A reader writes:
Hello Mr. Akin,
I am a recent convert to the Catholic Church (this Easter will make two years). Your and Mark Shea's writings have helped me tremendously in better understanding our Faith. However, I have asked a certain question several times and have never been given a satisfactory answer. I hope you can help.
My question is: How does one explain transubstantiation at the Last Supper? If Jesus had not yet sacrificed His human nature, how could he offer his body and blood to the Apostles in the form of bread and wine?
The basic answer is that it is not necessary for Jesus to have sacrificed himself on the Cross in order for transubstantiation to occur.
In transubstantiation, two things happen: (1) The substances (i.e., the ultimate, underlying realities) of bread and wine cease to exist, leaving only the properties detectable by our senses and (2) the substance of Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity become present.
For neither of these things to happen does Christ have to have offered himself on the Cross. God created all matter out of nothing (Latin, ex nihilo), and he can similarly cause it to return to nothing (ad nihilo = where we get "annihiliate").
Similarly, God can make any object he wants present at any location he wants, including multiple locations simultaneously. This phenomenon, known as multilocation, is possible for Christ and for anything else God chooses.
Some years ago when I was first studying Christian apologetics, I established a principle for myself which went like this: If I'm trying to explain a miracle, and I can think of at least one way to accomplish it in comprehensible scientific terms, then God knows at least that way to accomplish it (and probably many more ways as well).
Consequently, offering a scientifically possible way of accomplishing a miracle shows that it is indeed possible and, with God's omnipotence, it will be infinitely easy for him since he does not expend resources in causing things to happen. Thus it is as easy for God as anything else. Once it's been shown that something is logically possible, it is not problem for God to do it, being neither easier nor harder than anything else for him. He may not use the way I've thought of, but he's able to do it.
I can think of several ways to make an object appear at more than one place at a time. Folding Einsteinian spacetime is just one way. There are others also. In fact, some quantum phenomena at least appear to involve particles being in more than one place at a time, so there may be a second way there.
It's also worth mentioning that there are historic reports of saints bilocating (appearing in two places at once). So the phenomena may not be limited to Jesus or subatomic particles. It may be something God does in different ways on a more frequent basis.
In any event, making something appear in more than one place at a time is clearly within the ability of God's omnipotence to bring about. Unless he for some reason determines that Christ must be offered on the Cross before he will do it in Christ's case then he can do it for Jesus whenever he wants.
The evidence of Jesus' words at the Last Supper strongly suggests that God has not determined that Jesus must be sacrificed before he can multilocate, and thus there is no barrier–at the Last Supper–to either component of transubstantiation happening.
Thus in 1968 in the Credo of the People of God, Pope Paul VI proclaimed:
24. We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.
The magisterium thus holds that at the Last Supper the elements became the body and blood of Christ prior to the sacrifice of the Cross (the blue highlight) and that today they become the body and blood of Christ "enthroned gloriously in heaven," which is the state in which he has existed subsequent to the sacrifice of the Cross.
Note also that Pope Paul is careful to say that the sacrifice of the Cross is made sacramentally present on the altar.
Trent elaborates this more fully (session 22, chapter 2), explaining that the sacrifices are the same in that they have the same victim (the same thing is being offered to God–i.e., Christ himself), that the primary sacrificing priest is the same (again, Christ himself, working now through the agency of earthly priests), and that the fruits of the sacrifice (our salvation) are the same, with only the manner of offering being different–Calvary involving a bloody sacrifice and the Eucharist involving an unbloody one. This is the meaning of what the Church says when it says that the sacrifice of Calvary is made sacramentally present on the altar.
Some have proposed a view in which spacetime gets bent (or something) in such a way that Good Friday in A.D. 33 (or whenever) is timewarped onto the altar. While I'm about as theologically timewarp friendly as one could want (cf. my above comments on multilocation), this view ultimately is not supported by the magisterial sources.
Instead, as the Credo of the People of God makes clear, the idea is that at the Last Supper Christ became present under the elements as he was then but in a way that looked forward to the sacrifice of the Cross and today he becomes present under the elements as he is now (enthroned gloriously in heaven) but in a way that looks back to the sacrifice of the Cross and that makes it sacramentally present in the way described above.
Hope this helps!
