A reader writes:
I’ve been asked to give a talk to a group of young adults about the Eucharist next month. I would like to use a sci-fi example to clarify the role played by the eucharistic species in the Real Presence.
It would go something like this: think of the eucharistic appearances as like a dimensional warp gate or power field which overcomes the spatial/dimensional distance between my body and Christ’s body. When my finger encounters this gate or window, it is actually touching the body of Christ, even though that body is a billion miles away / in a different universe / or whatever. But when the priest breaks the host, what he actually does is break the warp window in half: even though the window is in two pieces, the body with which it brings me into contact is still the same, unbroken body. (I think this is better than the old example of the mirror which is broken into a thousand pieces, yet each piece reflects the entire image.)
The problem is that I haven’t kept abreast of what’s happening in sci-fi. It would be great if I could relate this example to something specific people have seen on Star Trek or some other show lots of people watch.
You’re the only man I know who is thoroughly versed in both the Eucharist and Star Trek. ONLY YOU CAN HELP ME!
Oh, I’m sure many of the fine folks here at the blog could help, but I’ll be happy to.
You analogy is quite good and, actually, is one that I use all the time–particularly when explaining the Real Presence to children. It taps into an element of pop culture that almost everyone is aware of and that does, indeed, do a better job than the broken mirror analogy since one can really be present via a spacewarp (CHT to Einstein for this point) but one is not really present in a mirror.
What I’d suggest is that you tweak the language that you plan on using a little bit in order to avoid confusion. "Power field" describes something other than what you’re thinking of, and "dimensional warp gate," while it gestures at the idea, is inelegant. I would propose that you use the term "space warp." I’d also stay away from "wormhole" because it sounds bad and would also be misleading. I also wouldn’t use the bare term "warp" since in a Star Trek environment that might get people thinking about warp drive (which is absurd from a physics point of view). So I’d stick with "space warp."
I’d also be sure to throw in a qualifier that this may not be how God does it but it is a useful way of showing how what God does is possible.
I often present the analogy like this:
<me talking>When I was in the process of becoming Catholic, I had to grapple with issues like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and how that could be possible. As a science fan, I realized that there were all kinds of ways that God could choose to perform a miracle, so if I could think of at least one way that God could accomplish a particular thing in a scientific manner then God knew at least that way to do it and probably a lot more besides.
In the case of the Real Presence the issues to be solved are (a) how Jesus’ body can be present under the appearances of bread and wine when, plainly, the consecrated elements are much smaller than an adult human body, (b) how Jesus’ body can be present in more than one place at a time (i.e., in every host in the world), and (c) what happens when one of the consecrated elements is divided, as when a priest breaks a host or when one takes a sip of the Precious Blood.
Thinking about this in scientific terms, it seemed to me that all of these issues could be explained in terms of the warping of space. Einsteinian physics allows for the possibility of the bending and folding and other distortion of space such that two points can be connected or even made present to each other.
It thus seemed to me that it would be possible for God to achieve the above-mentioned effects if he warped space to do it. The accidents of bread and wine might then be seen as a space warp connecting to where Jesus’ body is located in heaven.
The shape and size of the consecrated elements do not have to match the shape and size of Jesus’ body because the two ends of a space warp do not have to have the same shape and size, making it possible for the whole of Jesus’ body to be present, in its entirety, in the consecrated elements without leaving any of the appearances unfilled, thus accomplishing effect (a).
The fact that he is present in all of the consecrated hosts in the world is similarly explained, as it just means that there are many space warps connecting to the location of his body in heaven, thus accomplishing effect (b).
An the fact that he remains present in his entirety even when the accidents of the consecrated elements are separated is also explainable in terms of space warping: It would just mean that the space warp has been divided when the accidents are divided, and so there are now two space warps where there was one before, thus accomplishing effect (c).
Now, in reality, God may not be doing it this way. He may be doing it in another way that is totally beyond the ability of human intellect to even grasp. We also have to be a little careful about talking about Jesus’ body in heaven as if it is currently extended in space, for it may not be. But this analogy shows that, even within the realm of human thought, it is possible to illustrate a means by which God could accomplish the effects that the faith teaches us that he does accomplish in the Eucharist.
