Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?  (Read 11607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION ?
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2018, 01:52:56 AM »
.
At The Consecration the Host and Wine only have the APPEARANCE OF BREAD AND WINE. The elements have been changed INTO THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD. THINK OF THE MIRACLE OF LANCIANO, That happens everyday at Mass. Has anyone tested to see after The CONSECRATION if there was gluten present? I doubt they have.
.
This post is rife with confusion and misunderstanding based on presumption and lack of study or research or comprehension.
.
One thing at a time:
.
At The Consecration the Host and Wine only have the APPEARANCE OF BREAD AND WINE.   --- Not true.
While it IS true that the host and wine have the appearance of bread and wine, that is not ALL they have: it's not a matter of "only".
In this case the word "appearance" is a one-word abbreviation for the full topic of what they have.
They have everything that is LIKE appearance too, such as smell, heft, color, size, taste, feel -- that is, everything sensible to man.
But it's more than that, because accidents include everything that instruments designed by man can be used to detect.
Things such as weight, atomic structure, radioactivity, x-ray pictures, non-visible light spectrum analysis, density, hardness, brittleness, and so on.
Any possible chemical reaction is also included in the accidents of a material object.
So it is more correct to say the host and wine continue to have the same ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (instead of "appearance").
But the word "accidents" is not normally used in our culture in this sense so uninformed people (like cosmas here) would be ignorant of that.
.
The elements have been changed INTO THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD.   --- Well, not so fast.
The host and wine have been changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, yes, but they don't look that way.
Remember, they retain the appearance of bread and wine.
But appearance needs to be replaced with accidents, so THEY RETAIN THE ACCIDENTS OF BREAD AND WINE.
To say "the elements have been changed" is vague, and could lead to misunderstanding that the physical atomic structure and molecules
     of the bread and wine are suddenly altered somehow, which, if they were, an electron microscope would be able to SEE the difference.
     Remember, no device made by man will ever be able to detect the change that has happened in the consecrated host and wine.
The infallibly defined Catholic dogma that their substance has become the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is a matter of divine faith.
This faith is what we receive at Holy Baptism, and it is not something that can be attained by human effort without God's grace.
So count it a miracle of grace that you believe in trasubstantiation, because Lutherans, for example, do not.
Perhaps that means that Lutherans might not have a valid baptism, but that's another topic.
.
THINK OF THE MIRACLE OF LANCIANO, That happens everyday at Mass.  ---  Well, not really.
The miracle of Lanciano happened hundreds of years ago and while there have been similar eucharistic miracles since, it's not the norm.
Every valid consecration effects the same transubstantiation that occurred at Lanciano, but there, changes in the accidents were sensible.
Normally there are no changes in the accidents and no such changes are sensible to man, whether by his 5 senses or by some fancy machine.
Normally there are no changes in the appearances or the molecular structure or the chemical potential of the consecrated material bread and wine.
.
Has anyone tested to see after The CONSECRATION if there was gluten present? I doubt they have.  ---  Many tests have been done.
There were tiny samples taken from the Laciano eucharistic miracle and they were sent to chemical labs to test for what it appeared to be.
There have been samples taken from other such eucharistic miracles and sent to forensic labs, cutting-edge technicians and doctors have reviewed.
What they have found was the fibers of human heart muscle tissue were microscopically intertwined with the fibers of the host wheat.
Wheat host fibers are fibers BECAUSE they are being held in that shape by the gluten in their structure.
Without gluten the wheat has no such fibers.
Gluten free wheat crumbles like mush and cannot hold the shape of anything, including the shape of a host, unless something is substituted.
There might be some other material that could take the place of gluten to keep gluten free wheat in the shape of a host.
So when a priest holds the host up like at the elevation or when he's distributing Communion, the hosts have their shape because of gluten.
Wondering whether there is still gluten or not is a moot point. Of course there is still gluten.
There continues to be gluten even in the bread portions of eucharistic miracles.

Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION ?
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2018, 02:54:02 AM »
Yes that is the way it is done. When the priest gets to the person, he breaks off a small chip and gives it to the person.

However, in the example the OP gave, the priests is giving a special communion to the person. I have seen it done, the priests after he is done with everyone, goes up to the tabernacle and brings back the special host just for that one person. It is quite a spectacle on Sundays.

In my opinion, it is an unnecessary spectacle for the parents or the person. I think it has to do more with pride than avoiding illness. If the person was so allergic to wheat that they can't even eat a small chip, then they would be sick all the time, because there are more accidental pieces of wheat in all the food that they eat every day.
.
Here is an example of "accidental" used with an entirely different connotation than "accidents of bread and wine."  
"Accidental pieces of wheat" is categorically different from the accidents of wheat.
.
Furthermore, it might be inaccurate to presume that gluten intolerance is the same as "allergy" or "allergic."
There are doctors and health care professionals that say gluten intolerant people have a variety of intense conditions consequent to eating gluten.
For example, overweight or even obesity can hardly be considered an effect of allergy, but it is one of the consequent conditions of gluten intolerance.
.


Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2018, 08:07:56 AM »
At the SSPX chapel in San Antonio, a couple years ago, one man received the Precious Blood during Mass on Sunday. He had some kind of allergy or intolerance. The priest would administer to him from a small chalice kept in the tabernacle. 

It really was quite a spectacle. It's a shame Trad priests don't have more time, to say more Masses for each area per week, so that individuals like this could have their special needs met at a Mass with less attendance.

That presumes that such catering to special needs is legitimate. I honestly don't know, not having studied this in a professional manner.

I do know that we had a parishioner who was gluten intolerant, but she never got to receive Communion. Not from a gluten free or low-gluten host, and not from the chalice. This was under Bp. Zendejas. 

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2018, 08:10:56 AM »
I must also point out:

Read and pay attention to Neil Obstat's responses to Cosmas in this thread.

Cosmas might have his heart in the right place, but he is mistaken about what "Transubstantiation" means. He is not a theologian, having never attended Seminary or learned Thomistic philosophy (substance and accident), so it's understandable that he is ignorant about this particular theological point. I'm sure he's not alone here.

I hope that he, and anyone else, reads Neil's posts for a clear and thorough explanation of the matter.

A small sample of Neil's excellent, theologically sound exposition of the topic:


Quote
While it IS true that the host and wine have the appearance of bread and wine, that is not ALL they have: it's not a matter of "only".
In this case the word "appearance" is a one-word abbreviation for the full topic of what they have.
They have everything that is LIKE appearance too, such as smell, heft, color, size, taste, feel -- that is, everything sensible to man.
But it's more than that, because accidents include everything that instruments designed by man can be used to detect.
Things such as weight, atomic structure, radioactivity, x-ray pictures, non-visible light spectrum analysis, density, hardness, brittleness, and so on.
Any possible chemical reaction is also included in the accidents of a material object.
So it is more correct to say the host and wine continue to have the same ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (instead of "appearance").
But the word "accidents" is not normally used in our culture in this sense so uninformed people (like cosmas here) would be ignorant of that.

Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2018, 09:48:12 AM »
I just want to say "THANKYOU " FOR ENLIGHTENING ME on this subject. There's much food for thought. i'm going to do some more research on this situation myself. Thanks again for the input !