Care to link up a Catechism citation for this "accidental form" concept? I'm asking for verification of your claim, that's all.

Reason I'm asking is CCC 1374 states explicitly, " In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."

I checked Article 3 and there isn't any mention of an "accidental form". Did I miss it?

Especially since the USCCB covered this subject and also corroborates the Eucharist becomes Jesus. No mention that He "is still bread".

They -do- mention a distinction between substance (what something is, in this case, Him) and "accidents" (the appearance of something). What something is and what it looks like aren't always the same.

Personally, I've always suspected it's our imperfect nature as humans that limits our ability to fully perceive Him in the Eucharist. Our physical senses are quite limited, even compared to other living beings.

If some people are allergic to the substance of Jesus, no surprises there. Nearly all of us are already allergic to each other, literally. That's why blood types exist, and things get even more complicated when it comes to matching bone-marrow..

So, until I see a citation saying the Church teaches Jesus is still bread, I'm going to stick with what I can cite. The Eucharist becomes Jesus, the Son of God. Once that happens, the Eucharist is the Son of God, not bread.

Given the enormity of miracle that occurs and the central part that miracle plays in our faith, the very need for gloves is an implicit dibelief in His real presence. The Son of God isn't an infection vector.

Without turning this into a big thing, priests using surgical gloves are just another blasphemous secularization of the Divine.

"It's not the object of any sense", @enemacasanova

Have I told you lately how much I enjoy your idiotic attempts at reason?

So when you attend Mass, you can't see the Host when the priest raises it? When the priest places the Eucharist in your grubby Novus Ordo hands, you can't feel it? When you pick it up with your stubby little fingers and shove it in that stupid mouth of yours, can you taste it?

If you can, then the Eucharist IS the object a sense, several senses in fact.

Also, many objects have qualities we can not immediately perceive, (such as radiation). Your claim doesn't contradict the one I originally made, you nitwit. Yours is just wrong.

"it's the object of the intellect."

A thing remains real, regardless of whether or not a person, even a moron like you, recognizes it intellectually. Your silly attempts at "intellectual" trolling a perfect example of this..

"our intellect can't grasp the true nature of the Sacrament, but by Faith..."

You forget that Christ Himself told us the true nature of the Sacrament. See: 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

"I'm not sure you received proper Catechism..."

...and I'm not sure you've ever read the New Testament. See my last point, stupido.

By contrast, I -am- sure your academic degree from "Jajaja Univeridad" is garbage. You don't know how to reason..

"Yeah, as I said in the other post, the accidentes reain, but not the bread, it is replaced, it becomes, ENTIRELY THE SUBSTANVE of Jesús Christ.

Yeah, which is what I already told the other guy -in my other post. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, dummy.

Saint Thomas' Adoro te devote, in Latín and English:

ADORO te devote, latens Deitas, quae sub his figuris vere latitas: tibi se cor meum totum subiicit, quia te contemplans totum deficit.

Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur, sed auditu solo tuto creditur; credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius: nil hoc verbo Veritatis verius.

HIDDEN God, devoutly I adore Thee, truly present underneath these veils: all my heart subdues itself before Thee, since it all before Thee faints and fails.

Not to sight, or taste, or touch be credit hearing only do we trust secure; I believe, for God the Son has said it- Word of truth that ever shall endure.

Bad news, enemacasanova

St. Thomas' Adoro te devote does not contradict me. Quite the opposite. What? How is that possible?

Let's review what you originally wrote: "It's (The Eucharist) not the object of any sense",

And I objected, rightly as you will soon see, to your claim.

Now look at what St. Thomas wrote: "Not to sight, or taste, or touch be credit, hearing only do we trust secure..."

St. Thomas is speaking, very rhetorically, about which senses we do (or do not) use to trust in the supernatural qualities of the Eucharist.

He does NOT say the physical qualities of the Eucharist are (in your words) "not the object of any sense". The Eucharist does have physical qualities and those qualities ARE discernible to the senses.

That is self-evident. Or it should be if you weren't such a moron.

You're attempting to read St. Thomas literally, instead of as a prayer. Your interpretation introduces a contradiction which otherwise does not exist. Like so:

St. Thomas lists three senses "we" supposedly do not trust (sight, taste, or touch) and only one sense "we" -do- trust (hearing). People have five senses.

What of smell? Did the saint forget a sense? No, because he wasn't trying to argue what you are, namely the Eucharist is, in your words, "not the object of any sense."

The Eucharist is a physical thing, it has physical properties, and we have five God-given sense with which to experience those properties.

St. Thomas is arguing we should not trust those (and only three of those senses) to discern the Divinity of Jesus which is also present in that physical object.

That should be obvious, even to someone like you. After all, as Catholics, we accept as an article of faith that God is present during the Mass. Yet our physical senses never detect any physical sign of His presence.

I can't excuse your error simply because you don't read or write English very well.

You were -so- careful to include the prayer in original Latin, weren't you? ;-)

You didn't understand what St. Thomas said in Latin, or English, or Spanish. You didn't understand what he wrote at all, for a very simple reason.

You're badly educated and that pride you have in your "academic" career has made you stupid.