Accidence, Essence, & the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter steamboatp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

steamboatp

Guest
Hello. I am a “cradle Catholic” and I have had an affection for the Eucharist for some time. Recently, though, I have been thinking about the Eucharist and my belief that it is the body of Christ has been called into question.

We say that the Eucharist has the accidence of bread but the essence of the body of Christ. My problem is that I don’t think for physical objects (like a human body) there is a separation between accidence and essence.

For example, if I touch my kneecap, I feel a hard surface beneath the skin, because there the patella actually exists as a hard deposit of calcium salts, etc. My kneecap is what it appears to be.

I might be missing some key insight that will make everything understandable…
 
steamboatp said:
Hello. I am a “cradle Catholic” and I have had an affection for the Eucharist for some time. Recently, though, I have been thinking about the Eucharist and my belief that it is the body of Christ has been called into question.

We say that the Eucharist has the accidence of bread but the essence of the body of Christ. My problem is that I don’t think for physical objects (like a human body) there is a separation between accidence and essence.

For example, if I touch my kneecap, I feel a hard surface beneath the skin, because there the patella actually exists as a hard deposit of calcium salts, etc. My kneecap is what it appears to be.

I might be missing some key insight that will make everything understandable…
Click to expand...
I would suggest that you re-read John 6, and contemplate how Jesus’ words “this is my body” are true.
 
steamboatp said:
For example, if I touch my kneecap, I feel a hard surface beneath the skin, because there the patella actually exists as a hard deposit of calcium salts, etc. My kneecap is what it appears to be.

I might be missing some key insight that will make everything understandable…
Click to expand...
the accidents of your body are the chemical elements that make it up and they way they are arranged in the various body systems, knee, circulatory, respiratory etc. But by themselves they are not your essence. You are much more than the pile of chemical elements (worth on the open market anywhere from $1.98 to $1 million depending on who is making the estimate), or a skeleton which houses a number of organs and systems. Your essence includes as well as your body your soul, thoughts, memory, will, intellect, understanding, identity, personality etc.
 
davidv said:
I would suggest that you re-read John 6, and contemplate how Jesus’ words “this is my body” are true.
Click to expand...
Also 1 Corinthians 10-16; 11-27 and 12-27.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
 
The Bible verses are helpful. I was not familiar with the passages from 1 Corinthians.

My essence is indeed different from my accidence, because I am more than just my body. But my body’s essence does not appear to be different from its accidence.
 
you might want to make a few distinctions…accidents are not contrasted with essence as you are doing, but with substance. Essence is the “whatness” of a thing, and is expressed by a defintion. Your essence is “rational animal”.Individual parts of your body also have essences, but again, are not contrasted with accidents. What you are looking for is substance, the underlyihg substrate, defined as “being per se” or being in virtue of itself, which is the subject in which accidents inhere.

In the case of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine are converted into the substance of Christ. The accidents remain, but no longer inhere in anything (causing philosophical problems). Somewhere down the line you will have to accept Christ’s words in scripture, and the decrees of the church. If you are worried about the philosohical plausibility of the eucharist, you could consult Duns Scotus, IV sentences d. 11-12, or Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae pars III qq. 73-76
 
steamboatp said:
The Bible verses are helpful. I was not familiar with the passages from 1 Corinthians.

My essence is indeed different from my accidence, because I am more than just my body. But my body’s essence does not appear to be different from its accidence.
Click to expand...
So, just like you don’t appear to be different from your accidents, but in fact are more so, the same with the Eucharist. Though it only appears as its accidents, it is truely more.
 
AgnosTheist said:
More in terms of faith. Otherwise its physical properties are that of a waffer and wine. And its psychological effects are anything but extraordinary. A temporary boost in morale.
Click to expand...
Oh really? Since when do you speak for the Church?
 
hmm…the difference between essence and substance is interesting. I will check out Duns Scotus and Summa Theologiae sections. That may be the “missing link” I’m looking for…
 
steamboatp said:
Hello. I am a “cradle Catholic” and I have had an affection for the Eucharist for some time. Recently, though, I have been thinking about the Eucharist and my belief that it is the body of Christ has been called into question.

We say that the Eucharist has the accidence of bread but the essence of the body of Christ. My problem is that I don’t think for physical objects (like a human body) there is a separation between accidence and essence.

For example, if I touch my kneecap, I feel a hard surface beneath the skin, because there the patella actually exists as a hard deposit of calcium salts, etc. My kneecap is what it appears to be.

I might be missing some key insight that will make everything understandable…
Click to expand...
Something we have to keep in mind with the Eucharist is that it goes beyond physical nature and laws - it is miraculous.
You would find the same disparity between substance and accidents in other miraculous situations also. As an example, angels (pure spirits) appearing to humans with all the accidents of a human body, a dog (with St. John Bosco), etc.

Nita
 
It is indeed difficult to separate the substances that underlie things from the accidents they project, because we are sooooo accustomed to them going together. However, there is no reason they need to be tied together, and if you think about it, you know this to be true.

To stay with your example: When you touch your kneecap today, you draw conclusions about it by the accidents you perceive, you identify that you are touching your kneecap. But: Did you not also touch your kneecap a year ago? Five years ago? Ten years ago? When you were a child aged 5 and singing Head, shoulders, knees and toes? I wager the kneecap you touched at those times projected *different *accidents than you perceive today, yet it was *identically *and *substantially *your kneecap when you touched it at those times as well, was it not?

The identical substance (you kneecap) has not always projected the same accidents (size, scars, growth, et cetera). But it has always maintained its identity.

tee
 
There is only ONE BREAD. Each offering at Mass is not a separate offering from the one that preceeded it, it is all ONE BREAD, and ONE CUP, the same that Jesus held.
“Do this” means do the sacrifice, not do sentimental extractions from the cerebral cortex.

You will notice that I do not use the term ‘real presence’ because it has been corrupted by Protestant usage. The term that I prefer is “Substantial Presence” because that reflects the faith of the Church ever since Jesus said “This IS my body” and “This IS my blood.”

When Protestants speak of a ‘real presence’ they are speaking of a spiritual presence that does not adhere to the Eucharistic Species after the ceremony. For many, the ‘real presence’ is only their through the faith of the recipient. These ideas are clearly not what Jesus intended nor are they what St. Paul and St. John believed. And the Church fathers from St. Ignatius of Antioch onwards clearly believed that the consecrated species really was the body and blood of Christ and that this persisted after the Mass so that consecrated species were taken from the Mass to shut-ins.
 
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
 
AgnosTheist said:
More in terms of faith. Otherwise its physical properties are that of a waffer and wine. And its psychological effects are anything but extraordinary. A temporary boost in morale.
Click to expand...
Your continued contempt and cynicism for the Eucharist and (from you previous history of threads), all things catholic - show the typical signs of “Saul” who, any day soon, will be knocked off his “high horse” and brought down to his knees by the revelation of his own stupidity.

I don’t know how old you are but, if you’ve been an agnóstico or ateo for any number of years - the one thing that will hit you the hardest is, how much time you’ve wasted in your stupor.

My advice to you, don’t wait for the Warning…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top