Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is a transmitter of diseases?

[NeedImprovement]

ok I know your not responding to me that much and I understand why not please don’t feel pressured to do so . . .

{@ catholictiger : I had a little more free time than usual last week, but Sundays in particular are very demanding and exhausting - an apostolate which goes from morning well into the evening.By the time I return home, I’m usually totally fried )). This can carry over several days. I also though I’d personally been spending too much time on the forums as it was interfering with my own considerably extensive prayer routine. So I made a decision a few weeks ago to try not to post until most of it is done ; sometimes that means I can’t post on a certain day(s) if I haven’t fulfilled these obligations. That’s usually what determines *when * I post – not much else. (Last Tuesday I had to go 40 miles out of town to drive someone to a hospital in another town about 45 miles from where they live. An intermittent starting problem with my car is eating up a lot of time right now as well – stuff like that happens occasionally ). I don’t believe it’s necessary to explain myself any more than that, nor an additional time.

As stated in the previous post, I’m deeply grateful for the contributions members are making to this thread and am I’m hoping you guys can make the adjustment to these unforeseen delays.}

 

[NeedImprovement]

ok I know your not responding to me that much and I understand why not please don’t feel pressured to do so. But I feel like I need to address this accident issue because from my understanding of accident it doesn’t seem like people have a grasp on what accident means, mainly Aristotle’s view because Aquinas just restates his view point.
. . . but I hope my post cleared up what accidents mean.

I’m not too convinced that I would personally have that much of a problem understanding what accidents are (despite my username ) . I think your example might be better augmented if a little more emphasis were placed on the interdependence of the substance and its accidents. It would make a nicer transition to why they don’t inhere after transubstantiation.

Given the Aristotlean/Thomistic postulation that the two principles of physical being are prime matter and substantial form (subsequently potency and act ,existence and essence ) and that although one enjoys primacy over the other, neither principle is a being in itself because each is incomplete and cannot exist apart from the other ; and that it’s together they constitute a substance – in this case a being (thus each and every being is a composite) – their interdependence being such that when they separate from one another, the substance ceases to exist : Rather than saying that the accidents (predominantly in this case the accidents of quality) are simply “describing” what the substance is , I might be inclined to remain more centered in the Thomistic vein and say that the accidents of quantity and quality are conferred on the composite by the substantial form ; or that “the substance is the subject or the remote potency out of which is educed, this time, not a substantial, but an accidental form. This form does not give the first “to be”, that is, that by which a being is (esse simplicite), but the second “to be”, that is, by which something that already is receives an added perfection (esse secundum quid;esse accidentale”] ) .

Without everyone learning an entirely new vocabulary and learning how to apply it taking an immersion course in scholastic philosophy 101 (maybe even 102) ], I wonder who’ll be able to understand if we keep going . . . ?. . . I would bet more on the likelihood of confusing more than a few members who are following this thread (including myself) .

The Blessed Sacrament was never meant to be complicated. God is simple. God is simplicity itself .

“Take this all of you and eat it. This is my body . . .” - nice and simple, when taken on faith/trust.

 

[NeedImprovement]

JimG:

That’s right, the accidents don’t change. The accidents of bread and wine remain after the consecration.

I’m not sure if the point the OP is trying to make is that Jesus retains the accidents of bread and wine after the consecration, but if so, that would not be correct. That accidents of bread and wine, following transubstantiation, do not inhere in any substance .

I’m really squinting trying to see how I could possibly have given that impression in any of the quotes provided in posts 89 & 90 ; particularly considering that a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas himself was included to seal the deal. But since you want to keep bringing up that the accidents “do not inhere in any substance” without much elucidation to date except suggesting one might be promoting the error of consubstantiation (which I still don’t see anyone claiming), it might be in our interests to present some further philosophical considerations. Commensurate to how far/deeply we have to go into the philosophy, the downside is we are going to start losing people (including myself at some point) along the way. Too bad it has to become complicated.

It isn’t fair to expect fellow members who haven’t spent any serious amount of time on the study of scholastic philosophy to be able to follow all the arguments : Transcendental concepts, the analogical predication of the very notion of being as being- abstraction - predication, predication by affirmative proposition, negative knowledge of God’s essence, multiplicity in beings in the order of essence, substance, individuation in corporeal substances …ad nauseam - aren’t things which can be explained (or grasped) in several posts to someone not previously acquainted with them . Neither is any of this excessive knowledge of philosophy required for the faithful to be admitted to Holy Communion. A simpler definition of transubstantiation suffices.

