Preuss, Christohgy, by De Lugo, Dt Euchar., disp. 6, pp. 184 sqq. sect x sqq. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 161 of Auxerre (+ 857), Amalarius of Metz (+ about 857), and the Greek Nicetas (+ about 1050). During the time of the Protestant Reformation the charge was sophistically urged by the Calvinists against their Lutheran opponents.55 (2) Predicates based upon the sacramental union may be indiscriminately applied to the Body of our Lord and to the Eucharistic species. This rule is founded upon the unity of the Sacrament. Hence it is correct to say: “The Body of Christ is eaten by the faithful,” * The Sacred Body is carried around in procession,* etc. (3) Such predicates as move along a middle line may be applied to the Eucharistic species only in an improper or a figurative sense. In doubtful cases it is best to follow the custom of the Church, the Fathers, and reputable theologians. The graphic formula to which Berengarius was compelled to subscribe, in 1079,56 was modeled upon the language of St. Chrysostom and other Fathers. Such expressions as, “The Body is commingled with the Blood,” or, If the Blood freezes in the chalice, 57 are permissible, though in their literal and proper sense the affirmations contained therein apply to the species only.58 65Cfr. C. M. Pfaff, De Stereo- fari, frangi et Udelium dentibus ranistis, Tubingen 1750. For further atteri.” bibliographical data see the New 67 Rubric. Missal, De Defect, X, S chaff Hersog Encyclopedia of Re- 11. ligious Knowledge, Vol. XI, p. 86. 68 Cfr. De Lugo, De Euchar., 66 * Verum corpus lesu Christi in disp.* 6, sect 3 ; Heinrich-Gutberlet, veritate manibus sacerdotum trac- Dogmat. Theol., Vol. IX, | 542. SECTION 2 SECOND APPARENT CONTRADICTION : THE SPIRITLIKE MODE OF EXISTENCE OF CHRIST’S EUCHARISTIC BODY i. State of the Question. — It is of faith that the Body of Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist under the species of bread. It is also of faith that the Body of Christ is present in its entirety in the whole of the sacred Host and in each of its parts, in a manner similar to that in which the human soul is present in the body. This teaching quite naturally gives rise to a difficulty : How can a material body exist after the manner of spirits (ad modum spirituum) without losing its quantity, form, etc.? The difficulty is enhanced by the consideration that there is no question here of the Soul or the Divinity of Christ, but of His Body, which, with its head, trunk, and members, assumes a mode of existence spirit-like and independent of space. About such a mode of existence neither experience nor philosophy can give us the least information. Not even the glorified body of our Saviour after the Resurrection, though in more than one 162 SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 163 respect itself a o-wfta irivfum#cov, can give us an inkling in regard to the mode of existence proper to the Eucharistic Body. Christ, at the Last Supper, transferred His mortal and passible body, as yet unglorified, into that sacramental mode of existence which has no counterpart even in the supernatural order of things.1 Even the separability of quantity from substance 2 gives us no clue to the solution of the present problem, since according to the best-founded opinions,8 not only the substance of Christ’s Body, but its corporeal quantity (conceived as distinct from the Body) is present within the diminutive limits of the Host and in each portion thereof.4 Varignon, Rossignol, Legrand, and other theologians have resorted to the explanation that Christ is present in diminished form and stature, in a sort of miniature body ; while Oswald, Casajoana, Fernandez, and others assume with no better sense of fitness the mutual compenetration of the members of Christ’s Body to within the narrow compass of a pin-point. The Scholastics rejected both these opinions.5 The vagaries of the Cartesians, however, exceeded all bounds. This school was hard put to reconcile its theory of actual extension as the essence of material bodies with the dogma of the totality of the Real Presence. Descartes himself, in two letters to Pere Mesland,6 expressed the opinion that only the Soul of Christ becomes present in the Eucharistic species, and that the identity of the Eucharistic Body with the heav1 Cfr. St Thomas, Summa Theol, 3a, qu. 81 , art 3. 2 V. Sect x, supra. 8 Against Durandus. 