Some years ago, while pondering the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Mass, there suddenly came to me an analogy as to how the Mass IS the sacrifice itself. The Mass is an echo. If you think about it you can see, for an echo is the original sound. And so it is that over the millenia Christ’s sacrifice has echoed around the world time and time again. The Eucharist is not simply a symbolic representation, as Protestantism would have it. It is the Sacrifice itself, heard by us each time we attend Mass.
I’m not sure if he describes it quite in the fashion of a “timewarp,” but Charles Cardinal Journet treats on this topic in his book “The Mass: The Presence of the Sacrifice of the Cross.” My copy is not handy, but I remember (I think it was from his book) that the the separate consecration of the Body from the Blood shows that it is the presence of the Cross (where Jesus’ Blood will be separated from His Body) somehow anticipated on the table at the Last Supper. The sacrifice of the Cross is made present on the table at the Last Supper as it is made present on the altar at Mass. How does that “making present” occur? Like Jimmy said, God has His ways.
No wonder Catholics have an ongoing battle with doubt throughout their lives. That article was a case of Jesuit sophistry at its finest. If that is the best argument for Transubstantiation then Catholics are in serious trouble.
If the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, then we are indeed present at Calvary when we attend Mass. Time and space are transcended in this mystery. And this is certainly supported by the very citation from Trent above. When I attend Mass I attend the very same sacrifice that the 1st century Christians attended, despite the time differential.
No, the church explanation, as well as Jimmy’s, on transubstantiation cannot easily be understood, that is one thing for sure. One needs to stretch a bit more one’s thinking, or imagination, to be able to see the beauty and logic of this theology. Probably, a look at Thomas Aquinas’ discussions on substance and accidents, essences and form, “ens” and “esse”, etc. can help along this line. Yet, after satisfying one’s thirst for logic and reason, one still needs a leap of faith. Fortunately or unfortunately, faith is a gift of God — we do not give ourselves that gift but only open ourselves to it. A Happy Easter to you all.
Perhaps I should have been more specific in citing Trent:”whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,–” Sess.22, ch. 1.
Certainly a magisterial document proclaiming the representation of the bloody sacrifice in an unbloody manner, viz. 33 AD made present (re-presented)again.
Christ ascended to the Father with his sacred wounds. The enthroned High Priest eternally offers Himself, the eternal spotless Victim (“Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” Jn 1:29) to the Father on our behalf.
As the renowned apologist Frank Sheed concisely observed, “The essence of the Mass is that Christ is making an offering to the Father of Himself, Who was slain for us upon Calvary. The Mass is Calvary, as Christ now offers it to His Father.”
“And I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain …” Rev 5:6
“Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, but he [Jesus Christ], because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away. Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them. It was fitting that we should have such a high priest …” Heb 7:23-26a
see also:
http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality41.php
excerpt:
“… Substantially, then, the Sacrifice of the Mass does not differ from the sacrifice of the cross, since in each we have, not only the same victim, but also the same priest who does the actual offering, though the mode of the immolation differs, one being bloody and physical, the other non-bloody and sacramental. Hence Christ’s act of offering the Mass, while it is neither dolorous nor meritorious (since He is no longer viator): is still an act of reparative adoration, of intercession, of thanksgiving, is still the ever-loving action of His heart, is still the soul of the Sacrifice of the Mass …”
Thank you Mr. Akin
That helps, especially your quote from Pope Paul VI. However, it seems that we would not have to bring in “timewarp” theories and quantum mechanics since the accidents that inhere in Christ body are not the physical extensions of Christ accidents. This is not to say that Christ’s accidents do not inhere in the Eucharist at all but only that they do not inhere in it in a quantitatively extended way (it seems that metaphysically they could only exist in this mode of being in one place, and that is with Christ in Heaven). I think Dr. Ludwig Ott makes a clarifying distinction when he says, “theologians distinguish two formal operations of quantity, the inner extension, that is, the ability of the Body to spread out in three dimensions, and the outer extension, that is, the filling of space in point of fact…in the Sacrament Christ’s Body is present with the inner, but without the outer extension…He is in His natural mode of being [outer and inner extension] in Heaven, and in His sacramental mode of existence [only inner extension] in many places” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 389).
St. Thomas seems to say that, were this distinction not made between inner and outer extension, it would be metaphysically impossible for the accidents to exist in a multilocated manner.
Thanks again and if you have the time, let me know if this sounds coherent.