If you want to insist that I talk about “not inhering” , then personally, I like this quote from *The Philosophy of Being *,by Henri Renard, SJ :

The problem as we face it in philosophy is purely negative and speculative. We do not intend to show that de facto accidents do exist without inhering in a substance. Nor do we say that all accidents can by divine power exist without actual inherence ; a vital act for example, since it is immanent, that is, terminating within the subject , does not appear possible without actual inherence in a living subject. All that we aim to prove is that there is no contradiction in saying that it is not impossible for certain accidents , not actually inhering in the substance , to exist by divine power.

Nothing I’ve ever posted anywhere contradicts that tract – neither does it contradict the doctrine of transubstantiation. Sorry if I’m letting anyone down here by not being a heretic().

With my most sincere apologies to anyone who has been following this thread and is finding it a bit difficult to comprehend now, we have to lay this “not inhering” thing to rest finally so that we can move on. It’s preventing the thread from progressing. Relative to the topic of the thread, if you really think about it, even though consubstantiation is a heresy, and/or whether or not the accidents inhere in any natural substance, there still never would have been any contradiction concerning the accidents – any and all of these views, (no matter how skewed those not admitting to transubstantiation might be) agree that the physical appearances – the accidents of the bread and wine, remain.

Furthermore, no one has ever claimed/asserted any of these heresies on this thread. So if someone happens to believe otherwise, they might have to “predicate” the plausibility of a PEBCAK error.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Here is how I personally see it. I mean this in a cordial manner JimG, if you have any beefs about what follows in this post (or anything(s) you may wish to add on this subject), now would be a more preferable time to address them :

The being of an accident is to inhere (“a being to whose quiddity is due a ‘to be’ in another as in a subject”).

Any implication regarding “accidents not inhering in any substance upon transubstantiation” and an alternate erroneous belief in “consubstantiation”, would initially apply to the bread and the wine. If the accidents inhere in the bread and/or wine after the consecration, then either no change has taken place, or transubstantiation hasn’t taken place and our Blessed Lord is not present at all, or the Body and Blood (Soul and Divinity) of Christ coexist with the bread and wine. We would then say that consubstantiation claims that the bread and wine are not changed into the Body and Blood (Soul and Divinity) of Christ, or at the very least it would deny the change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body of Christ (and of the wine into His Blood) . Many more errors could follow from this one . . . including the assumption that Christ had taken on the nature of the bread ( or wine) which might lead one to conclude that the accidents of the bread and wine inhere in Christ as well.

According to what we know by the senses and the intellect , only the accidents of Christ’s body can inhere in Him . . . to provide a very imperfect, incomplete sequence :

• All beings – inert, plant/vegetative, animal, man, angel are composite , meaning they have parts.
• It begins with matter and form, then act and potency ; but with intellectual beings the composition of potency and act is not in the line of matter and form, but a composition of “form and the participated [according to causes] ‘to be’ ” ;
• then progressing to the angelic nature, it is described as a composition of essence and existence.
• When we finally come to God , scholasticism claims that He is not composite. He is simple. So to say that accidents inhere in God would be to express/imply a notion of imperfection in Him.
• Then we have the subsequent problem of the hypostatic union presenting us with the question whether after Incarnation the Person or Hypostasis of Christ is composite , and how this might imply imperfection- something which Aquinas carefully answers in III,2,4 of the Summa.

When all is said and done, when for example one who believes in angels discovers that the philosopher does not set out to prove that angels exist – only that their existence is possible, when we have been trained to philosophically bark, roll over, play “changed” (as opposed to play “dead”) ; when we have completed the bulk of the obstacle course by jumping through all the prescribed metaphysical hoops, we still discover at the end of the day that, we cannot define God.

Scholastics provide all sorts of titles for God : Cause of created existence ,Immovable Mover, First uncaused Cause, Unparticipated Being , pure and infinite Act , Existence Itself , and most popularly “To Be” (this last one “To Be”] concurs most appropriately with “I Am Who Am” ) , **but we cannot ever define God **– He is beyond definition they tell us , and He is not under a genus.

So when we say that at transubstantiation the substance of bread is changed into the Body Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ , we aren’t saying that a simple substance of bread is transformed into another simple substance , we are saying that the simple substance of bread is transformed into a substance so great He cannot be defined – yes He not It, because from the moment of consecration *quiddity, essence, nature, and substance * which are all synonymous for the “whatness” are at a loss to define the “Whoness” - the *Author of all Whatness * present in the Holy Eucharist and to explain how He is present in the Blessed Sacrament - that is a mystery. They can only say that His Presence in the Blessed Sacrament is not contrary to reason.