4 Cfr. St Bonaventure, Comment, in Sent, IV, dist 10, p. i, qu. a: ” Quamvis substantia possit abstrahi a quantitate, tamen quod corpus vivot et sit organicum tt non sit quantum, hoc nec esse nec intellegi potest. sToletus says (Comment, in S. Th., Ill, qu. 76, art 4): * Ista sententia conatur mysterium ad suum captum trahere, in quo de~ cipitur, quia corpus Christi esset modo ridiculo.” « Edit Emery, Paris x8n. i64 THE REAL PRESENCE enly Body of Christ is preserved by the identity of His Soul, which animates both bodies and their quantities. This monstrous notion was vigorously combated by Arnauld, Bossuet, Fabri, Viogne,” and other contemporary theologians. The geometrician Varignon attempted to improve upon Descartes’ theory by suggesting that the consecration and the subsequent breaking of the Eucharistic species results in a true multiplication of the Eucharistic Bodies upon earth, which are faithful, though greatly reduced miniature copies of their prototype, t. e. Christ’s heavenly Body. Consecration itself, he said, effects the conversion of bread and wine into organic bodies, and it is precisely in this that Transubstantiation essentially consists.7 The genuine teaching of Catholic theology as against these vagaries is voiced thus by St. Thomas : ” Since the substance of Christ’s Body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, it follows that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s Body and all its other accidents are in this Sacrament.” 8 As ours is an age of what may be termed hypergeometrical speculation, it may not be amiss to add that the modern theory of n-dimensions throws no light on this subject. For the Body of Christ is not invisible or impalpable to us because it occupies the fourth dimension, but because it transcends space and is wholly independent of it. Here lies the second antinomy or apparent contradicTCfr. J. Soubcn, Nouvclle Thiologie Dogma: ique, Vol. VII, pp. 1 1 8 sqq., Paris 1905. B Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. 4: ” Quia substantia corporis Christ* reahter non dividitur a sua quant it ate dimensiva et ab aliis accidentibus, inde est quod ex vi nails concohtitantiae est in hoc Sacramento tota quantitas dimensiva cor* pons Chris ti et omnia accidentia eius/’ SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 165 tion which we are attempting to solve. We must always remember that the mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body of Our Lord does not come within the scope of physics or mechanics, but belongs as strictly to the supernatural order as the virgin birth of Christ, His resurrection from a sealed tomb, His transfiguration, etc.9 As these examples show, there is a ” mechanics of the supernatural,” the laws of which do not agree with those of ordinary human experience.10 It is necessary also, in solving the problem under consideration, to adhere firmly to the truth of the real and genuine corporeity of Christ’s Eucharistic Body. There is in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar neither a conversion of matter into spirit, nor a separation of dimensive quantity from substance. The problem may therefore be formulated thus: How can divisible and extended matter and a normally constituted organism exist in a spatially uncircumscribed manner, such as is peculiar to immaterial souls and pure spirits? 2. Scholastic Solution of the Problem. — The Schoolmen (notably Suarez, Bellarmine, De Lugo, Ysambert, Lessius, and Billuart) offer the following solution: Quantity is either internal or external. Internal quantity (quantitas interna s. in actu primo) is that entity by virtue of which a corporeal substance merely possesses aptitudinal extension, 1. e. the capability of being extended in tri-dimensional space. External quantity (quantitas externa s. in actu secundo), on the • Cfr. 1 Cor. XV, 36 sqq. loCfr. BeUarmine, Dt Eucharistia, III, 6. other hand, is the same entity in so far as it follows its natural tendency to occupy space and actually extends itself in the three dimensions. While aptitudinal extension or internal quantity is so bound up with the essences of bodies that its separability from them would involve a metaphysical contradiction, external quantity is only a natural consequence and effect, which can be suspended or withheld by the First Cause, so that the corporeal substance, retaining its internal quantity, does not actually extend itself into space. a) Though in itself the mere substance of the Body of Christ could exist in the Blessed Sacrament without any quantity at all, just as the quantity of the bread exists without its substance,11 yet it is theologically certain that in matter of fact the Body is entirely present with its whole quantity.12 If quantity is present, there must be bodily extension (positio partium extra partes), for it is in this that quantity essentially consists. Now this extension is not actual; it is merely aptitudinal, i. e. capable of being actually extended in the three dimensions, but prevented therefrom by the omnipotence of God. In other words, the sacred Body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist possesses internal but it does not possess external quantity. Both aptitudinal and actual extension are formal effects of quantity as such, though in a different way. The one is primary and essential, the other secondary and non-essential. The one is the principle and cause, the other a consequence and an effect. Internal • quantity belongs per reductionem to the Aristotelian cate11 V* Sect, i, supra. » V, No. i, supra. \ SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 167 gory of quantum (woaov), while external quantity appertains to that of situs (kuoOol). The former can exist without the latter, but not vice versa. Hence the two are distinct and separable. While