Precious Blood & Transubstantiation

[dizzy_dave]

I was listening to Catholic Answers Live on January 5th with Karl Keeting and Jimmy Akin, a woman called talking about not taking the precious Blood at Communion because of getting sick, they then talked about it some and then talked about the amount of alcohol it takes to kill the germs and viruses and Karl said it would not contain enough alcohol to kill the germs (the precious blood). I tought the wine was no longer wine, therefore no alcohol, I had someone then tell me about the accidents, I do not understand “accidents” very well. I know the bread and wine are now changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Since it can’t be two things how can accidents remain? Can someone better explain this term accident or point me to a good rescource about it? Thank you and God Bless.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

I believe this was first really thought out by Aquinas, but I could be wrong. What he did was point out that there every subject (thing) has a substance and accidence. The substance is what the thing is, while the accidence is what characterizes the thing. For example, each person has a substance, though the accidence changes. I may lose an arm, a leg, an eye, etc., but I remain the same person. The accidence changes; the substance remains.
With the Eucharist, it is the opposite. The substance changes, the accidence remains. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. The accidence remains, which is why the Eucharist still looks like bread and wine, tastes like bread and wine, and has alcohol.

I hope someone will post who can explain this better than I can, but I hope I helped just a little bit.

 

[csbyrnes84]

Someone else could better explain this, but the term accidents is a Thomistic classification created by St. Thomas Aquinas in order to explain complex theological concepts.

Now as to the basic part of your question. Yes the wine is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, however the wine is still present in the chalice, so you could pass germs through it or even get a little bit tipsy if you drank too much of it.

Similarly the Host is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, however the accident is bread in this situation.

dizzy_dave:

I was listening to Catholic Answers Live on January 5th with Karl Keeting and Jimmy Akin, a woman called talking about not taking the precious Blood at Communion because of getting sick, they then talked about it some and then talked about the amount of alcohol it takes to kill the germs and viruses and Karl said it would not contain enough alcohol to kill the germs (the precious blood). I tought the wine was no longer wine, therefore no alcohol, I had someone then tell me about the accidents, I do not understand “accidents” very well. I know the bread and wine are now changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Since it can’t be two things how can accidents remain? Can someone better explain this term accident or point me to a good rescource about it? Thank you and God Bless.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

While the answers already given have been, basically, correct, there is also a lack of precision here.

St. Thomas Aquinas used existing philosophical dualism to describe accidents and substance (he did not invent these concepts). What Aquinas describes is fairly complex, but can be simplified as follows:

Substance is what makes a thing what it is. For example, a rose might be yellow or red or any other color, yet it is still a rose. That’s because the substance of a rose is independent of its accidents.

**Accidents **are the physical characteristics of a thing. Thus, the color red associated with a rose is an accident, it is not the rose. The same would be true for the smell, feel, size and so on.

What the term *transubstantiation *describes is actually two miracles: first, the substance of bread and wine is totally replaces with the *substance *of Jesus. Second, the *accidents *of bread and wine remain without their associated substance.

Thus, if one chemically analyzes the Blessed Sacrament or the Precious Blood all that will be found are the accidents, and those will be the accidents of bread and wine. Yet, we know that there is no bread and there is no wine because the *substance *of Jesus has replaced the substance of bread and wine.

Now, getting to Dave’s original question: yes, the alcohol remains (as does the color, taste, and volume) because that is part of the accidents. The substance of alcohol is, of course, gone – but its physical characteristics remain.

Deacon Ed

 

[dizzy_dave]

Deacon Ed:

While the answers already given have been, basically, correct, there is also a lack of precision here.

St. Thomas Aquinas used existing philosophical dualism to describe accidents and substance (he did not invent these concepts). What Aquinas describes is fairly complex, but can be simplified as follows:

Substance is what makes a thing what it is. For example, a rose might be yellow or red or any other color, yet it is still a rose. That’s because the substance of a rose is independent of its accidents.

**Accidents **are the physical characteristics of a thing. Thus, the color red associated with a rose is an accident, it is not the rose. The same would be true for the smell, feel, size and so on.

What the term *transubstantiation *describes is actually two miracles: first, the substance of bread and wine is totally replaces with the *substance *of Jesus. Second, the *accidents *of bread and wine remain without their associated substance.

Thus, if one chemically analyzes the Blessed Sacrament or the Precious Blood all that will be found are the accidents, and those will be the accidents of bread and wine. Yet, we know that there is no bread and there is no wine because the *substance *of Jesus has replaced the substance of bread and wine.