 

[NeedImprovement]

NeedImprovement, you give a lot of wonderful quotes on the Eucharist, most of them relating to how Holy is it is and how wonderful Jesus’s presence is, and how reverential we must be around the Host. All of which I agree with. If a consecrated host were dropped on a scummy, dirty floor scuffed up by shoes I would eat it to avoid desecration of the host.

But I don’t see how any of this relates to the idea of germs (I think we can agree that calling bacteria and viruses germs allows for ease of usage) being present on physical objects.

Let’s get even more basic here. The Host is a physical object. Physical objects can carry other physical objects on top of them, including germs. Now we ingest the physical object, with the germs on top of it. Then we conclude that the germs have been transmitted by the physical object into our bodies.

The consecrated host, although it now contains the Real Presence, is still a physical object. Therefore it can still carry other physical objects, including germs. Therefore the consecrated Host can transmit the germs into our bodies when ingested.

Thanks for this post MA - really makes it nice and concise and on topic - it will make a great reference to take up a stance more central to the topic again once our “inherent” problem )) gets resolved.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Highlights mine

catholictiger;9664705:

. . . now change bread into Jesus. Also explain what it looks like. You will probably explain round white small and so on and so forth. So as you can see the accidents haven’t changed. So Jesus doesn’t in fact have to be a part of the accidents

only has to change the substance. . .

That’s right . . .

I would have several questions regarding the highlighted part myself , but . . . totally out of time right now guys - will address them sooner than later I hope.

 

[cranster]

I’ve been recieving communion for almost 50 years, and haven’t gotten sick from it yet, and if I did then what a wonderful opportunity to enter into Christ’s suffering, and if I were to get sick enough to die then what a way to go… It would mean sooner rather than later getting to stare into the eyes of infinite love, and into the face of infinite beauty forever… Where do I sign up?

 

[fred_conty]

JimG, you said,

"As to whether or not Jesus when present on earth in his own proper species was exempt from the carrying of germs, I suppose that is a matter for speculation. Since he was and is fully human, I would guess that bacteria affected his body much the same as anyone else’s body, including of course, the beneficial bacteria. "​

Beneficial bacteria is goodness, not a sickness. Since he was perfect and without sin, and sickness is the result of sin, he could not get sick, and it was never said that he ever was sick, although the bible did say he was tired. As far as his suffering and passion affecting him, St. Thomas said that he blocked his beatific vision so that he might truely suffer. If this were not true then he certainly would be fooling everyone.​

Now I would like to express my personal thoughts about the understanding of the Eucharist and the transmission of sickness.

From the Thomistic and Aristotealian thought, it seems that sickness could be spread thru the accidents if that is all that is considered.

However from the pastorial point of view of Christ being the good shepherd, it dosen’t seem possible. It was said that he cured everyone that was sick that was brought to him. This would be contrary to curing everyone if people went to him and were made sick.Especially if he is upholding the accidents, that would seem to make him responsible for the substance of a germ or virus upheld by accidents that he is upholding. The reason I say “he”(Christ), is that where one person of the trinity is, all persons are present since there is but one God. And since the pope said God is upholding the accidents, then Christ is upholding the accidents even tho the accidents are not a part of him.

From a rational philosophical approach, my arm is twisted so much that I would have to say “uncle” or yes the transmission of germs is possible.

But from the knowledge that Jesus gave us this great sacrament of his body to give us more life, and “unless you eat of my flesh…you cannot have life in you”, it seems so contradictory of this very sacrament. Even tho it is to give supernatural life, it would still be contradictory to the sacramental sign to transmit physical death at the same time it transmits super-life.

So philosophically “yes”, pastorially and sacramentally “no”, I would say.

In addition, Aristotle is only one philosopher among many. St. Thomas might have picked some other philosophy or made one of his own. It’s possible, and then we might not be discussing accidents and substance but something else. I do not feel that everything can be adequately expressed by using Aristotle as our basis for theology, but it is the best we have and what St. Thomas chose to use, and what we are limited by. And from this point of view I would again say “no”.

Just a few of my own thoughts which are only thoughts.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So philosophically “yes”, pastorially and sacramentally “no”, I would say.

That’s an interesting answer, and I can see your logic behind it.