the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is prevented by the First Cause from exercising its natural tendency to occupy space, it nevertheless exists wholly and full size, without however extending itself through space.13 By way of illustration we may refer to the miracle of the three children in the furnace. In preserving them from harm, God did not interfere with the essence of the fire into which they were cast, but merely suspended its natural effects. In a similar manner, He does not destroy the essence of quantity in the Holy Eucharist, but merely suspends one of its natural effects, t. e. extension in space. The distinction between internal and external quantity may be brought nearer to the human mind by a consideration taken from higher mathematics. In applying the infinitesimal calculus, mathematicians deal not only with finite but likewise with infinitesimally small quantities, i. e., quantities that may be made as small as we please without affecting the use to which they are to be 18 The trite objection: Corpus Christi in Eucharistia fortt sine quantitate, is answered by Billuart as follows (De Eucharistia, diss, i, art. 4, 8 3): “Quoad primarium tins effectum, nego; quoad secundarium eius effectum, concedo. Primartus effectus quantitaHs est extensio et coordinatio partium in ordine ad se et in toto; secundarius est extensio et coordinatio partium in ordine ad locum. Prius est enim quant ita tern extendi in se quam extendi in loco, quam esse impenetrabiiem, divisibilem, etc. Vnde quaerenti, cur quantitas sit extensa in loco, cur sit impenetrabHis, etc., recte respondetur quia est extensa in se; quaerenti vero, cur sit extensa in se, nulla est ratio prior quam quia est quantitas. Porro poU est effectus secundarius quantitatis divinitus ab ipsa separari, prout de facto separatus est, quando Christ us exivit ex utero virginali clauso et de sepulcro non reioluto lapide, item quando intravit ad disci pulos ianuis clausis. Et ita separatur in Eucharistia.’ 168 THE REAL PRESENCE put. Now a triangle so infinitesimally small that its dimensions can be conceived only by the mind, may be called an ” internal figure,” because it shrinks together to a point, and can no longer be represented as twodimensional on a plain surface. Of course, the analogy with the Holy Eucharist is not perfect, because such a triangle, even though merely imaginary, always remains a true spatial figure.14 b) What we have just said of bodies in general, applies also to organisms, for an organism is merely a body (a) composed of different organs or parts, (b) disposed in orderly fashion, and (c) subserving the functions of life. The first mark (a) distinguishes an organism (plant, beast, man) from homogenous masses of matter (minerals) ; the second (b) distinguishes it from monstrosities, and the third (c) produces that organic unity which, assuming the principle of animation, guarantees the capacity to live. All three of these conditions are present in the Eucharistic Body of Christ, even though it lacks external quantity. Even a living organism need not occupy tri-dimensional space simply because it is composed of heterogeneous parts arranged in an orderly manner. Both in reality and notionally the internal disposition of the body precedes its external formation, which is bound to space and extends itself into it. “There is no confusion here,” says St. Bonaventure, ” because, although the parts are not distinct according to their position in space, they are distinct according to their position in the whole, and consequently there is no confusion because there is position, which is the orderly arrangement of parts in a whole.” 15 14 For the solution of this and lft Comment, in Sent, IV, dist other dialectic difficulties see Tepe, xo, p. i, qu. 4: ” Non est ibi con Inst* Thiol., Vol IV, pp. a43 M» f**°t qnia etsi partes non 4utm SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 169 c) The profoundest treatment of the subject is offered by St. Thomas, who traces the mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body to Transubstantiation, for the reason that a thing must “be* such as it was in becoming.” How does the Body of Christ become present in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation? The Angelic Doctor answers this question as follows : ” Since the substance of Christ’s Body is present on the altar by the power of this Sacrament [1. e. by virtue of the words of consecration], while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is in this Sacrament not according to its proper manner [t. e. quantitatively, the whole in the whole and the individual parts in individual parts], but after the manner of substance, whose nature is to be whole in the whole, and whole in every part.” 16 Since ex vi verborum only the substance of Christ’s Body is present, and not its quantity,17 therefore the Body is present after the manner of a substance and not after the manner of a quantity, and consequently the Body of Christ is present in the Sacred Host unextended and indivisible. Quantity being merely present per concomitantiam, must follow the mode of existence peculiar to its substance, and, like the latter, must exist without diguantur secundum positionem in loco, distinguuntur tamen secundum positionem in toto, et ideo non est ibi confusio, quia est tbi positio, quae est ordinatio partium in toto. Cfr. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, the*. XI. ie Summa TheoL, 3a, qu. 76, art. 4t ad 1 ’ Quia ex vi hum sacramenti est in altari substantia corporis Christi, quantitas autem dimensiva eius est ibi concomitanter et quasi per accidens. ideo quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi est in hoc Sacramento non secundum proprium modum, sed per modum substantiae, cuius natura est tola in toto et tota in qualibct parte*’ 17 Cfr. Cone, Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 4. vision and extension, i. e. entire in the whole Host and entire in each part thereof. In other words, as before the consecration the substance of bread was present in the whole and in all its parts under its own dimensions, so after the consecration there is present vi verborum, in the whole and in all its parts, first, the substance of the Body, and then, per concomitantiam, the full quantity of that Body, but under the foreign dimensions of the species of bread. And since the internal dimensions of Christ’s Body are incommensurable with the external dimensions of the species, there is no common standard by which they could be measured. While the species occupy space and extend themselves in the three dimensions, the Body of Christ hidden beneath them remains unextended, transcending space and wholly independent of it.18 d) The above explanation quite naturally gives rise to the question: Can the Eucharistic Body of Christ be said to be present in space? The dogmatic teaching of the Church that the Body of Christ is really and truly present in the Sacred Host decides this question in the affirmative. Hence what we have said above on the spirit-like and invisible existence of that Body in the Eucharist, does not touch the Real Presence as such, but merely its mode of existence. Philosophy distinguishes in creatures two modes of presence: (i) the circumscriptive and (2) the definitive. The first, the only mode of presence proper to bodies, is that by virtue of which an object is restricted 18 Cfr. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., ft 62. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 171 to a defined portion of space in such wise that its various parts also occupy their corresponding positions in that space. From what we have said above it is evident that Christ’s Body is not circumscriptively present in the Sacred Host. * Christ’s Body is not in this sacrament circumscriptively,,, says St. Thomas, * because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity.” 19 The second mode of presence, that properly belonging to spiritual beings, requires that the substance of a thing exist in its entirety in the whole of the space as well as whole and entire in each part of that space. This is the soul’s mode of presence in the human body. As it also applies to the Eucharistic Body, we may say, as not a few theologians do, that the Body of Christ is definitively present in the Sacred Host. But we should not be permitted to say that Christ’s Body is present only in one place, because, as a matter of fact, it is truly present in Heaven and on thousands of altars. It is in this sense that St. Thomas says that ” Christ’s Body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this Sacrament is performed ; whereas it is in Heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species.”20 3. Theological Corollaries. — From the peculiar manner in which Christ’s Body is presi» Summa TheoL, 3a, qu. 76, art. 5, ad 1: ” Patet quod corpus Christi non est in hoc Sacramento circumscriptive, quia non est ibi secundum commensurationem propriae quantitatis.* 20 Summa TheoL, 3a. qu. 76, art St ad 1 : * Corpus Chris ti non est in hoc sacramento definitive, quia sic non esset alibi quam in hoc altari, ubi coniicitur hoc sacramenturn, quum tamen sit in coelo in propria specie et in multis aliis attaribus sub specie sacramenti.’* Cfr. G. Reinhold, Die Lehre von der ortlichen Cegenwart Christi in der Eucharistie beim hi, Thomas von Aquin, Vienna 1893. ent in the Eucharist there follow certain interesting and important corollaries, the value of which, on the whole, does not exceed that of theological conclusions. a) In the first place it is certain that the Eucharistic Body cannot be physically injured, not only because, being glorified, it is impassible, but likewise because of its sacramental mode of existence.21 Intimately connected with this quality is the imperceptibility of the Body. As it lacks actual extension, it does not fall under the senses. Can the human eye in the glorified state be capacitated for a supernatural vision of the Eucharistic Body? This question is answered in the affirmative by Vasquez 22 and De Lugo,28 but in the negative by St. Thomas and Suarez.24 “Christ’s Body,” says the Angelic Doctor, “as it is in this Sacrament, cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ’s Body are in this Sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ’s Body have no immediate relationship either to this Sacrament or to adjacent bodies ; consequently, they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because … Christ’s Body is substantially present in this Sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is what a thing is.” 25 21 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, 23 De Eucharistia, disp. 9, sect. 2, disp. 53, sect. 2. n. 20 sqq. 22 Comment, in Summam TheoL, 24 De Eucharistia, disp. 53, sect III, disp. 191, c 2. 