-Timothy
Mr. Freddy says, “No wonder Catholics have an ongoing battle with doubt throughout their lives. That article was a case of Jesuit sophistry at its finest. If that is the best argument for Transubstantiation then Catholics are in serious trouble.” First, this is not the argument the Church gives for the validity of Transubstantiation. Mr. Akin was answering a very specific question I asked him about the Last Supper.
We Catholics are the ones who do not “doubt” the words of our Lord when he says, “I am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (Jn 6:51) and “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and Drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53). This and many other Scriptures along with Tradition are the Church’s argument for the validity of Transubstantiation. We merely seek to understand what we already know to be true, since Truth Himself told us it is so. However, even though we do not fully comprehend this most Sacred Mystery, we will continue to take and eat as the Good Master commanded. Curiously, it was those who doubted these same words in John 6:66 that deserted Jesus because His sayings were “hard sayings.”
I hope that in the future you will be open to discussing this Doctrine without committing yourself to arguments against Mr. Akin that were not made in the first place.
Thank you,
-Timothy
TWO
TRUTHS
To the Nuclear
Plant I went
With wafered host
I was hell-bent.
Exposed the wafered un-
Consecrated host
To radiation
Now nuked toast.
Offered heretic
“Taste and see.”
“Oh no!” He cried
“That’s not for me!”
“But look,” I said,
“Nothings changed
A still white wafered
Host arranged.”
“Though looks the same,
Could do much harm!”
The heretic said
With much alarm.
As Catholics know
A spiritual radiation
Daily at Mass
The Transubstantiation!
It’s really simple. God created time and is it’s master. The grace of the risen Christ washed across all time; past and future, like a tsunami.
Another thing to remember is that what happened at the Last Supper was intrinsically connected to the Crucifixion – in fact, it was what made the Crucifixion of our Lord more than an execution.
I have touched on some of this in my own blogs – see the links below if you are interested.
http://justingridveritasluxmea.blogspot.com/2011/04/christs-death-execution-or-sacrifice.html
http://justingridveritasluxmea.blogspot.com/2011/04/christ-our-passover-lamb-has-been.html
God bless
Justin
Might I suggest and recommend reading Brant Pitre’s book “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist”
The Jewish Paasover drank four cups. The Blessed Sacrament was insituted at the third cup.
“Jesus reconfigured the Passover around his own passion. By refusing to drink the fourth cup until his death on the cross he united the Last Supper to his own sacrificial death. And by commanding his disciples to repeat what he had done in the Upper Room , he deliberately perpetuated this new Passover – both sacrifice and meal own through the ages” Page 173
Freddy notes: “then Catholics are in serious trouble.”
That’s, of course, true. We have been for about 2,000 years now, at least, whenever we think the world revolves around us, which happens more often than we care to admit. But then that’s why we have Confession.
Thank you Mike Rooke. I just finished that book and will read the passage in context.
At the Last Supper, Jesus’ heart was fully conformed to the Father’s will, to the death He was about to undergo for us. Jesus’ heart was already completely committed to sacrificing his life for us. It was (and is in the Eucharist then and now) the same heart offering his life on the cross. This Eucharist at the last supper was an anticipation of the free offering of his life already fully desired, accepted and committed to: “This is my body which is given for you”…”This is my bloodof the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (CCC 610ff)
C.S. Lewis has an interesting explanation of miracles when he says that God is always changing water to wine, raising from the dead, etc. When Jesus does it, it is sort of a “special education” version for us slow-learners…when it happens all around us, it is much slower (because WE are stranded in time) and more deliberate. Water pours from Heaven as rain, is drawn up into the plant, ripens into grape juice and fermented, but Jesus brings it about in an instant. Both are gifts of love and generosity.
The seed is planted, dies and rises to a life which is not visible to the eye in the seed, and Christ dies, is buried and rises to bring life unimaginable.
The scientific facts are always in keeping with God’s design…we just can’t “get” it all yet…Thanks for an insightful and thought-provoking article.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and Drink his blood, you have no life in you”
So according to Divinely inspired Holy Writ, anyone who does not recieve the Blessed Sacrament, worthily, is spiritually dead, and therefore cannot attain salvation, and only Catholics can recieve the substantial Body of Christ.
By way of the Church Suffering or directly to the Church Triumphant.
Makes us Catholics think seriously about converting non-Catholics.
Ron Conte,
Only the accidents of bread and wine remain after valid consecration [appearence, taste, touch] not the substance of bread and wine.
There cannot exist two substances in the same species.
