Difficulty with transubstantiation

[centurionguard]

FrDavid, that was the clearest and most detailed explanation I have ever heard, thank you.

One more question for you - do you know where the word ‘accidents’ in this context came from? Why that and not something like ‘characteristics’ which would seem less… well… accidental.

Thank you!

edited because apparently I cannot spell tonight

Accidents pertain to the (“physical aspect”) or characteristic of a things.
Car accidents are also a physical aspect of something.

A Non-physical accident would be like telling a secret or perhaps erasing or deleting something such as a computer file.

 

[longing4Jesus]

Thanks CenturionGuard… I get that part…

What I am wondering is if anyone knows the etymology of the word accidents in this usage.

I will admit, I am a word-nerd.

 

[hazcompat]

FrDavid, that was the clearest and most detailed explanation I have ever heard, thank you.

One more question for you - do you know where the word ‘accidents’ in this context came from? Why that and not something like ‘characteristics’ which would seem less… well… accidental.

Thank you!

edited because apparently I cannot spell tonight

Wikapedia Hylomorphism

Medieval philosophers who used Aristotelian concepts frequently distinguished between substantial forms and accidental forms. A substance necessarily possesses at least one substantial form. It may also possess a variety of accidental forms. For Aristotle, a “substance” (ousia) is an individual thing—for example, an individual man or an individual horse.[15] The substantial form of substance S consists of S’s essential properties,[16] the properties that S’s matter needs in order to be the kind of substance that S is.[17] In contrast, S’s accidental forms are S’s non-essential properties,[18] properties that S can lose or gain without changing into a different kind of substance.[19]

In some cases, a substance’s matter will itself be a substance. If substance A is made out of substance B, then substance B is the matter of substance A. However, what is the matter of a substance that is not made out of any other substance? According to Aristotelians, such a substance has only “prime matter” as its matter. Prime matter is matter with no substantial form of its own.[20] Thus, it can change into various kinds of substances without remaining any kind of substance all the time.[21]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism

peace

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid, that was the clearest and most detailed explanation I have ever heard, thank you.

One more question for you - do you know where the word ‘accidents’ in this context came from? Why that and not something like ‘characteristics’ which would seem less… well… accidental.

Thank you!

edited because apparently I cannot spell tonight

Well, I still don’t know the exact etymology. But here’s the Cath Encyclopedia definition
newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm

[Latin *accidere, to happen what happens to be in a subject; any contingent, or nonessential attribute].

It’s likely that we get the modern English word “accident” as in a car accident FROM the philosophical definition of it. In other words, cars don’t “need” to crash into each other, but when it does happen, it’s only accidental, not essential, to their function (or should I say to their substance?). Maybe?

I wouldn’t go with “characteristics” because that might be interpreted as persona–believe me, we don’t want to go there

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Yeah, I think that about takes care of it.

I understand the concept now, but I guess I’m just left wondering why God doesn’t alter it to the extent that one who is allergic COULD receive it.

One of those things I’ll have to ask God when I (hopefully) make it to Heaven.

Do you have a problem receiving the Host? Or is that a general question?

 

[longing4Jesus]

It’s likely that we get the modern English word “accident” as in a car accident FROM the philosophical definition of it. In other words, cars don’t “need” to crash into each other, but when it does happen, it’s only accidental, not essential, to their function (or should I say to their substance?). Maybe?

Oh, when I think about it that-way-round, it makes a LOT more sense. Thanks, FrDavid…

…and hazcompat, I appreciate the link.

OK, will now stop threadjacking…

 

[Dannel11]

I just attended an RCIA lecture on this subject and it left me very confused. This thread has been extremely helpful and I thank you all!!

I wanted to try to sum it up this discussion as simply as possible. Would the following statements be true?

During the Eucharist the bread and the wine is imbued with the Holy Spirit, leaving its physical properties unchanged, and changing its substance from ordinary bread and wine to Christ’s Body and Blood. Since it is the substance that defines a thing, the bread and wine is now referred to as Body and Blood.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Do you have a problem receiving the Host? Or is that a general question?

No. Fortunately, I have no food allergies.
But Lord help me if I ever need penicillin.