4. 25 Summa TheoL, 3a, qu. 76, art. 7. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 173 b) Another theological conclusion of even greater importance, which is held by all Catholic divines with the sole exception of the Nominalist school, is that Christ in the Holy Eucharist is unable to use His limbs or to employ His external senses. The reason is that bodily movement and sense perception presuppose tri-dimensionai extension (quantitas in loco s. externa), which the Eucharistic Body lacks. Hence, naturally speaking, Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament can neither see nor hear nor speak, nor move His own Body or those of others. The question has been raised whether, by a new miracle, He could give back to Himself the supernatural use of sight and hearing. There is no intrinsic contradiction in the assumption that God may supply the external causal influence of color and sound or raise the physiological power of Christ’s eyes and ears to a higher potency.26 It is quite another question whether Christ actually exercises such sense functions, i. e., whether He actually sees those who kneel before Him in the Blessed Sacrament and actually hears their prayers. Most theologians deny this. Those few who affirm it are compelled to assume a new miracle.27 Cardinal Cienfuegos, in a learned treatise entitled Vita Abscondita sub Speciebus Velata,2* argues that our Divine Saviour empowers His sacramental Body to see and hear, in order not to be limited to a purely spiritual intercourse with His faithful children but to be able to see and hear them as they appear before the Sacred Host to adore Him. As this assumption is not impossible and conforms both to the dig26 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, Sent., IV, dist. 10, p. i, qu. 2) : disp. 53t sect. 3. ” Corpus Christi sive Christus ibi 27 Among them are St Bonaven- videt et audit, quamvis non loquatare, Ysambert, Lessius, Tanner, tur, ne deprehendatur.” Franzelin, Dalgairns, Gihr, etc. St 28 Published in Rome, A. D. 1728. Bonaventure says {Comment, in 174 JHE REAL PRESENCE nity of Christ’s sacred Humanity and the sublime purpose of the Blessed Sacrament, it may be entertained as “sententia probabilissitna et pia.” However, Cardinal Franzelin, who thus qualifies it, rightly warns against the misunderstanding as if without this hypothesis the Eucharistic Body would be lifeless and stolid, or as if our Divine Lord, unless He endowed His sacramental Body with this miraculous power, would remain unacquainted with our inmost thoughts, wishes, and prayers. He in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells, knows all things, past, present, and future, as man no less than as God, by a higher form of perception than that exercised through the bodily senses. SECTION 3 third apparent contradiction: the simultaneous existence of christ in heaven and in many places on earth (multilocation) i. Multilocation Defined. — In the natural order of things a body is restricted to one position in space (unilocatio) . This is true also of every immaterial finite being (soul, spirit) which enters into relation with space. a) If an object be conceived as simultaneously present in two, three, or more places, we have bilocation, trilocation, etc., as the case may be. Multilocation, though outside of the natural order, involves no intrinsic contradiction. The objection that “no being can exist separated from itself or with local distances between its various selves,, is a sophism; for multilocation does not multiply the object but only its external relation to and presence in space. Multilocation may therefore be defined as “the simultaneous presence of an object in several places/’ b) An object may be simultaneously present in several places in one of four different ways : a) It may be definitively present with its substance not only in one particular point of space, but continu175 ously beyond that point throughout a certain determinate portion of space, as the soul in the body. This is called continuous multilocation or replication (multilocatio continua s. replicatio). 0) An object may be definitively and simultaneously present in several separate places, as would be the case if a departed soul appeared on earth by a virtual extension of substance. This is called discontinuous multilocation (multilocatio discreta ret definitive praesentis). y) An object existing circumscriptively, i. e. a body in its natural state, may exist simultaneously in different places, as would be the case if divine omnipotence were to create the impression of a forest by the multilocation of a tree. This is called discontinuous circumscriptive multilocation (multilocatio discreta circumscriptiva). 