Real presence in Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“And yet, in spite of the similarity of terms, it is necessary to affirm that, in referring to the Eucharist, the Church does not use the terms substance and accident in their philosophical contexts but in the common and ordinary sense in which they were first used many centuries ago. The dogma of transubstantiation does not embrace any philosophical theory in particular.”

http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur571.htm

“Here the fundamental doctrine regarding the Eucharistic change is clearly articulated, although later theological developments would make the language more precise. The important point with regard to our question on substance is that the word is not taken in the technical Aristotelian sense but refers simply to the reality of the bread and wine being no longer present and being wholly substituted by the reality of Christ in his entirety.”

“I suspect that the reader is actually thinking of the term ‘substance,’ not in Aristotle’s sense, but in the modern, physical and chemical sense—which is generally synonymous with the chemical components or ‘matter’ that make physical objects up. But Aristotle’s concept is quite different from that, and closer to the common-sense idea of ‘whole thing’ or ‘whole object.’
 
Hey, I’ve been a Catholic 65 years. I get to be a curmudgeon now. And oh yeah, stay off my lawn! 🤣
 
From Frank Sheed, here:

“The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ’s body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God’s will to maintain them.

What of Christ’s body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though (so St. Thomas among others tells us) not extended in space.”
 
Don’t lie @jfz178, this is you, isn’t it?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Yes. He is one of my favorite actors. And I competed on a Navy National Match shooting team with the two guns he used in that movie, including the one in that meme. There aren’t many people left who can even handle one of those. A lot of gun owners wouldn’t even know how to load it.
 
Last edited:
"Consideration of the epidemiology of micro-organisms that may be transmitted via saliva, particularly the herpes group of viruses, suggests that indirect transmission of infection is rare and in most instances a much greater opportunity exists for direct transmission by other means. There is substantial evidence that neither infection with hepatitis B virus nor HIV can be transmitted directly via saliva so that indirect transmission via inanimate objects is even less likely. No episode of disease attributable to the shared communion cup has ever been reported. Currently available data do not provide any support for suggesting that the practice of sharing a common communion cup should be abandoned because it might spread infection".

 
Last edited:
It seems to me that this distinction between substance and accidental is absurd. We can never know substance or a thing in itself. (What did Kant have to say about that?) All we can know are properties or accidents. So I do not really know if I ate pasta tonight. It looked , smelled and tasted like pasta but those are only properties.
 
We know a thing through perception of its accidents, because we are beings whose knowledge always begins in the senses. Of course we know pasta or pizza through our sense perceptions. This is how we know reality. The normal rule is suspended in transubstantiation, because the accidents (sense perceptions) of bread and wine remain while the underlying reality has been transformed.
 
RedFan said:
No believer in transubstantiation can accept this analysis of essence vs. accidents, even if Aristotle did. The reason? It favors accounting for the Real Presence by consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation. It favors pointing to the combination of accidents that comprise the Host and saying “Aha! That’s the every essence of (the concept of) breadness. That’s bread!”

The only way out of this is to attempt a metaphysical distinction between concepts and reality.
Click to expand...
If no believer in transubstantiation can except your analysis of essence vs. accidents for the reason you give, than there is no reason that they should. The reason? your analysis must be erroneous, false. Transubstantiation is a truth revealed by Christ himself and the Holy Spirit to his Church. This is the Catholic faith.

As far as your analysis goes, what is the cause why some given thing such as a bird or bread has the particular set of ‘accidental qualities’ or properties that it has? What is the principle of the organization of these accidental qualities? In your theory, it doesn’t appear to be an essence or substance because you say that the set or combination of the ‘accidental qualities’ is the essence or substance although you also say that the concept of substance or essence is quite different from the concept of an accidental quality. If the concept of essence or substance is quite different from the concept of accidental quality, I’m not sure how a combination of accidental qualities would make any difference such that this combination now equals essence. Etymologically speaking, substance as a set of accidental properties is rather odd as well as our english word ‘substance’ comes from a latin word (I forget the exact word at the moment) which literally means ‘to stand under.’

Actually, I think the meaning your giving to the words accident, quality, essence, substance is quite different from their historical/philosophical usage and probably from their etymological roots. I’m not really sure what you exactly mean by ‘accidental qualities’ either as you appear to equate them with essence though again you make a distinction between essential qualities and accidental qualities though properly speaking there is no such thing as 'essential ’ qualities, proper qualities yes but essential qualities is confusing essence with accident (qualities). In Aristotlelian/Thomistic philosophy, substance/accident is a fundamental division of being and substance or essence does not equal accident or a set of accidents. It appears to me that the theory you are propounding here is restricted to a ‘material cause’ of things, something like matter in motion. One could find variants of this sort of theory of reality throughout the history of western philosophy beginning with the ancient greek philosophers such as the atomism of Democritus and others who thought that matter and bodies where the only things that existed.
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
It seems to me that this distinction between substance and accidental is absurd. We can never know substance or a thing in itself. (What did Kant have to say about that?) All we can know are properties or accidents. So I do not really know if I ate pasta tonight. It looked , smelled and tasted like pasta but those are only properties.
Click to expand...
Well, since you were conceived in your mother’s womb which began your life, your body developed then you were born, went through childhood, the teens, matured to manhood and are whatever your age is now. You have gone through a lot of changes physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually perhaps, gained knowledge, maybe are married and have children, other relationships. The human being or person you are now is the same human being and person when you were conceived and born into the world. Most normal people intuitively realize this but they could be told so if they have a memory problem. All the changes (accidents) you have gone through in your life have only accidentally changed your substantial being (substance) as one and the same individual human person.