Once we have shown that something is possible, it becomes entirely a matter of God’s choice whether he does it or not. Though some things may be hard or easy for humans because of our limited resources, this does not apply to God. All things are equally easy for God, because of his unlimited resources. Creating the universe is as easy for God as sending a gentle breeze. And so once we have shown that a particular type of miracle is possible, this means it is as easy for God as anything else and thus purely a matter of his choice whether he does it.</me talking>
One final tip I’d offer: I wouldn’t speak of touching the accidents as touching the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is present, but it seems to me more proper to speak of touching the accidents rather than touching the Body of Christ directly.
Hope this helps!
Personally, I keep thinking of the device in “Stargate”. Then again, that is more of a wormhole than a space warp thingamajig (to use the more technical jargon.)
I wasn’t aware, philosophically speaking, that accidents could themselves be touched. My understanding was that the accidents of a subject are the measurable or perceptable properties of that subject, i.e. taste, smell, appearance, etc. When the host is unconsecrated, we say that we touch bread– we don’t touch the accidents of bread, or if someone shakes my hand, they are touching me and not the accidents of me.
Ludwig Ott, when discussing the theology of the Eucharist, points out that the accidents of Christ’s body and blood are also present within the consecrated species, but not as extended in space. It seems that extension of something’s or someone’s accidents in space is what gives it a “physical” presence, which is why we talk of Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity being “really, truly” present but not “physically” present.
Jimmy, as a more general principal could you say that in order to “touch” something, its accidents have to be extended in space?
With all due respect from a fellow Sci Fi geek, why not just explain it to them as the mystery it is and dispense with the “theology of the cool”.
As many of them are as likely to be turned off by geeky technobabble as find it helpful.
Thanks, Jimmy, this was very helpful indeed. I will certainly stress that this analogy is KINDA LIKE what God does, but not really how it happens: for example, the usual thing theologians say is that by the force of the sacrament Christ’s body is present under the appearances of bread, while his blood is present by concomitance–not something explained by the space warp analogy, certainly not with any clarity.
I have to second Adam’s question about touching accidents. There is an obvious sense in which we do touch accidents, but my concern is that by talking about “touching the accidents” we will subconsciously turn the accidents back into some kind of substance in our minds.
The sense in which we “touch” Christ’s body in the Eucharist is weird, admittedly–but then if you try to think about how we “touch” the substance of bread in contradistinction to how we “touch” its accidents, that’s kinda weird too!
In response to Chris-2-4, let me add that I have found these kinds of sci-fi examples quite helpful in my experience teaching. My training is in scholasticism, and in fact some of doctrines were worked out in their present detail by scholastics using scholastic terms, but I have found that people do not digest statements about “person”, “nature”, “accident”, “substance, etc., very quickly. I use a sci-fi example to bring out clearly what the doctrine is getting at, and then pull away from the example to clarify that we are talking about the supernatural rather than science.
Jeremy makes an excellent point – you must discard the scientific explanation after the general paralell is made.
When I was young there were a number of would-be apologists around who would try to reassure young intellectual types like me with direct explanations of theological concepts with scientific theory.
That just had the result of reducing God to the same level as tectonic plates or the water cycle. They meant well but it was such a relief when I finally had a Sunday school teacher who was willing to tell us the Truth and let us develop in faith, rather than feeling we had to justify everything from a science textbook.
Just to clarify, I do think this is a good approach when done in the proper spirit.
Fr. Groeschel often relates the story of how Einstein himself was fascinated by the Eucharist. Maybe Einstein made the connection as well.
I found this homily which gives more details on the Einstein and Eucharist story:
All of them could take a lesson, by the way, from one of the greatest scientists who ever lived–Albert Einstein. In this regard, I read an interesting story about Einstein recently: Apparently one day this great man of science was visited by a young priest from New York, a Fr. Charles McTague. They sat down in his office, and Einstein proceeded to tell Fr. McTague that he wanted to talk to him about (of all things) the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. It seems that Einstein was fascinated by the idea of a substance that you can’t see; a substance that has no shape or size or color. (A substance with no accidents as we say in theology.) As many of us know, the Church teaches that at the consecration of the Mass the substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even though the accidents (in other words, the physical qualities) of the bread remain. Finally, at the end of the conversation, Einstein said to the priest, “Please send me any books in German that you can find that tell me about the Holy Eucharist.” And that’s what Fr. McTague did.
With all that learning, it’s a shame he didn’t become Catholic. But the one who really amazed me is Gandhi. Apparently he once said of the Eucharist:”If Christ is truely present in the Eucharist, as the Christians say, then I would get on my hands and knees to worship”.
Good post. I was quite curious about:
We also have to be a little careful about talking about Jesus’ body in heaven as if it is currently extended in space, for it may not be.