Now, getting to Dave’s original question: yes, the alcohol remains (as does the color, taste, and volume) because that is part of the accidents. The substance of alcohol is, of course, gone – but its physical characteristics remain.

Deacon Ed

I still don’t get it. I really want to understand this.If the alcohol remains (as does the color, taste, and volume) isn’t it still wine?, therefore being two substances at once. :banghead:

 

[Pug]

dizzy_dave:

I still don’t get it. I really want to understand this.If the alcohol remains (as does the color, taste, and volume) isn’t it still wine?, therefore being two substances at once. :banghead:

I would not have said that the alcohol remains exactly. What remains are all those “accidents”, characteristics that you can see, touch, taste, etc. but the substance in which they had adhered before is gone. There is now Christ there.

It will look, taste, and behave as you expect wine to do, but the substance of wine is missing (whatever that means, sorry, hard to get). As Deacon Ed said,

The substance of alcohol is, of course, gone – but its physical characteristics remain.

Also, somehow I think it is supposed to be that the accidents are not now stuck on Christ as his accidents. The accidents are just still there, I don’t know, sort of hanging there.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

dizzy_dave:

I still don’t get it. I really want to understand this.If the alcohol remains (as does the color, taste, and volume) isn’t it still wine?, therefore being two substances at once. :banghead:

As I said, there are two miracles: the substance of bread and wine are gone leaving only their accidents without substance. In place of the substance of bread and wine we have the substance of Jesus.

No, there aren’t two substances present, there is only Jesus. The intoxicating effect of alcohol is part of the accidents.

To answer your question directly: the accidents of wine remain, but because the substance of wine is gone it is no longer wine. Remember, it’s the substance of a thing that makes that thing what it is. When the substance is gone the thing is something else. Since the substance of wine is replaced by the substance of Jesus (not change into, but actually replaced) then there is no wine.

Here’s a poor example: a picture of a deceased person retains some of the accidents of that person, but is not that person. The accidents of wine remain, but the thing that makes it wine, its substance, is gone so it is not wine.

Deacon Ed

 

[philosoph0123]

Correct me if I am wrong, please…but is it required by the Church to believe in transubstantiation? My understanding is that what is required is the belief that (1) before the consecration, the elements are simply/only bread and wine, and (2) after the consecration, the elements are now the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (and this alone), even if these appear only to the senses (and to any physical/chemical analysis) as being the same bread and wine. Transubstantiation is an explanation for this change…but it also involves a view on metaphysics (the nature of being) that is Thomistic/Aristotelian, but (strictly speaking) is not part of the Deposit of Faith…

 

[Deacon_Ed]

philosoph0123:

Correct me if I am wrong, please…but is it required by the Church to believe in transubstantiation? My understanding is that what is required is the belief that (1) before the consecration, the elements are simply/only bread and wine, and (2) after the consecration, the elements are now the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (and this alone), even if these appear only to the senses (and to any physical/chemical analysis) as being the same bread and wine. Transubstantiation is an explanation for this change…but it also involves a view on metaphysics (the nature of being) that is Thomistic/Aristotelian, but (strictly speaking) is not part of the Deposit of Faith…

What is required is that we believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. It happens that the word *transubstantiation *is the current term used by the Latin Church to describe what happens. The Eastern Catholic Churches, although recognizing this term, do not use it because it is dependent upon Western philosophy and not on the Eastern approach to the mysteries.

What is not acceptable is to believe that the bread and wine remain while Jesus is somehow “added to” the bread and wine. This would be consubstantiation and it is not a part of the Catholic tradition.

Deacon Ed

 

[Trelow]

I’ts a mystery.

Just believe it for now, you can understand it after the Final Judgment.

 

[JimG]

Accidents (in the Thomistic sense), or appearances, consist in whatever is perceptible by the human senses. Even though, after the consecration, the bread and wine are gone, replaced by the body and blood of Jesus, the accidents remain, and retain their perceptibility to our senses. There is no way that we can physically discern the change of substance.

 

[rwoehmke]

I believe Thomas’s explanation is based on metaphysics which is wholly different from what we call physics. I am a chemist and know that our natural science concepts of substance, physical and chemical properties cannot explain what happens at the consecration. If anything that knowledge can inhibit ones undewrstanding or even belief in the mystery that is the Holy Eucharst. Philosopical explanations and discourse are for the most part a whole “nother” kind of knowledge. They are not contradictions of the natural sciences but are different in scope.So far I have not heard or read of a better explanation than that of St.Thomas. That is one reason why the Catholic Church holds a place of honor for Thomistic Philosophy.