|
 |
The
Blessed Sacrament is Truly Emmanuel
Edited
by the Rev. Msgr. Keith P. Steinhurst, P.A.
from
a larger piece by the Rev. Regis Scanlon, OFM Cap.
The commemoration of the Son of God's glorious victory over sin and
death - joyfully celebrated by the Church especially on Easter Sunday
and throughout the entire, jubilant Easter Season - inevitably turns
our minds to our own destiny. "If we have died with Christ,"
the Apostle to the Gentiles proclaims, "we believe that we are
also to live with Him" (Romans 6:8). By our conformity to Jesus
in His redemptive death, then we shall be assured of unending union
with Him in Paradise. Paul VI stated in his encyclical, Mysterium
Fidei, that, after the consecration of the Mass, "Christ is
present whole and entire in His physical 'reality,' corporeally
present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place
(totus et integer Christus adest in sua physica 'realitate' etiam
corporaliter praesens, licet non eo modo quo corpora adsunt in loco)."
How a "physical 'reality"' can be "corporeally"
present and not be limited or restricted to one place, like all
miracles, will be an apparent contradiction to our modern scientific
mentality. Paul VI recognized this when he said, "How can
something like this exist when it seems to contradict the known laws
of physics and biology?" The solution for Paul VI was quite
simple: "And so we must approach this mystery in particular with
humility and reverence, not relying on human reasoning, which ought
to hold its peace, but rather adhering firmly to divine Revelation."
Some theologians are scandalized by Paul VI's statement in Mysterium
Fidei. They cannot accept that this physical Thing (the Blessed
Sacrament) is the "physical 'reality'" of Christ
"corporeally present." Perhaps they cannot accept miracles.
There may also be another reason. They know that the Church teaches
that the act of "latria (act of adoration)" is to be given
to the Blessed Sacrament. They also know that "true latria
according to our faith ... is proper to divine nature alone."
So, they ask: How can something divine be physical? How can we say
that something "physical" can be adored? Is not this
adoring something created?
Is
not this adoring created being?
Most likely, it was for the above reasons that Tad W. Guzie, SJ of
Marquette University inferred that the physical thing that is present
after the consecration of the Mass is just physical bread, not the
physical body of Jesus Christ. He described the change that takes
place in the bread and wine at the consecration in the following
manner: The "change" in the bread and wine can be
understood as a change at the second level of looking at reality
(Symbol): as a very real change, but not one that has to do with the
physical order...
In
recent years theologians have brought into play concepts like
"transignification" which strive to emphasize that the
change is not a physical one. This is also probably why Fr. Edward
Schillebeeckx, OP, stated in his book, The Eucharist, that "I
kneel, not before a Christ who is, as it were, condensed in the host,
but before the Lord himself who is offering his reality, his body, to
me through the host." And, it is probably why Anthony J.
Wilhelm, the author of Christ Among Us (which boasts of "2
million copies sold"), stated about the change in the bread and
wine after the consecration: When we say that the bread and wine
"become Christ" we are not saying that bread and wine are
Christ, nor are we practicing some form of cannibalism when we take
this in communion. What we mean is that the bread and wine are a sign
of Christ present, here and now, in a special way - not in a mere
physical way, as if condensed into a wafer. Somehow his presence has
"taken over" the bread and wine, so that, for us who
believe, it is no longer merely bread that is present, but Christ himself.
But the question about the possible idolatry involved in adoring the
"physical" reality of Jesus Christ primarily arises when
one considers the Incarnation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ. Did
St. Peter, St. Thomas, and the other apostles commit idolatry by
adoring something created when they adored Jesus Christ who was
certainly "physical" (Mt 16:16; Jn 20:28)? Were the
Apostles adoring a human person and created being when they adored
Jesus Christ? Perhaps others will say all of this is just semantics.
If we adore Jesus Christ, that is all that is important. But, during
the early centuries of Christianity some churchmen and theologians
made apparently slight and irrelevant changes in the concepts and
terms used to describe the nature of Jesus Christ and these gradually
developed into noxious heresies (e.g, the Arian and Nestorian heresies).
