Difficulty with transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter prodigalson2011
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

prodigalson2011

Guest
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?
 
Because they retain the characteristics of bread and wine. I have no idea what citation Jimmy Akin has for his statement.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
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
…
? Does this not necessitate that the substances of these things is still present?
Click to expand...
you are confusing substance with appearance. Akin is right. Substance is what the thing really is. Appearance, or accidents, are just that, what it appears to be. The accidents are the taste, texture, alcoholic content, carborhydrate makeup etc, and no they do not change. The miracle is that the substance changes, in essence what is now on the altar after the consecration is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, whole and undivided, substantially sacramentally Present. Looks like bread and wine, tastes like bread and wine, under a microscope looks like bread and wine, has chemical properties of bread and wine, but is not in reality bread and wine in substance.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
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?
Click to expand...
The reactions (eg the effects of alcohol) don’t necessitate that the substance is still present, but that the accidents are present.

Let’s take ordinary unconsecrated wine for example. Drink a certain amount and one feels the effects. But those effects are not caused by the substance of the wine, they are caused by the accidents of the wine.

Since the accidents remain after Consecration, of course it’s possible to become drunk from drinking too much of the Blood of Christ—not because the substance of wine is there (it’s not) but because the accidents are there.
 
FrDavid96 said:
The reactions (eg the effects of alcohol) don’t necessitate that the substance is still present, but that the accidents are present.

Let’s take ordinary unconsecrated wine for example. Drink a certain amount and one feels the effects. But those effects are not caused by the substance of the wine, they are caused by the accidents of the wine.

Since the accidents remain after Consecration, of course it’s possible to become drunk from drinking too much of the Blood of Christ—not because the substance of wine is there (it’s not) but because the accidents are there.
Click to expand...
I guess my problem then is not understanding what is meant by substance. When I think of substance, I think of physical matter, as in the physical elements that comprise wheat or grapes. What is the theological understanding of substance?
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I guess my problem then is not understanding what is meant by substance. When I think of substance, I think of physical matter, as in the physical elements that comprise wheat or grapes. What is the theological understanding of substance?
Click to expand...
neither is yours the physical explanation. Your body is composed of a pile of chemicals which by removing the water you could reduce literally to a pile of dust, and further sort into its constituent elements, having the accidents, or appearance, physicial properties of carbon, hydrogen, ammonia, iron, copper and all the various elements present in the human body. But neither that pile of elements, nor your physical body intact, is the substance of Prodigalson the person.
 
There are a lot of Mysteries in Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

With respect to transubstantiation, suggest you read John 6:20-70 and ask yourself why, when so many listeners walked away, Jesus didn’t say, “Just kidding!”.

Jesus was SERIOUS. He meant what He said.

The other thing is to get a book by Joan Carroll Cruz called “Eucharistic Miracles”. It will REALLY make you wonder at how a Host made of wheat can be the Body of Jesus. There are just a lot of things we cannot explain. Our brains are pea brains compared with God who is Infinite.

We only THINK we are hot stuff … but we’re not.

Man is the only one of God’s creations that have free will … but we are still mere creations.

God is the Creator.

It is difficult for people with human brains to understand the difference between being a Creation and The Creator Who Is Infinite.
 
Accidence: The physical properties of something: what we see, taste, feel, hear, smell etc.

Substance: The essence, the actual being of something regardless of appearance or tastes etc. In eucharist, the substance is now body and blood, where it used to be bread and wine.

So the accidence of the bread and wine are unchanged in transubstantiation. You still taste, feel, see, smell, and hear bread and wine… Which explains why some have allergy problems still, can get drunk, etc.
But the Substance changes from bread to flesh and from wine to blood.

Hope that helps.
 
If you believe in the resurection of Christ it is not hard to fathom transubstantiation.
 
puzzleannie said:
neither is yours the physical explanation. Your body is composed of a pile of chemicals which by removing the water you could reduce literally to a pile of dust, and further sort into its constituent elements, having the accidents, or appearance, physicial properties of carbon, hydrogen, ammonia, iron, copper and all the various elements present in the human body. But neither that pile of elements, nor your physical body intact, is the substance of Prodigalson the person.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right, but not only that … but an atom is almost all empty space.

A tiny center core and the “electrons” in huge orbits.

Almost all of it is “nothingness”

In fact, the atoms we are made of … are pretty much nothing more than electrical charges.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I guess my problem then is not understanding what is meant by substance. When I think of substance, I think of physical matter, as in the physical elements that comprise wheat or grapes. What is the theological understanding of substance?
Click to expand...
Oh boy… Where to start? This is going to be rather difficult on a forum like this because of the “post something and wait” nature of how this works.