Thus, after valid consecration the substance of bread and wine cease to exist and the substance of Christs Body and Blood exist, substantially alone.
Ron,
Aquinas maintains in the Summa, that the substance of the bread and wine cease to exist after the Consecration:
“Article 2. Whether in this sacrament the substance of the bread and wine remains after the consecration?
Objection 1. It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): “Since it is customary for men to eat bread and drink wine, God has wedded his Godhead to them, and made them His body and blood”: and further on: “The bread of communication is not simple bread, but is united to the Godhead.” But wedding together belongs to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are at the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and the blood of Christ.
Objection 2. Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments. But in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains, like the substance of water in Baptism, and the substance of chrism in Confirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine remains also in this sacrament.
Objection 3. Further, bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament, inasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity, as “one bread is made from many grains and wine from many grapes,” as Augustine says in his book on the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But this belongs to the substance of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): “Although the figure of the bread and wine be seen, still, after the Consecration, they are to be believed to be nothing else than the body end blood of Christ.”
I answer that, Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ’s true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, where it was not previously, except by change of place, or by the conversion of another thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because it is generated there. Now it is evident that Christ’s body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion. First of all, because it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven: for what is moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the former one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces, which cannot be said here. Thirdly, because it is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to be terminated in different places at the one time, whereas the body of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several places. And consequently it remains that Christ’s body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration.
Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this sacrament, in which it is said: “This is My body,” which would not be true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should one say in that case: “Here is My body.”
Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of latria.
Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according to which it is not lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host after another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical.
Reply to Objection 1. God “wedded His Godhead,” i.e. His Divine power, to the bread and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but in order that He may make from them His body and blood.
Reply to Objection 2. Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in this; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other sacraments, but not in this.
Reply to Objection 3. The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be said later (5), suffice for its signification; because the nature of the substance is known by its accidents.”
FREDDY HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE DOESN’T PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS. HE’S BEEN POSTING HOSTILE, OFF-TOPIC SCREEDS, AND THE CONTENT OF THIS ONE HAS BEEN REMOVED. FREDDY IS HEREBY DISINVITED FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE BLOG.
Ron,
You are correct.
In the very next article in the Summa, Aquinas proves that the substance of bread and wine are not annihilated at the Consecration:
“Article 3. Whether the substance of the bread or wine is annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into their original matter?
Objection 1. It seems that the substance of the bread is annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into its original matter. For whatever is corporeal must be somewhere. But the substance of bread, which is something corporeal, does not remain, in this sacrament, as stated above (Article 2); nor can we assign any place where it may be. Consequently it is nothing after the consecration. Therefore, it is either annihilated, or dissolved into its original matter.
Objection 2. Further, what is the term “wherefrom” in every change exists no longer, except in the potentiality of matter; e.g. when air is changed into fire, the form of the air remains only in the potentiality of matter; and in like fashion when what is white becomes black. But in this sacrament the substance of the bread or of the wine is the term “wherefrom,” while the body or the blood of Christ is the term “whereunto”: for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Myster. ix): “Before the blessing it is called another species, after the blessing the body of Christ is signified.” Therefore, when the consecration takes place, the substance of the bread or wine no longer remains, unless perchance dissolved into its (original) matter.
Objection 3. Further, one of two contradictories must be true. But this proposition is false: “After the consecration the substance of the bread or wine is something.” Consequently, this is true: “The substance of the bread or wine is nothing.”
On the contrary, Augustine says (83): “God is not the cause of tending to nothing.” But this sacrament is wrought by Divine power. Therefore, in this sacrament the substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated.
I answer that, Because the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament, some, deeming that it is impossible for the substance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ’s flesh and blood, have maintained that by the consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it is annihilated.
Now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is the four elements. For dissolution cannot be made into primary matter, so that a subject can exist without a form, since matter cannot exist without a form. But since after the consecration nothing remains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to say that the elements into which the substance of the bread and wine is dissolved, depart from thence by local motion, which would be perceived by the senses. In like manner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last instant of the consecration; but in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there the substance of the body or blood of Christ, just as the form is already present in the last instant of generation. Hence no instant can be assigned in which the original matter can be there. For it cannot be said that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved gradually into the original matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if this began to be done in the last instant of its consecration, then at the one time under part of the host there would be the body of Christ together with the substance of bread, which is contrary to what has been said above (Article 2). But if this begin to come to pass before the consecration, there will then be a time in which under one part of the host there will be neither the substance of bread nor the body of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem indeed to have taken this into careful consideration, wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative viz. that (the substance) may be annihilated. But even this cannot stand, because no way can be assigned whereby Christ’s true body can begin to be in this sacrament, except by the change of the substance of bread into it, which change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of the substance of the bread, or dissolution into the original matter. Likewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or annihilation, since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the form: “This is My body.” Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion is false.