It is true that in this life we do not have direct and perfect knowledge of the substances and natures of things. Our knowledge of the substance, essence, or nature of things is indirectly known through the accidents of the thing by the intellectual process of abstraction. For example, substantial forms are known only by the intellect but not directly or perfectly. Consider your own soul. I believe I have an immortal spiritual soul with the spiritual powers of intellect and will but it seems I can’t say I have direct knowledge of it. I certainly don’t see it even though I believe it animates my body.
 
Last edited:
Richca said:
As far as your analysis goes, what is the cause why some given thing such as a bird or bread has the particular set of ‘accidental qualities’ or properties that it has?
Click to expand...
We pray to a God of power and might, he heals the sick, cures the lame, raises the dead. The whole ministry of Jesus was about helping and healing people, not making them sick. He said of God our Father, what father would give their child a snake if they asked for a fish.

The body and blood of our Lord is for our body and soul, why would God give us soul food that makes the body sick?

The blood of our Lord would loose all its power; if I stood in the queue worrying about getting germs from the people in front of me.

Jesus did not use any of these big ‘stantiation’ words, he just said take this all of you, eat and drink.
 
Hi Shakuhachi, Think of the Apostles in the light of the Transfiguration. They had never met Moses and Elijah, there were no photos, no possible way to know that those two men were Moses and Elijah. Knowledge from the senses could only know them as two strange men… But they knew who they were. They, I think, were able to see what was essential to being Moses and Elijah and the accidents were unimportant to recognizing them. The men weren’t recognized by their accidents.🤔
 
Last edited:
I think Adam and Eve could see the essence of things, er substance nature…JP II talked about the preternatural power he called the “internal gaze” nothing hidden, nothing to hide. Adam naming the animals. Eve talking to the snake. The direct communication with angels is a power Adam and Eve had. I wonder if being able to see under the accidents has any thing to do with those abilities
 
Jesus in the Consecrated Host is REAL.

JESUS IN THE CONSECRATED HOST IS REAL!!!

[THE LANGUAGE BOT IS GIVING ME A HARD TIME.]
 
Richca said:
I have an immortal spiritual soul with the spiritual powers of intellect and will but it seems I can’t say I have direct knowledge of it. I certainly don’t see it even though I believe it animates my body.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the soul ‘inheres’ I think that’s the word. to the flesh. dying being the bodies inability to inhere . or if the definition of that word can be applied. The accidents of the bread don’t inhere to the body of Christ, makes sense because they are not the accidents of a human. But the soul and body…it must be unnatural for the soul to not inhere to the body…seperation of the two is unnatural
 
Richca said:
As far as your analysis goes, what is the cause why some given thing such as a bird or bread has the particular set of ‘accidental qualities’ or properties that it has? What is the principle of the organization of these accidental qualities? In your theory, it doesn’t appear to be an essence or substance because you say that the set or combination of the ‘accidental qualities’ is the essence or substance although you also say that the concept of substance or essence is quite different from the concept of an accidental quality. If the concept of essence or substance is quite different from the concept of accidental quality, I’m not sure how a combination of accidental qualities would make any difference such that this combination now equals essence. Etymologically speaking, substance as a set of accidental properties is rather odd as well as our english word ‘substance’ comes from a latin word (I forget the exact word at the moment) which literally means ‘to stand under.’
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comment, Richca. I’ll try my best to explain.

Substance is not a set of accidents, but a concept indicated by a particular set of accidents. A house is not merely a collection of bricks, but an arrangement of bricks – one which will allow the collection to be used as a dwelling. In other words, form matters. (is this what you mean by “principle of organization”?) Hence, the concept of “house” and the concept of “brick” are vastly different, even though with the right combination and arrangement – the right form – one can be comprised of the other. Accidents do not ever “equal” essence, as you put it, any more than a house “equals” a collection of bricks. They indicate essence by pointing to the concept of “house” when collected in a particular form.

Aristotle would agree. In contrast to Plato’s Theory of Forms, Aristotle claimed that form – the idea of an object qua object – was to be found in the object itself.
 
And this takes us back to faith. Who of us knows our essence? we believe it is spiritual. At the essential level we are changes by sacraments. While we try to rationalize (because we are rational beings) we only frustrate ourselves because essence, substance, or truest deepest identity are ideals.

Your example of the human person/soul takes us to baptism. Pour a little water say a few words. After wiping the water away there is no accidental difference. Faith alone tells us that we have a fundamentally changed individual.

Back to the Eucharist, defying logic we say it is no longer bread nor wine. It is purely a matter of faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top