Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is a transmitter of diseases?

[catholictiger]

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.

sorry it took so long to respond we had a hurricane go through here last week so that had me alittle preoccupied .

but anyway accidents aren’t a necessary part of a substance they only explain them. White isn’t a part of the human substance rather it is an accident. Not sure how I can explain this better. Is there something you are confused about.

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 –

just to double check you know what your talking about, define prime matter.

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 :

yeah sure but I think you may be confused about what prime matter is. Please explain to me what you think it is prime matter is.

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”] ) .

you are way off here I don’t think you truly get what prime matter, accidents and substance mean.

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) .

I’ve been through 20+ course hours of philosophy including metaphysics I love to discuss this stuff.

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

simplicity doesn’t mean that he is easy to understand, rather it is the most simple of possible beings, or another way to explain it is that he is existence no other living creator can be simpler then pure existence. But I would give anyone 20 billion dollars if they can describe to me scientifically what pure existence looks like. I don’t have that kinda money because no one will ever be able to explain that.

God is simple in the fact that he basic uniform and other stuff like that. Not that he is easy to understand. Actually God is the hardest being to understand in the world. Lots of ink has been spilt over the concept of God.

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

yes but then when you get into why it happens what remains in it along with other things its gets very complicated.

 

[catholictiger]

Highlights mine

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.

I would like to here these questions cause I thought I did a good job explaining it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I wrote a bit more about substance and accidents in another thread. I’ll link it here because I’m too lazy to rewrite it and put in context, my posts should be easy to find.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9727693#post9727693

Anyway my understanding of substance and accidents is in there.

 

[NeedImprovement]

sorry it took so long to respond we had a hurricane go through here last week so that had me alittle preoccupied . . .

Not a problem . I know what it’s like to be squeezed for time, and we’re probably better off to go at our own speed – at least on this one anyway. . . always happy to have members contributing. We post when we can – that’s all.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . I’ve been through 20+ course hours of philosophy including metaphysics I love to discuss this stuff. . .

That’s great, but I think we also need to bear in mind that not everyone reading this thread shares that love, so if we can, we should try to strike a balance . Philosophy (scholasticism particularly) is extremely useful in what it can bring to theological insights and descriptions, particularly the principle of abstraction. St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian as well as a philosopher. But premises in theology are divinely revealed , while the discipline of philosophy relies on natural reason alone. Furthermore, philosophy is a way of thinking , but it isn’t the only way of thinking – a statement which I believe no two philosophers would have any trouble agreeing/disagreeing with.

Quite notably Blaise Pascal said , “The heart has its reasons of which the mind knows nothing.”

Surely God didn’t intend Holy Communion to be primarily for intellectuals , particularly in light of Luke 10:21 and Matt 11:25-26

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . but anyway accidents aren’t a necessary part of a substance they only explain them. . .

According to scholastic thought – yes . But to recognize that in the thought process the mind arrives at this conclusion , one has to be able to systematically remove every materially individuating and quantitative character of the substance – one must be able to perform the abstractions. As pointed out previously :Not everyone is capable of recognizing or of being personally aware of this process .

Although you may say “but anyway accidents aren’t a necessary part of a substance” , it is equally true to say that **accidents are a crucially necessary part of the Blessed Sacrament **. Christ intended them that way, and without the accidents/species, we could not “ Take this all of you and eat it. This is my Body…”

I believe their necessity is beyond dispute. One way of expressing that necessity is this quote from a theologian who was a true 20th century Catholic Thomist heavyweight - Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. :

By this change, then, of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, this body, itself remaining unchanged, becomes really present under the accidents of the bread, because these accidents lose the real and containing relation they had to the substance of the bread and they acquire a new, real, and containing relation to the body of Christ. This new real relation presupposes a real foundation, which is transubstantiation

Saint Thomas Aquinas said it this way in the Summa:

A sacrament is so termed because it contains something sacred. Now a thing can be styled sacred from two causes; either absolutely, or in relation to something else. The difference between the Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that whereas the Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely, namely, Christ’s own body; the baptismal water contains something which is sacred in relation to something else, namely, the sanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and such like. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is completed in the very consecration of the matter, whereas the other sacraments are completed in the application of the matter for the sanctifying of the individual. And from this follows another difference . . .