Reply to Objection 1. The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated.
Reply to Objection 2. The form, which is the term “wherefrom,” is not changed into another form; but one form succeeds another in the subject; and therefore the first form remains only in the potentiality of matter. But here the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, as stated above. Hence the conclusion does not follow.
Reply to Objection 3. Although after the consecration this proposition is false: “The substance of the breed is something,” still that into which the substance of the bread is changed, is something, and consequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated.”
Dear Ron,
Quit putting words into Jimmy’s mouth. He never used the word, annihilate. He said:
In transubstantiation, two things happen: (1) The substances (i.e., the ultimate, underlying realities) of bread and wine cease to exist, leaving only the properties detectable by our senses and (2) the substance of Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity become present.
This is entirely equivalent to St. Thomas’s, Reply to Objection 1, cited above, by Dan. When he says:
Reply to Objection 1. The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated.
Jimmy’s comment was equivalent to the idea that the substances of bread and wine cease to exist because they have been changed, not because they have been annihilated. Things can cease to exist in two ways, by annihilation or by replacement (replacement meaning transformation in the Aquinian sense). Jimmy’s comment can be taken, charitably, to refer to replacement (the more probable reading).
Before one accuses someone of making heretical remarks, one is obligated, morally, to seek the proper clarification, and in the meantime, make the most charitable interpretation.
Next time, ask Jimmy what he means before assuming you know or that he is presenting heresy.
The Chicken
I think it would be a bit rash to call Mr Akin a heretic. He certainly intends to uphold the correct teaching of the Church.
Having said that, though, I think Mr Conte is correct in pointing out that Akin’s language could have been more precise. The substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In his explanation, Akin didn’t spell this out. In these matters, clarity is so important. But let’s not make charges of heresy lightly.
There is a ONENESS IN TIME between the Eucharist we celebrate and the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary.
Jimmy says,
“Some have proposed a view in which spacetime gets bent (or something) in such a way that Good Friday in A.D. 33 (or whenever) is timewarped onto the altar. While I’m about as theologically timewarp friendly as one could want (cf. my above comments on multilocation), this view ultimately is not supported by the magisterial sources.”
Blessed John Paul II is a magisterial source. He writes in his encyclical “ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA” that there is a “oneness in time” between the Eucharist we celebrate and the Triduum events.
“Her foundation and wellspring is the whole Triduum paschale, but this is as it were gathered up, foreshadowed and “concentrated’ for ever in the gift of the Eucharist. In this gift Jesus Christ entrusted to his Church the perennial making present of the paschal mystery. With it he brought about a mysterious “oneness in time” between that Triduum and the passage of the centuries” (5).
There is a ONENESS IN TIME between the Eucharist we celebrate and the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary.
The logic of time travel is a bit tricky. I was once going to write an article on it, but there was just no place to start (anyone familiar with time travel paradoxes should see what I mean).
A Oneness in time does not mean a unity in time, necessarily. If there were a strict unity, then all of the mass in the universe for all time would suddenly coalesce and a black hole would result. Obviously, then, the oneness does not refer to material forces and particles. It refers to a nonphysical oneness, similar to the oneness that exists in Heaven. Everyone who dies and goes to Heaven dies from a different time and yet, in Heaven, they exist in the same time. The mysterious oneness works the same way. Calvary is not in our time, per se, but because Christ draws all things to himself, all things exist in Christ at the same moment, at least in his divinity. Thus, because of his divinity, which is outside of time and his ability to draw all things to himself, things are not united in time, but they are united in Christ and therefore united in a single moment of divine existence. This may look like a oneness in time, but it is, more properly, a oneness of time, since there is only one time in Christ’s divinity.
Anybody follow?
The Chicken
Let me restate:
This may look like a oneness of time (unity), but it is, more properly, a oneness in time (what the Holy Father said), since there is only one time in Christ’s divinity.
Hope that makes more sense.
“Blessed John Paul II is a magisterial source”
Was his Holiness beatified already?