That hadn’t ever occurred to me. In fact, I have trouble accepting that this could be so. Isn’t it the nature of a body to be extended into space? It would seem to me, if Jesus’ body in Heaven were not extended in space, then it would be less than what it was when on earth … and how could heaven comprise less than what earth does? How could Elijah and Mary and Jesus be assumed into heaven, to have something taken away from them (extension in space)?
I was wondering about Adam D’s question, too. Christ’s body was evidently extended in space during the post-resurrection appearances, so it seems one would need a particular reason for assuming it is otherwise now. Any light to shed here, Jimmy?
As an aside, a local council (later confirmed by a pope) once issued the following anathema: “If anyone says or maintains that in resurrection the bodies of men are raised up from sleep spherical, and does not agree that we are raised up from sleep upright, A.S.” [DS 207, in my edition]
It does not address this question precisely, but does show a concern to preserve some level of continuity between our present bodies and glorified bodies. (As a further aside: Yes, I did once hear a priest maintain that bodies are raised from the dead spherical!)
Perhaps it is only rather rotund people who are raised from the dead spherical. 🙂
I have never heard that Christ is not “physically” present, as Jeremy Nolte says above. I always thought the great thing was that He WAS physically present. Can Jeremy Nolte or Jimmy or anyone enlighten me on this topic? I will have to be much more careful now about how I explain the Eucharist to people!
And it is also therefore hard for me to understand how it can be that we do not “touch” Jesus in the Eucharist. So then my tongue also does not “touch” Jesus? Do we “eat” Jesus? Do we “receive into our bodies” Jesus?
Oops, I meant Adam Nolte, not Jeremy Nolte. Adam Nolte’s post is the second one from the top.
I hope people are still reading these…
Jolene,
It’s my understanding that we don’t speak of Jesus being “physically” present in the Eucharist because physical presence is a presence that has some extended form in space. It would also seem that a physical presence, being extended in space, would have distinguishable parts– e.g., when Jesus was physically present on Earth, before His Ascention, one could point to Jesus and say “that’s Jesus”, but one could also point to His arm and say “that’s Jesus’ arm”.
Now, we can point to the Eucharist and say “that’s Jesus”, because he’s really there, but the accidents of His body, it’s form, are not extended in space– in other words, Jesus’ bodily presence is not one in which we can point to different parts of him– the totality of his presence, His entire body, blood, soul and divinity, is wherever the accidents of bread or wine are, which explains why Jesus is totally in both parts of the host when it is broken, and our act of chewing the host or fractioning the Precious Blood by taking a drink from the chalice does nothing to compromise Jesus’ bodily integrity or anything like that.
Of course, this is all a mystery– we must never fail to remind ourselves of that, but no one can deny that Eucharistic theology is fascinating. Still, ultimately any philosophical attempt to explain what Jesus has given us in the Eucharist is going to fall way short of the glory of the reality, which only God can completely comprehend.
About the question of Jesus’ body in heaven being extended in space: we know that he has a real body, not a phantasm. But his body is glorified so it acts in a way that we have no experience of.
Also, we don’t know what heaven is like. I don’t know if our concepts of space and time will apply in the same way. Probably not, but I’m just speculating here. But because Jesus does have a real body, I think in some way or fashion it would have some type of extension in space, but in a way very different from what we know.
We speak rightly of Christ’s REAL presence in the Eucharist as SACRAMENTAL, not “physical.” The PHYSICAL presence of his Body and Blood would PHYSICALLY taste, PHYSICALLY smell, PHYSICALLY look and PHYSICALLY feel like PHYSICAL human flesh and blood.
What is PHYSICALLY present in the Eucharist are the mere look, mere taste, mere smell, mere weight and mere texture of bread and wine (in short, the mere APPEARANCES of physical bread and wine). Except in their appearances (which remain), WHAT they are is no longer bread and wine, but Christ in his Body and Blood.
The REAL presence of his physical Body and Blood in the Eucharist is a SACRAMENTAL presence, not a physical presence.
If this kind of language confuses you, don’t feel bad. Just believe. St. Thomas Aquinas said in his famous Eucharistic hymn, “Visus, tactus, gustus in Te fallitur; sed auditu solo tuto creditur”: in English, “Sight, touch, taste–in You they are a deceit; but hearing alone is safely to be believed.”
Jesus says, “This is my body. This is my blood.”
Hear him, believe him.