8) A body may exist circumscriptively in one place and definitively in another, as would be the case if God were to cause a person who exists circumscriptively in Paris, to exist at the same time definitively at Rome. This is known as mixed multilocation (multilocatio mixta s. praesentia eiusdem rei circumscriptiva in uno loco, definitiva in alio). The three last-mentioned species of multilocation are plainly supernatural and can be brought about only by a miracle. 2. The Multilocation of the Body of Christ in Heaven and Upon Thousands of Altars Throughout the World. — In the mystery of the Holy Eucharist we have exemplified all these different species of multilocation, with one exception. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 177 There is, in the first place, continuous multilocation or replication. For the Body of Christ is present in the Sacred Host per replicationem continuant, i. e. it is totally present, as the soul in the body, in each part of the continuous and as yet unbroken Host, and also totally present throughout the whole Host, just as the human soul is present in the body. There is, in the second place, discontinuous multilocation, as Christ is present not only in one Host, but in numberless separate Hosts, whether in the ciborium or upon different altars. It is not a case of the multilocation of one Host. There are as many consecrated Hosts as particles of bread were consecrated, and yet it is one and the same Body of Christ that is really and truly present in them all. There is, third, mixed multilocation, since Christ with His natural dimensions reigns in Heaven, whence He does not depart, and at the same time dwells in sacramental presence on numberless altars throughout the world. It is an article of faith that the Eucharistic Body of Christ is endowed with these three kinds of multilocation. In the case of the first mentioned kind, however, the distinction between ante et post separationem must be duly noticed.1 The fact of the Eucharistic multilocation proves that it is possible. The Tridentine Council says : ” For neither are these things mutually repugnant, — that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, according to the natural mode of existing [circumscriptive], and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present [definitive] to 1 V. supra, p. 98. 1/8 THE REAL PRESENCE us in His own substance, by a manner of existing which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet by the understanding illuminated by faith, we can conceive, and ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God.” 2 Encouraged by this pronouncement, speculative theology, with due precaution against the disturbing influence of the imagination, attempts to clear up the mystery with the torch of philosophy and to show at least that multilocation involves no intrinsic contradiction. 3. The Philosophic Possibility of Multilocation. — Though the fourth species of multilocation is not verified in the Holy Eucharist, it will be necessary to discuss it in connection with the other three, for the reason that its denial involves a denial of mixed multilocation and, besides, it seems to have played an important role in the lives of some saints. a) The continuous definitive multilocation, also called replication, whereby the Body of Christ is totally present in each part of the continuous and as yet unbroken Host, and also totally present throughout the whole Host, is easiest to understand because it has a splendid analogy in the presence of the human soul in the body.8 1 Cone. Trid., Seas. XIII, cap. 1: ” Neque enim haec inter se repugnant, ut ipse Salvator nosier semper ad dextram Patris in coelis assideat iuxta modum existendi naturalem [i. #. circumscriptive}, et ut multis nihil o minus alius in locis sacramentaliter prats ens [i. #. definitive} sua substantia nobis adsit ea existendi rations, quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo cogitations per Udem illustrate assequi possumus et const antissime credere debemus.” (Denzinger-Bannwart n. 874). 8 V. supra, Ch. II, thea. 4. V SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 179 The soul is present with the totality of its substance in each part of the body, in the head, the trunk, the feet, the arms, etc. It is true that in the Eucharist there is a replication not only of the soul, but also and principally of the Body, whose natural manner of existence is not spiritual but circumscriptive. Since in the natural order of things each body is restricted to one position in space, so that before the law the proof of an alibi immediately frees a person from the suspicion of crime, the continuous multilocation of the Eucharistic Body of our Lord within the Sacred Host is doubtless an astonishing miracle of divine omnipotence. Yet it is made somewhat intelligible to us by the proof that God in His omnipotence can supernaturally