The thing is, tiredness has an unpleasant effect on the body. It’s the absence of what we’ll call “practical consciousness”. So Jesus could clearly be affected by “evil”; He chose to be a mere human, subject to our limitations.

I think that, sacramentally, the Eucharist CAN have a healing effect on the body, and many times it does. I think counting on it to have a healing effect every time is a mistake.

I also think that we might be getting to wrapped up in what the physical effects of the Eucharist may be. Yeah, it might make us sick, but so much? Since we are physical beings Our Lord made himself present physically for us to receive him, but receiving Him is meant to help our eternal soul and help join in Christian brotherhood and, of course, help us avoid Hell.

So sure we might get physically sick. But if that’s the side effect…well, is it that what’s really important in the end?

 

[JimG]

fred conty, if I understand you correctly, your position is that yes, the accidents of bread and wine could transmit disease, but Jesus would not allow them to.

I don’t think that’s a teaching of the Church, so I suppose it’s a theological opinion.
Still, I would not recommend receiving from the cup in the midst of a plague or even in the midst of a serious flu season.

 

[fred_conty]

fred conty, if I understand you correctly, your position is that yes, the accidents of bread and wine could transmit disease, but Jesus would not allow them to.

I don’t think that’s a teaching of the Church, so I suppose it’s a theological opinion.
Still, I would not recommend receiving from the cup in the midst of a plague or even in the midst of a serious flu season.

There is no requirement to receive under both species, but is the choice of each individual.

At every Sunday Mass, any number of people chose not to receive under both species.

And for years only the precious body was offered.

However if one is concerned during the flue season, this might be extended also to the precious body as well. For the bread hosts are handled by those making them, shipping them, and putting them in the ciborium, and the celebrant is also a suspect in this case.

Just a thought.

 

[JimG]

There is no requirement to receive under both species, but is the choice of each individual.

At every Sunday Mass, any number of people chose not to receive under both species.

And for years only the precious body was offered.

However if one is concerned during the flue season, this might be extended also to the precious body as well. For the bread hosts are handled by those making them, shipping them, and putting them in the ciborium, and the celebrant is also a suspect in this case.

Just a thought.

Quite true. Germs can be spread in a number of ways. During the flu season the main concern might be sneezing or touching. So appropriate caution may be needed.

There is of course, no requirement to receive under either species, except for one’s Easter duty… But the requirement to attend Mass weekly is independent of that.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, this includes anthrax, bird flu, germs etc. God has ultimate power and authority over any contamination that might be on the bread or wine.

Christ was nailed to the cross and died for me and this is something that I do not deserve, how can I then deny Christ my Saviour by saying I cannot eat your body and drink your blood, because of possible contamination?

Blessings

Eric

 

[NeedImprovement]

If Jesus can die for us on the Cross then we can drink Him at communion–who CARES?

Why should ANYONE CARE about diseases?

Did Jesus care about diseases that might have been on the actual cross?!

Seems like He turned out alright!

If you die from diseases contracted through drinking the cup at Holy Communion rejoice and count it as God’s will!–the same way you should rejoice if you contract them through eating His body at Holy Communion!

. . .

It’s called Life!

I’ve been receiving communion for almost 50 years, and haven’t gotten sick from it yet, and if I did then what a wonderful opportunity to enter into Christ’s suffering, and if I were to get sick enough to die then what a way to go… It would mean sooner rather than later getting to stare into the eyes of infinite love, and into the face of infinite beauty forever… Where do I sign up?

God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, this includes anthrax, bird flu, germs etc. God has ultimate power and authority over any contamination that might be on the bread or wine.

Christ was nailed to the cross and died for me and this is something that I do not deserve, how can I then deny Christ my Saviour by saying I cannot eat your body and drink your blood, because of possible contamination?

Blessings

Eric

It’s edifying . . . a blessing, to have people share their personal professions of faith in the Blessed Sacrament through convictions similar to and including those quoted above. They speak of that *intimate union *with our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion – that union which He seeks the most, with each individual one of us ; each one of us being a work in progress in this respect (highlights mine) :

CCC 1382

The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.

By claiming/asserting that our Blessed Lord is a transmitter of diseases in Holy Communion ( something which, as far as I am aware has never been scientifically proven), we can impair/affect another’s disposition towards this intimate union Christ desires with them.

St. Thomas Aquinas himself says this Sacrament has to be taken on faith .

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . So sure we might get physically sick. But if that’s the side effect…well, is it that what’s really important in the end?

