I have a very basic question regarding the Ontology of Christ in the Eucharist. As a Catholic I believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharistic, and realize this is a mater of Divine revelation, namely Jesus’ word, or simply The Word. Yet, I’m still looking to deepen my understanding wherever possible. I’m seeking help understanding the ontological nature of the statement that Christ is present “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” in the Eucharist ,as I believe I heard several apologists re-iterate on Catholic Answers Live several times.
I’m approaching this philosophically from a Thomistic position where substances are made up of both essential, primary, properties, and secondary properties, accidents. As understood, secondary properties can change without changing the nature of the substance, but a change to an essential property results in a different substance. The classic example given to demonstrate the difference is starting with a red rubber ball, as documented here by Catholic Philosopher Edward Feser books.google.com/books?id=J2qhHE-6Mn4C&pg=PT18&lpg=PT18&dq=edward+feser+red+ball&source=bl&ots=1yk9mEMdT7&sig=lEQnphhmggZmws6NtcSSuNpRvlg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q4U8VLWjOIfoggSWvICQAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=edward%20feser%20red%20ball&f=false . The ball has certain essential properties such as the ability to bounce, roundness,etc, and some secondary characteristics, like its redness. Changes to secondary properties. e.g. painting it blue, do not change the ball’s nature so it is still a rubber ball. On the other hand, changes to any of the essential properties, e.g. melting the ball so it can’t bounce, destroy the substance and creates an entirely new substance. Simply put it is no longer a ball but a pile of melted rubber.
Using this lens, it seems contrary to reason to say that Christ is present “body and blood” in the Eucharistic because a human body and his blood have certain essential properties. For instance, blood has the ability to cary oxygen,etc…, and the essential properties of blood are not present in the blessed Eucharist. Therefore the logical argument that would seem to follow is:
(a) Blood has essential properties
(b) The essential properties of blood are not present in the Eucharistic
© Therefore Blood is not present in the Eucharistic
Can you please help see the error in my thinking?
For His Kingdom!