First off, forget that you ever learned the word “substance” because in the context of theology, the word “substance” means something altogether different from how we otherwise use the word.

Probably the best way is just to start by saying “substance is what-a-thing-is.”
It does not mean “what it’s made of” but “what it IS” (in caps).

Wood is wood. Glass is glass. Water is water. (ok, you get the idea here).

Let’s just leave it at that for the moment. Substance means “what it is.”

It might be easier here to first describe accidents.

Now let’s look at accidents.

Accidents are how something appears and how it reacts to other things.

Take glass for example.
Here are some examples of accidents of glass
It’s clear
It’s hard
It’s sharp (or at least can be, on the edges)
It melts at a certain temperature
It’s tasteless

How do we know “what is the substance” of something? We know because we can see (and otherwise perceive) the accidents of it. If we know that something has all the accidents of glass then from that we know that it has the substance of glass.

Iron is also hard. It shares an accident with glass, but there are other accidents like color and texture that tell us that iron is something different from glass. Iron has the accidents of iron and these accidents tell us that it has the substance of iron.

The substance of iron is not the element Fe but the fact that it has “iron-ness” The simple fact that it “IS iron”

I’m concerned that if I keep typing, this will get more confusing. So let me leave it at that for now and ask if this makes sense so far?
 
prodigalson2011 said:
With ya so far, Fr. David 🙂
Carry on!
Click to expand...
That’s the one reply I was not anticipating!🙂

Most of the time, the substance of something and the accidents of something are “the same.” A bar or iron has both the accidents of iron and the substance of iron. A loaf of bread has both the accidents of bread and the substance of bread. This is true for everything in the natural world (although the ancients did not necessarily always see it that way).

Substance can be changed.

A bar of iron (accidents and substance) can be changed into a pound of nails. Each nail would have the accidents and substance of nails.

A tree has the accidents and substance of a tree; but one can take parts of that tree and make them into lumber. Accidents and substance of lumber.

Take nails and lumber, put them together. One now has a table. Accidents and substance of a table.

Accidents and substance are something that can be changed by everyday actions. However, they always “go together” meaning that if the accidents are changed, the substance likewise changes. The table does not have the substance of a tree–instead it has the substance of a table (table-ness) because it now has the accidents of a table (flat top, legs, etc).

The point here is NOT to think like a modern-day thinker and say “wood is wood; therefore a table has the same substance as a tree.” No. Substance doesn’t mean “what it’s made out of” but “what it IS.” It has tree-ness or it has lumber-ness or it has table-ness.

We can change the accidents of something and this causes the substance to change (tree-ness into table-ness); but keep in mind that one cannot change without the other changing.

The only way that something can have the accidents of A but have the substance of B is if a miracle occurs.

That takes us back to the original question.

When we drink wine, we get drunk. This happens not because “we drink wine” because the substance-alone of wine cannot actually do or cause anything. The substance of wine is nothing more than it’s “wine-ness.”

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.

By the consecration, the substance of the wine no longer exists, but has been replaced by the substance of the Blood of Christ–hence transubstantiation. However, the accidents of wine remain. This is the miracle. Normally, the accidents of a thing are attached to the substance. In the consecrated Eucharist, the accidents of wine remain, but they remain “unattached” to the substance of the Blood of Christ–meaning that we have the substance of A but the accidents of B (remember that normally, if we have the substance of A we necessarily have the accidents of A). This difference between the accidents and the substance can only happen by a miracle.

Conclusion: Since the accidents of bread and wine remain in the Eucharist, all of the results of those accidents (like a reaction to the gluten in the wheat or a reaction to the alcohol) still happen; but those reactions are caused by the accidents, not caused by the substance.

Again, I’ll stop here and await a response.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Good!

So where do we go from here? Am I to take it that your original question is now satisfied?

I’m signing-off for the night, so if the answer is “no” I’ll get back to you tomorrow.
Click to expand...
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.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
…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**. 🤷…
Click to expand...
Who is saying that He does not? The Church simply says that in general we should expect that the accidents will still look and feel the same. However, that does not mean that after consecration the accidents will never be different. There are documented cases were the accidents were different.
 
I was thinking what remains aside from the physical accidents after the miracle that takes place in Transubstantiation is completely imbued in supernatural essence, that being Jesus Christ Himself being fully and substantially present. As someone already touched base on; if it was not for the imbued supernatural essence of Jesus Himself miraculously present, the physical accidents alone would cease to exist.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top