Thus, a clear and correct grasp of the Church's understanding of
being, and the difference between nature and person in Jesus Christ,
can have an effect upon people's belief in the mystery of the
Incarnation and the Eucharist. The Church's understanding of these
subjects is best obtained by examining the philosophy and theology of
St. Thomas Aquinas. The teachings of St. Thomas have been tested for
hundreds of years and have been found most reliable for grasping the
truths of the Catholic Faith. In fact, the Second Vatican Council
states that the Church uses a "method" in education in
which "the convergence of faith and reason in the one truth may
be seen more clearly." And the Council says, "This method
follows the tradition of the doctors of the Church and especially St.
Thomas Aquinas."
St. Thomas's theology and philosophy, is quite different from the
fluffy pop-theology that is so prevalent today. While many avoid the
writings of St. Thomas because of his abstract concepts, taxing
terms, demanding distinctions, and rigorous logic, there is no more
precise and safer way to come to the truth. Sometimes learning is
challenging work. There are passages in St. Thomas's writings that
require re-reading to grasp them. Let us use the writings of St.
Thomas to examine the Church's teachings on the being, nature, and
Person of Jesus Christ.
St.
Thomas's Principles of Being
The Church teaches that Jesus Christ has a full human nature and a
full divine nature, which are united in the "Person" or
"hypostasis" of Jesus Christ. This union, therefore, is
called a "hypostatic" union. The Church also teaches that
our Lord Jesus Christ is "consubstantial with the Father
according to divine nature, consubstantial with us according to the
human nature." Two good questions to help guide our thoughts in
the task of understanding the being, nature, and Person of Jesus
Christ would be: "Can Christ be called a human person?" and
"Can Christ be called a human being?" But first, one must
understand the meaning of substance and how substance differs from
accident according to St. Thomas Aquinas.
St. Thomas teaches that a "substance" is something which
has "being through itself (per se) because it is not in
another." He says that "A substance is a thing to which it
belongs to be not in a subject." In other words, a substance
stands on its own. But, an "accident" is a "being in
another (in alio)." For St. Thomas, "accidents"
"do not have being in themselves, independent of a subject."
Secondly,
St. Thomas says that the term substance has two meanings:
According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), substance is twofold. In
one sense it means the quiddity (whatness) of a thing signified by
its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the
substance of a thing; in which sense substance is called by the
Greeks ousia, which we may call essence (or nature). In another sense
substance means a subject or suppositum, which subsists in the genus
of substance. To this, taken in a general sense, can be applied a
name expressive of an intention; and thus it is called the
suppositum. It is also called by three names signifying a reality -
that is, a thing of nature, subsistence, and hypostasis, according to
a threefold consideration of the substance thus named. For, as it
exists in itself and not in another, it is called subsistence; as we
say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in
another. As it underlies some common nature it is called a thing of
nature; as, for instance, this particular man is a human natural
thing. As it underlies the accidents, it is called hypostasis, or
substance. What these three names signify in common to the whole
genus of substances, this name person signifies in the genus of
rational substances.
So, for St. Thomas, the term "substance" can mean
"essence" (which also means nature) or it can mean
"hypostasis" (which is also called a "suppositum,"
"subject," "subsistence" or "thing of
nature"). In a rational or intelligent substance this
"hypostasis" is called a "person." It is
important to be able to distinguish the "nature" (or
"essence") from the "suppositum"
("hypostasis" or "person") in things composed of
matter and form like the human being. St. Thomas says: Hence in such
as these the nature and the suppositum really differ; not indeed as
if they were wholly separate, but because the suppositum includes the
nature, and in addition certain other things outside the notion of
the species. Hence the suppositum is taken to be a whole which has
the nature as its formal part to perfect it; and consequently in such
as are composed of matter and form the nature is not predicated of
the suppositum, for we do not say that this man is his manhood. But,
if there is a thing in which there is nothing outside the species or
its nature (as in God), the suppositum and the nature are not really
distinct in it, but only in our way of thinking, inasmuch it is
called nature as it is an essence and a suppositium as it is
subsisting. And, what is said of the suppositum is to be applied to a
person in rational or intellectual creatures; for person is nothing
else than an individual substance of rational nature, according to
Boethius. Therefore, whatever adheres to a person is united to it in
person, whether it belongs to its nature or not.