impart to a body such a spirit-like, unextended, spatially uncircumscribed mode of presence as is natural to the soul in regard to the human body. b) The intrinsic possibility of discontinuous multilocation is based on the non-repugnance of continuous multilocation. The chief difficulty of the former appears to be that the same Christ with the totality of His substance and quantity is present in two different parts of space, A and B, of the continuous Host, — it being immaterial whether we consider the two points A and B connected by a continuous line or not. The miracle is contained in the fact that the (inadequate) presences of the Body are divided by the distance of the line AB. Nor does it matter how great that distance may be. Whether or not the fragments of the Host are distant one inch or a thousand miles from one another, is altogether immaterial from i8o THE REAL PRESENCE this point of view. Just as the soul does not become two individuals in consequence of its dwelling whole and entire in the head as well as in the toes of a man, the Body of Christ in the Eucharist does not become several individuals in consequence of the fact that it dwells simultaneously in tabernacles at Rome, Paris, London, and Jerusalem.4 c) The difficulty becomes more complicated if we consider that Christ with His natural dimensions reigns in Heaven and at the same time dwells with His sacramental presence in numberless hosts on earth. Is such a mixed multilocation possible? This case would be in perfect accordance with the foregoing were we per impossibile permitted to imagine that Christ is present in Heaven not in specie propria, but in specie aliena, i. e. under the form of bread, exactly as He is present in the Holy Eucharist. This, however, would be but one more marvel of God’s omnipotence, because the circumscriptive mode of presence is as natural to the celestial Christ as the definitive mode of presence is supernatural. As the matter lies, we have simply one miracle less. But since the celestial Christ, despite. His natural form, is individually identical with the Christ who is present in numberless Hosts on earth, there can be no contradiction in the fact that He retains His natural dimensional relations in Heaven and at the same time dwells sacramentally on earth ; for a different mode of existence no more destroys the individual unity and 4 The objections against the mut- burg 1906, and by Tilmann Pesch, tihcatio discreta in general are well S. J., Philosophxa Naturalis, ad ed., treated by H. Haan, S. J., Phthso- pp. 517 sq.t Freiburg 1897. phi* Naturalis, pp. 44 sqq., FreiSPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 181 identity of a subject than a difference of presence in space.5 d) We might pass over the fourth and last species of multilocation (multilocatio circutnscriptiva) as foreign to our subject, were it not for the circumstance that a discussion of it is apt to throw some light on the Holy Eucharist. o) De Lugo6 shows that nearly all the objections raised against circumscriptive multilocation can be urged also against definitive multilocation. It is advisable, too, to pay some attention to the many cases of bilocation occurring in the legends of the saints. Some of them no doubt were nothing more than subjective apparitions. Others, however, can hardly be explained otherwise than by circumscriptive multilocation. Take, e. g., the miracle that occurred in the conversion of St. Paul before the gates of Damascus, when Christ appeared in person and said to him : ” Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”T Withal, it is an obscure problem with which we are dealing, one involved in so many intrinsic difficulties that St. Thomas and other eminent theologians8 do not hesitate to admit that circumscriptive multilocation involves open contradictions. Others, however, notably Alexander of Hales, Duns Scotus,9 Bellarmine, Suarez, and De Lugo, maintain its intrinsic possibility. The controversy is still unsettled. Of modern theologians Sanseverino, De San, Michael de Maria, Schneid, and others share the i V. supra, No. i. IV, dist. 44, qu. a, art. 2; Quodlib., * De Eucharistia, disp. 5, sect. 1, qu. 3, art. 2), Henry of Ghent, n. 15. Capreolus, Francis of Ferrara, VaaT Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, quer, Sylvester Maurua et al. Ill, 3. a Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 8 St. Thomas {Comment, in Sent., 10. i82 THE REAL PRESENCE view of Aquinas, while Franzelin, Tilmann Pesch, Gutberlet, Haan, Lahousse, etc., uphold the possibility of circumscriptive multilocation. If there were question of the vagaries of many Nominalists, as, e. g.f that a bilocated person could be living in Rome and at the same time dying in Naples, or be acquitted in Paris and simultaneously condemned in London, the impossibility would be obvious, and we should have to thank the Thomists for bringing about a reaction, though they undoubtedly went too far in denying the possibility of circumscriptive multilocation altogether.10 P) In order to clear up the existing confusion on the subject it is necessary to draw