 

[FrDavid96]

I just attended an RCIA lecture on this subject and it left me very confused. This thread has been extremely helpful and I thank you all!!

I wanted to try to sum it up this discussion as simply as possible. Would the following statements be true?

During the Eucharist the bread and the wine is imbued with the Holy Spirit, leaving its physical properties unchanged, and changing its substance from ordinary bread and wine to Christ’s Body and Blood. Since it is the substance that defines a thing, the bread and wine is now referred to as Body and Blood.

Yes. That’s it.

The only part I’d change would be “imbued with the Holy Spirit” and instead say “by the power and action of the Holy Spirit.”

In a discussion like this, we sometimes have to ask “just how much philosophy is too much?” In other words, just how far do we go in picking out individual words? and refining the definitions even more? How much can this sort of thing get us too far offtrack? This is after all, an internet forum and not a graduate level philosophy class. It’s also the liturgy forum, not the philosophy forum and we have to keep things in perspective.

It’s hard to do this because there’s no true dialogue like we could have in a person-to-person conversation; and there are more people reading than posting.

So suffice to say that yes, that’s it.

 

[couponfit]

This is a question that has been bugging me this evening. If in transubstantiation, the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, meaning they cease to be bread and wine in anything but appearance (Jimmy Akin went so far as to say, “if the miracle were to cease, they would vanish completely”), then how can one have an allergic reaction to them? Or, in the case of the wine, if enough were ingested, have an elevated blood-alcohol content? Does this not necessitate that the substances of these things is still present?

The body and blood maintain all characteristics of Bread and Wine. Much like Christ himself was completely man and completely divine. It is not 50% bread and 50% body, it is both 100% bread and 100% divine body. The divinity comes from grace.

 

[FrDavid96]

The body and blood maintain all characteristics of Bread and Wine. Much like Christ himself was completely man and completely divine. It is not 50% bread and 50% body, it is both 100% bread and 100% divine body. The divinity comes from grace.

I think I understand what you’re trying to say here. But we have to be careful. Comparing transubstantiation to the Incarnation doesn’t quite work (in fact, it doesn’t really work at all).

The Eucharist is not 100% bread, it’s 0% bread.

100% of the accidents of the bread remain, but the bread itself (the substance of bread) does not exist after Consecration.

Likewise, 100% is the substance of the Body of Christ, but 0% accidents of the Body.

I see what you’re trying to say, and you’re correct. We just have to be very careful about exactly how we put it into words.

 

[Filii_Dei]

The body and blood maintain all characteristics of Bread and Wine. Much like Christ himself was completely man and completely divine. It is not 50% bread and 50% body, it is both 100% bread and 100% divine body. The divinity comes from grace.

Like what FrDavid96 said, be careful of what you’re saying. That sounds more like the Lutheran theology of ‘Sacramental Union’, where the Eucharist is both bread and wine as well as the Body and Blood of Christ. Incorrect, of course.

 

[Glenn_Sam]

FaDavid,

I’m considering Catholicism very seriously but am also working through understanding how bread turned into the body of Christ could cause an adverse reaction in someone alergic to wheat. What you have said has been helpful. You said one thing that didn’t seem right though. Maybe you didn’t mean exactly what you said. You stated,

"It’s the accidents of wine, in this case it’s chemical properties and the fact that it contains C2H6O (yes, I had to look it up) and what effect that has on the human body, which make us inebriated.

Substance by itself cannot do anything. Substance is more of a concept than it is a physical reality.

Before the consecration, the accidents of the wine are “attached” to the substance of the wine. Not attached in the sense of physically connected (since substance is an idea but accidents are physical properties), but philosophically connected."

You stated, “Substance is more of a concept than it is a physical reality…” and “substance is an idea…”
Trying to fully understand what the teaching of transubstatiation is I found in the Council of Trent this wording: “In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.”

It seems that the Church is teaching that the substance of Christ goes beyond an idea or concept. I’m still trying to wrap my head around what substance and accidents are and what happens in transubstantiation. I would appreciate your comments. I’m not trying to be contentious. Thanks.