One more from Catholic Encyclopedia:

The majority of theologians rightly respond to the query by saying, that neither the species themselves nor the Body and Blood of Christ by themselves, but the union of both factors constitute the moral whole of the Sacrament of the Altar. The species undoubtedly belong to the essence of the sacrament, since it is by means of them, and not by means of the invisible Body of Christ, that the Eucharist possesses the outward sign of the sacrament. Equally certain is it, that the Body and the Blood of Christ belong to the concept of the essence, because it is not the mere unsubstantial appearances which are given for the food of our souls but Christ concealed beneath the appearances . . .
newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

Once a sacrament is completed , how is one supposed to be able to dissect it ?

Trying to separate the accidents from our Blessed Lord in this Sacrament would seem almost as futile as trying to separate Christ’s divinity from His humanity in the hypostatic union.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Although the debate is appreciated, I confess to being less appreciative of comments that might appear to contain overtones which could be deemed slightly snide in their nature.

… . . just to double check you know what your talking about, define prime matter.

. . . yeah sure but I think you may be confused about what prime matter is. Please explain to me what you think it is prime matter is.

. . . you are way off here I don’t think you truly get what prime matter, accidents and substance mean.

Most of what I posted which evoked the above commentary is paraphrased ,quoted or inferred from what several very accomplished Catholic professors of Philosophy have written.

I suspect what may have thrown catholictiger off was the first half (w/o quotes) of this section:

NeedImprovement:

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”] )

I’m having considerable difficulty following the logic of someone who would think that a person who speaks about* substantial form *would not first know what *prime matter *(or its counterpart – form) is. Regarding substantial form, I was leading towards something else. But maybe he wasn’t there yet. So here’s where I was going :

It was necessary to mention composites earlier so we could look at why the accidents of bread and wine cannot “inhere” in God.

The human soul is the *substantial form *of the human composite. For anyone who has been able to absorb enough scholastic philosophy that allows them to grasp the aforementioned, it can be valuable for the purposes of a particular analogy. Yet even without a metaphysical background ,this particular analogy is most appropriate in helping us get a better grip on the mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

The analogy presented in Catholic Encyclopedia is that our Lord Jesus being present under the accidents/species of the bread and wine is similar to how a human soul is present in a human body (highlights mine) :

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

The first, the only mode of presence proper to bodies, is that by virtue of which an object is confined to a determinate portion of space in such wise that its various parts (atoms, molecules, electrons) also occupy their corresponding positions in that space. The second mode of presence, that properly belonging to a spiritual being, requires the substance of a thing to exist in its entirety in the whole of the space, as well as whole and entire in each part of that space. The latter is the soul’s mode of presence in the human body. The distinction made between these two modes of presence is important, inasmuch as in the Eucharist both kinds are found in combination. For, in the first place, there is verified a continuous definitive multilocation, called also replication, which consists in this, that the Body of Christ is totally present in each part of the continuous and as yet unbroken Host and also totally present throughout the whole Host, just as the human soul is present in the body. And precisely this latter analogy from nature gives us an insight into the possibility of the Eucharistic miracle. For if, as has been seen above, Divine omnipotence can in a supernatural manner impart to a body such a spiritual, unextended, spatially uncircumscribed mode of presence, which is natural to the soul as regards the human body, one may well surmise the possibility of Christ’s Eucharistic Body being present in its entirety in the whole Host, and whole and entire in each part thereof.

How can we separate a human soul from a body ?

Isn’t St. Thomas Aquinas saying not only that our Blessed Lord is just as present under the appearances of the bread and wine in the Sacrament as the bread and wine were present under those appearances prior to transubstantiation ; but that this also must be taken on faith?
(highlights mine)

Summa III, 75 :5,8

Reply to Objection 2. There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception. And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.

Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above (Article 5), some of these expressions may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that “bread is the body of Christ,” or, “bread will be the body of Christ,” or “the body of Christ is made of bread”; provided that by the word “bread” is not understood the substance of bread, but in general “that which is contained under the species of bread,” under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.

@catholictiger : I don’t know if this will help you at all to understand me personally, but I have to think *outside the box * too - not only within someone else’s box’s dimensions.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Highlights mine

catholictiger:

. . 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. .
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.

I would like to here these questions cause I thought I did a good job explaining it.

Well it sounds to me like you’re saying our Blessed Lord’s Presence in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar is merely symbolic , or that He exists along side the accidents or the sacred species (which is a human way to think, ). Maybe you could explain how it doesn’t say that.