That’s a great positive outlook , but since we are without scientific proof , I’m still of the opinion that (even if transmission of disease were logical) our Blessed Lord, being Who He is, might provide an exemption for Holy Communion – intending Himself more as a strength for us to bear the crosses of our illness rather than to be an instrument in spreading them . . . what was it the prophet Isaiah said again ?

[Matt 8:17 ; NAB]
. . . to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: “He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.”

(It’s not like such an exemption [so to speak] would in any way put a dent in, or reduce in any significant manner, the sum total of the countless ways in which we humans become sick)

The thing is, tiredness has an unpleasant effect on the body. It’s the absence of what we’ll call “practical consciousness”. So Jesus could clearly be affected by “evil”; He chose to be a mere human, subject to our limitations. . .

True in most cases. But to concede a little, we might also recall those scriptural references of instances in His earthly life – pre-Resurrection , where our Blessed Lord showed us that even prior to His Resurrection , He could do whatever He wished with His own body . One such instance would be the Transfiguration , which confirms Jesus is the Son of God.

Another is when He came to the disciples walking on the water [Matt 14:22-33] . . . a true miracle – able to walk on the water, yet clasp the hand of Peter as He was sinking. Proving He could do with His body as He pleased – no surprise there philosophically since His body and soul were a perfect unity of nature – unaffected by sin [John 10:17-18]

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . .From a rational philosophical approach, my arm is twisted so much that I would have to say “uncle” or yes the transmission of germs is possible.

. . . So philosophically “yes”, pastorially and sacramentally “no”, I would say.

. . .

My own arm is still a little stubborn on that one ( ) . I believe there is ample room for a plausible assertion to the contrary as we go ; and this philosophically.

I believe the limitation often lies more in our personal way of thinking and perceiving something than what is actually there.

For example , we’ve all had a little exposure, a little time to become acquainted with the idea of physical accidents , and particularly of the physical accidents of the Blessed Sacrament. Concurrently, we have an idea of how, according to the scholastics, accidents must inhere in a substance. Subsequently , we have been reminded that, also according to the scholastic train of thought ergo Catholic Doctrine on the Eucharist ,that transubstantiation is truly a miracle and a mystery because the accidents do not inhere in any substance.

The scholastics also tell us why the accidents cannot inhere in God.

If we permit all that to simply remain as stated , we might imply a disconnectedness in the Blessed Sacrament - one which I don’t believe really exists. So here are several questions to ponder:

• Could our Blessed Lord possibly be providing us with a little window through which we may view His infinite humility and infinite love for us in this Sacrament ? Let us consider again that accidents must inhere in a substance ; that also the interdependence is such that if the substance and the accidents become separated , the substance ceases to exist ; and finally that the accidents of the bread and wine in the Blessed Sacrament do not inhere in any substance.
• Now shift our focus from what to Who. Who is it who conforms most to the way an accident exists when we consider this Blessed Sacrament ? Similar to how an accident inheres in a substance, Who is it who in His humility remains in the Blessed Sacrament ? Similar to how, should the accidents ever become separated from the substance then the substance ceases to exist , Who , when the accidents cease to exist also ceases to be present ?

. . . All out of ineffable love for us.

 

[fred_conty]

My own arm is still a little stubborn on that one ( ) . I believe there is ample room for a plausible assertion to the contrary as we go ; and this philosophically.

I believe the limitation often lies more in our personal way of thinking and perceiving something than what is actually there.

For example , we’ve all had a little exposure, a little time to become acquainted with the idea of physical accidents , and particularly of the physical accidents of the Blessed Sacrament. Concurrently, we have an idea of how, according to the scholastics, accidents must inhere in a substance. Subsequently , we have been reminded that, also according to the scholastic train of thought ergo Catholic Doctrine on the Eucharist ,that transubstantiation is truly a miracle and a mystery because the accidents do not inhere in any substance.

The scholastics also tell us why the accidents cannot inhere in God.

If we permit all that to simply remain as stated , we might imply a disconnectedness in the Blessed Sacrament - one which I don’t believe really exists. So here are several questions to ponder:

• Could our Blessed Lord possibly be providing us with a little window through which we may view His infinite humility and infinite love for us in this Sacrament ? Let us consider again that accidents must inhere in a substance ; that also the interdependence is such that if the substance and the accidents become separated , the substance ceases to exist ; and finally that the accidents of the bread and wine in the Blessed Sacrament do not inhere in any substance.
• Now shift our focus from what to Who. Who is it who conforms most to the way an accident exists when we consider this Blessed Sacrament ? Similar to how an accident inheres in a substance, Who is it who in His humility remains in the Blessed Sacrament ? Similar to how, should the accidents ever become separated from the substance then the substance ceases to exist , Who , when the accidents cease to exist also ceases to be present ?