a clear-cut distinction between two different groups of determinations. Some belong to a bilocated individual absolutely, i. e. without regard to external circumstances (e. g., life, intelligence, reason, health, etc.), while others belong to him only in a relative manner, i. e. in consideration of external and local circumstances (e. g., position of the body in regard to the direction of the wind, difference in temperature, etc.). The leading principle with regard to all these determinations is thus set forth by Cardinal Bellarmine: “It should be noted that one body which is present in different places has one substantial existence, but many local existences. Whence it happens that all those [determinations] must be multiplied which follow the esse locale, not however those which originate elsewhere than in the esse locale” 11 It is quite evident, as 10 As an example of a grievous aberration we may cite Coninck, Comment, in Summam Theol., Ill, qu. 75, art 4, dub. 3, n. 129: ” Homo ito replicatus posset uno loco comburi ac mori, peccare et si velis damnori, et alio frigere et pergere vivere et mereri et salvari, si absolutam Dei potentiam speciemus, quia aequivalet absolute duobus hominibus.* 11 Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, III, 4: * Notandum est, unum corpus in pluribus locis positum habere unum esse substantiate, sed multa esse localia. Ex qua fit ut SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 183 regards the first group of determinants, that a bilocated individual cannot simultaneously assume into himself intrinsically contradictory determinants, for because of the absolute identity of the subject with itself, its intrinsic properties follow the substance, not the place in which it exists, and hence a person simultaneously present in London and Paris cannot be living in good health in one city and dying in the other, and so forth, for this would involve an intrinsic contradiction. The case is different with the second group of determinants, i. e. those depending on local conditions. As these approach the bilocated subject from without, and do not affect his substance, there is no intrinsic contradiction involved in the assertion that a number of them that are contradictory to one another may affect the same individual simultaneously, though in a different respect (sub diver so respectu). Thus we find no contradiction in the legend that the countenance of St. Alphonsus in Santa Agata was turned to the north, while in Naples it looked towards the south. Sylvester Maurus expressed the apprehension that to admit the possibility of circumscriptive multilocation would endanger the empiric certainty regarding the real distinction between homogeneous natural bodies. Thus one would never be sure whether he had before him a single tree or a grove, and so forth. But this apprehension is unfounded. For, in the first place, a miracle is never to be presumed except on the strictest evidence. Then, we perceive the difference between similarly constituted bodies not only from their different positions in space, but likewise and mainly from the differences existing in their individual determinants, properties, acciilla omnia multiplicari debeant, quae non multiplicentur, quae aliunde consequuntur esse locale, ilia autem proveniunt quam ex esse locali” 184 THE REAL PRESENCE dents, etc. There was probably never a forester who feared that if he felled one tree, the entire forest would come down as if by magic.12 Readings: — St. Thomas, Sumtna TheoL, 3a, qu. 75 sqq. — Idem, Contra Cent, IV, 62 sqq. — Billuart, De Eucharistia, diss. I, art 5 sqq. — *Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 47. — Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, III, 18 sqq. — Lessius, De Perfect. Moribusque Diuinis, XII, 16. — *De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 5 sq., 8 sqq. Among modern authors the student may consult: Fr. X. Wildt, Explanatio Mirabilium, quae Divina Potentid in Eucharistiae Sacramento Operantur, Bonn 1868. — G. Reinhold, Die Lehre von dcr ortlichen Gegenwart Christi in der Eucharistie beim hi. Thomas von Aquin, Vienna 1893. — Oswald, Die dogtnatische Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, Vol. I, 5th ed., § 9-10, Miinster 1804. — Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christ en turns, 3rd ed., § 69 sqq., Freiburg 1912. — *Heinrich-Gulberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, § 538 sqq., Mayence 1901. — Scheeben- Atzberger, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, § 372, Freiburg 1901. — N. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., § 62 sqq., Freiburg 1902. — Hourcade, ” Autour du ProbUme Eucharistique,” in the Bulletin de Literature Eccl&siastique, 1905, pp. 267 sqq. — D. Coghlan, De SS. Eucharistia, Dublin 1913. — J. M. Piccirelli, S. J., Disquisitio Dogmatica, Critica, Scholastica, Polemica de Catholico Intellectu Dogmatis Transsubstantiationis, Naples 191 2. — Jansen, S. J., art. ” Eucharistiques (Accidents)” in the Diet, de Thiol. Catholique. 12 Cfr. Gutbcrlct, Allgemeine Metaphysik, 4th ed., § 30, Miinster 1906.