I fully understand the western notion of “accidents”, thank you very much, I already made reference to it in an earlier post. “Accidents” are contrasted with “substance”; “substance” is what a thing is, and “accidents” in Thomistic thought are pretty much appearances.
Apparently you don’t understand what accidents are, actually. First of all they are an “Eastern” concept, not a Western one; they come from Greek philosophy, and are utilized by the Greek Fathers in defining the Faith. This division wasn’t generally used in the West until after the Great Schism, when Eastern texts were translated into Latin.
Accidents are the features of a thing, while the substance is the thing itself. So bread is bread (substance: bread) and it has the accidents of quantity (size and number) texture, color, ect. Accidents aren’t mere appearances, but are the features of the thing itself. They are not “contrasted” with substance, but are defining qualities of it; I have real pale flesh, and I have real mass and texture. These things aren’t merely appearances, they are defining aspects of me.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas the substance changes, but the accidents remain, and the accidents are quite real. The key point is that the accidents that remain, though real, don’t refer directly to the substance any longer, nor do they refer to any existing substance. So while the accidents of bread may weigh a gram, and be an inch long, Christ does not weigh a gram and stretch only an inch. The Earthly qualities remain in place, but the thing has changed and there is no substance that is defined by the very real accidents that remain.
This is why citing the Early Fathers really doesn’t support your thesis, because in every case that they refer to “earthly realities” they can be understood to be refering to the accidents; even in the definition of transubstantiation the “earthly reality” of bread remains, though it is now the Body of Christ. The quote from St. Irenaeus, for example, makes no contrast at all that would suggest that the bread itself remains. He merely states what is accepted by all Apostolic Christians as the very definition of Sacrament, namely that an Earthly reality conveys a Heavenly reality. The accidents aren’t an illusion, they just don’t represent the underlying fact of what remains.
The reason that this distinction is important may not be immediately obvious (and making an intellectual distinction isn’t necessary for proper practice and piety), but it is clear in the practices of all Apostolic Christians. Bread is not given in the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ is given. If the Eucharist is desecrated, it is not bread that is attacked, but Christ. If both substances remained there would be grounds to say that grinding up the Eucharist under your foot was merely attacking bread and not Christ. The only other way around this problem would be to say that even though you are crushing bread it is actually Christ also, which would imply that Christ has the texture and qualities of bread, which is absurd and against the Faith in the Resurrection of the immutable, impassable body.
In those who don’t make the distinction between accident and substance, it is fine to say that both realities of bread and Christ are present in the Eucharist. It is less precise, but it is accurate. It’s only when discussing the nature of these realities (which St. Irenaeus doesn’t do, nor do any of the Father’s you mentioned) does the distinction become important.
“Scholastic-style Protestant theology”? What on earth are you talking about?
I’m talking about Protestant theology that follows Scholastic style and definitions, like everything written by the Reformers.
And just because Luther had a specific definition of “consubstantiation”, doesn’t mean that every use of it conforms to his definition. Literally, “consubstantiation” simply means two substances inhering simultaneously, which is exactly what St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and Pope St. Gelasius thought happened with the Eucharist. Therefore, it is quite consistent with Apostolic tradition. Joe
Yes, and in that case “transubstantiation” means the exact same thing as consubstantiation, as many Lutherans often claim. Consubstantiation has a specific meaning in theological discussions, and it is specifically contrasted with transubstantiation; merely following the etymology of the words doesn’t get you anywhere, since the etymologies aren’t mutually exclusive.
My point is that in defining this belief, the website in question doesn’t utilize any actual Oriental Orthodox terminology, nor does it cite any Church Fathers. Instead it uses a 16th century Protestant term as its reference point. It might as well have said that Calvin’s TULIP formula is the traditional Orthodox understanding of slavation. It’s questionable not just because of what it says, but in the fact that it references a recent Protestant formula (unless you can show that “consubstantiation” was used prior to the Reformation) and not any statements made by Apostolic Fathers.
Peace and God bless!