. . . All out of ineffable love for us.

There are many sides to this story, one of which is the philosophy of Aristotle which St. Thomas adopted for this theology. And if we accept his cold hard indifferent logic about accidents and substance and their relationship, then the logic comes to one conclusion, transmission of germs by accidents. Now I am only talking about logic not the other points of our faith.

If we adhere to St. Thomas’s thinking, then I don’t see a way around this. I would be interested if you have another way of explaining why germs would not be transmitted if, for example, accidents were suspended in another being. Would these accidents in this other being transmit germs if eaten? If this is so, then there is no reason, based on logic, why the accidents of the sacred species too cannot do this. By this I am not saying that the blessed Sacrament does, but that according to our logic based on accidents, that logically it can.

Just a thought.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There are many sides to this story, one of which is the philosophy of Aristotle which St. Thomas adopted for this theology. And if we accept his cold hard indifferent logic about accidents and substance and their relationship, then the logic comes to one conclusion, transmission of germs by accidents. Now I am only talking about logic not the other points of our faith.

If we adhere to St. Thomas’s thinking, then I don’t see a way around this. I would be interested if you have another way of explaining why germs would not be transmitted if, for example, accidents were suspended in another being. Would these accidents in this other being transmit germs if eaten? If this is so, then there is no reason, based on logic, why the accidents of the sacred species too cannot do this. By this I am not saying that the blessed Sacrament does, but that according to our logic based on accidents, that logically it can.

Just a thought.

The order of St. Thomas Aquinas’ logic as I see it, does not (as so many opinions on this thread have) begin at the assertion of the accidents of the bread and wine remaining in the Blessed Sacrament , but rather first admits to some of these “other points of our faith.”

The notion of the accidents being held in existence without inhering in any substance is inferred from his prior reasoning – a position which presupposes an anterior point or points of departure which would necessarily be based on :

• a personal confession of faith that Christ is the Son of God ,
• that He – our Blessed Lord, commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood,
• and that St. Thomas Aquinas truly believes that through the words of institution combined with the celebrant’s intention a substantial change from the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood (Soul and Divinity) of Christ takes place at the consecration.

He can only arrive at the inference of the accidents of the bread and wine remaining after the consecration antecedent to the aforementioned.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . And if we accept his cold hard indifferent logic about accidents and substance and their relationship, then the logic comes to one conclusion, transmission of germs by accidents. Now I am only talking about logic not the other points of our faith.

If we adhere to St. Thomas’s thinking, then I don’t see a way around this . . . .

This appears to presume that St. Thomas Aquinas would be of the mind that a consecrated Host could transmit germs (ergo disease). What I said earlier - “My own arm is a little stubborn. . . ” , is because I’m convinced that St. Thomas, according to what he actually writes, is not of this mind at all and that this position can be presented plausibly as we progress on the thread.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . If we adhere to St. Thomas’s thinking, then I don’t see a way around this. I would be interested if you have another way of explaining why germs would not be transmitted if, for example, accidents were suspended in another being. Would these accidents in this other being transmit germs if eaten? If this is so, then there is no reason, based on logic, why the accidents of the sacred species too cannot do this. By this I am not saying that the blessed Sacrament does, but that according to our logic based on accidents, that logically it can.

Just a thought.

I apologize fred conty, but I’m not really “getting” what you mean to say in that part quoted above.

• Re “accidents were suspended in another being” : I thought we were speaking about remaining accidents which inhered in no being ; accidents which lacked any underlying substance.
• Re “there is no reason, based on logic, why the accidents of the sacred species too cannot do this” : The *sacred species *are the accidents ; they are precisely the same - they are entirely everything we perceive physically as the Host – they are what we eat when we receive our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion ; and He told us “Take this all of you and eat it, this is my Body. . . ”

From : Modern Catholic Dictionary ; John Hardon, S.J.

SPECIES.
Appearances, especially those of bread and wine, after the Eucharistic consecration. The term “species” is used by the Council of Trent (Denzinger 1652) to identify the accidents, i.e., the size, weight, color, resistance, taste, and odor of bread, which remain exactly the same after transubstantiation. They are not mere appearances as though these physical properties were unreal. But they are appearances because after the consecration they lack any substance that underlies them or in which they inhere.