There are mysteries in the Eucharist which defy human logic. For example:

If our Blessed Lord is not somehow, as you say “a part of the accidents” then how could we ever eat His Body or drink His Blood ?

 

[JimG]

If our Blessed Lord is not somehow, as you say “a part of the accidents” then how could we ever eat His Body or drink His Blood ?

I’ll let catholictiger answer for himself, but I would like to comment at least on this part.

How is the substance of Jesus Christ related to the accidents of bread and wine after the consecration?

Several things seem apparent to me. First, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in Jesus. He has his own proper accidents, which we do not perceive in the Eucharist. Jesus remains himself; he does not turn into a little white wafer. When we receive him we receive him in his entirety, not just a part of him.
]
Second, it is said that Jesus is present under the accidents of bread and wine. He is not present IN them. By that phrasing I mean to differentiate Catholic belief from something closer to consubstantiation. For if Jesus were present in and with the accidents, then dividing the accidents would divide Jesus. But it doesn’t. If we break the host in two, Jesus is present whole and entire in both separated pieces. But Jesus is not divided into pieces. There is not a different Jesus present in each piece, or in each communion wafer, for that matter.

So in what way then are the accidents related to Jesus? It seems to me that they form the (to us) perceptible boundaries of his sacramental presence, while at the same time not inhering in him.

I

 

[catholictiger]

Well it sounds to me like you’re saying our Blessed Lord’s Presence in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar is merely symbolic , or that He exists along side the accidents or the sacred species (which is a human way to think, ). Maybe you could explain how it doesn’t say that.

There are mysteries in the Eucharist which defy human logic. For example:

If our Blessed Lord is not somehow, as you say “a part of the accidents” then how could we ever eat His Body or drink His Blood ?

no I am not saying this I still don’t think you have quite a grasp on what accidents are.

Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion. For Aristotle there are 10 categories into which things naturally fall. They are
Substance, and
Nine Accidents:
Quantity,
Quality,
Relation,
Action,
Passion,
Time,
Place,
Disposition (the arrangement of parts), and
Rainment (whether a thing is dressed or armed, etc.)
All these distinctions are basically logical, but in a sense they reflect the structure of reality. One never finds any substance that we experience without some accidents, nor an accident that is not the accident of a substance. Every dog, for instance, has some color, place, size. Nevertheless, it is obvious that what a dog is is not the same as its color, or its size, etc.

what are the accidents of the host before consecration

it is one or many, white or off white mostly, taste of bread, some has crosses embedded in them others have an image of christ. very small to medium sized, easily broken, so on and so forth.

the consecration happens

and what are the accidents

it is one or many, white or off white mostly, taste of bread, some has crosses embedded in them others have an image of christ. very small to medium sized, easily broken, so on and so forth.

or the same thing

but lets look at substance

before the consecration we have bread, if you wanted to be specific you could say alter bread.

then you have the consecration and a substantial change happens

and after this you have Jesus. Body Blood soul and divinity. Everything that Jesus is encompassed in the appearance of Bread and wine.

how this happens, only God knows. But we know what is before and what is after thanks to divine revelation, how that happens is a mystery.

Jesus doesn’t need to be a part of the accidents because accidents don’t make up substance they describe substance. The white shirt I’m wearing doesn’t have the substance of white in it, rather the color white describes my shirt.

I’ve done my best to explain this.

 

[catholictiger]

note: sorry I have been so slow about responding as of late, seminary life is taking over my life and becoming the top priority of my life so on the totem poll of my life this is like number 20. Christ comes first in my life and Christ wants my formation to be first in my life. So if I go a few days without responding its because seminary life has me very busy.

In Christ through Mary

CT

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I always thought that only the bread and wine change into the substance of Jesus. If any diseases or germs are there they don’t change. If there is a speck of dust on the bread or in the wine that doesn’t change. If a fly were to be on the bread or in the wine it wouldn’t change.

So the answer to this whole stupid thread is easy–Jesus IS NOT a transmitter of diseases.

If any diseases are present IN or ON the bread or wine that has nothing to do with Jesus–that’s called LIFE in the present universe.

Last time I checked about ANYTHING you can possibly eat or drink in the entire universe may have germs or disease!

I don’t know about any of the rest of you but I’m not going to stop eating or drinking and I’m certainly not going to stop eating Jesus’ flesh or drinking His blood!

I don’t mind catching diseases–I do mind going to Hell!

 

[catholictiger]

So the answer to this whole stupid thread is easy

please use charity brother

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)