Thus, while St. Thomas speaks of the undividedness of the act of
existence (the suppositium) from that which is (the nature or
essence) in a created substance, he says that we can make a logical
or theoretical distinction between them. And, when distinguishing
them we must remember that "the suppositum includes the
nature," and "the suppositum is taken to be a whole which
has the nature as its formal part to perfect it." So, the
suppositum is the act of being of the substance and the essence or
nature is the formal expression of the substance. Therefore, in a
human being, human denotes a nature or essence and a being denotes a
"suppositum," but the composite term, human being, denotes
an individual created rational being.
Can
We Call Christ a Human Person?
When the Church teaches that Jesus is "consubstantial with us
according to the human nature" she means substance in the sense
of "essence" or "nature," but not substance in
the sense of "suppositum," "hypostasis," or
"person." Jesus does not have a human
"suppositum," human "hypostasis" or human
"person" in common with us. The Council of Toledo XI
officially taught that "God the Word has not received the person
of man, but the nature, and to the eternal person of divinity He has
united the temporal substance of flesh." And Church councils
have defined that Jesus Christ is a divine Person. This is why the
Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Christ's humanity has
no other subject than the divine person of the son of God, who
assumed it and made it his own, from conception. John Paul II also states:
There is no Gospel text, which indicates that Christ spoke of
himself as a human person, even when he frequently referred to
himself as "Son of Man." This term is rich with meaning.
Under the veil of the biblical and messianic expression, it seems to
imply that he who applies it to himself belongs to a different and
higher order than that of ordinary mortals as far as the reality of
his "I" is concerned. It is a term, which bears witness to
his intimate awareness of his own divine identity.
Furthermore, the Pope says that the new terminology used by
theologians, applying "human person" to Christ, is due to
the fact that "the divine personality has been reduced to Jesus'
selfawareness of the 'divine' in himself, without truly understanding
the Incarnation as the assuming of human nature by a transcendent and
pre-existing divine 'I'." Clearly, then, it is incorrect to call
Christ a human person!
Some have tried to say that Jesus Christ is a "human and divine
Person." This would imply either a dual hypostasis (a created
person and an uncreated person) or a blended hypostasis (a
created/uncreated person) in Jesus Christ. But, the teachings of
Nestorius were condemned during the 5th and 6th centuries because
Nestorius taught that there were "two persons" in Christ.
According to St. Thomas, some have held that this Nestorian
"error" also included the notion that in Christ "there
is one person of the Word of God and that of man" such that
"in Christ the hypostasis and supposit of that man is one and
that of the Word of God another, but that there is one person of each
of the two." While this idea ultimately collapses into the
Nestorian "error" of "two persons" in
Christ," here this idea could be suggesting that the Person of
Christ was a blend or a mixture of a human hypostasis and a divine
hypostasis. However, to say that Jesus Christ is a "human and
divine Person" in the sense of a blended Person would be to say
that He is a hybrid of God and man, rather than fully God and fully
Man. But, the Church has already defined that in the hypostatic union
the divinity and humanity are in Christ "without mingling"
or "confusion" of natures and "not because the
distinctions of the natures was destroyed by the union." Thus,
the Church also defined that Jesus Christ is "whole God"
and "whole man" and not part God and part Man. So, one
cannot call Christ a "human and divine Person" for any
reason whatsoever. The question then follows: "Can we call
Christ a human being?"
(continue
to page 2 of the article)
RETURN
TO THE ARTICLES INDEX
Main
Page | Supreme Pontiff | Members
| Papal Orders
Christian
Orders | Religious Orders | Links
|
