Transubstantiation: Accidents w/o Subject?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tjmiller
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tjmiller

Guest
After Transubstantiation occurs with the Eucharistic Consecration, we know that the Substance of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are truly, really and substantially present under the Accidents of bread and wine, and that the Substance of the bread and wine has been annihilated. It is a further dogma of the Catholic Faith, however, that the remaining Accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, but that they rather inhere** in no Substance whatsoever**.

WHY? :confused: Why do the Accedents of bread and wine inhere in no Substance whatsoever, rather than inhering in the Substance of Christ’s Body and Blood?

I would like to “Ask an Apologist” - but this is a question which does NOT “have wide appeal”! It is in fact rather esoteric, but it remains one of the only questions I have about the Catholic faith, and I have never yet encountered a satisfactory answer. This one’s for all you Thomists out there!
 
tjmiller wrote:
but that they [the accidents] rather inhere** in no Substance whatsoever**.
Click to expand...
Have you read Dr. Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) on
"§12. Apparent Contradictions between Reason and the Eucharistic Dogma
  1. The Existence of the Accidents without a Subject" p. 388-9 ?
Click to expand...
It appears (from the formulation of your query) that you have.

But, is there a confusion between “substance” and “subject”? Or, between “accidents” and “properties”? - (i.e. the properties of bread and wine remain in the consecrated species - and, thus, the gluten in the Body of Christ CAN have a deleterious effect on one who is effected by Celiac-Sprue disease?

Other than this, I don’t know if I can help.
 
Why do the Accedents of bread and wine inhere in no Substance whatsoever, rather than inhering in the Substance of Christ’s Body and Blood?
Click to expand...
Several reasons. First, because they are not His accidents. They are the accidents of bread and wine, not of Jesus, so they would not inhere in Him.

Second, He still has His own accidents. His height, appearence, etc…only one set of accidents can inhere in a substance, and Christ has His own accidents. Jesus does not suddenly transform Himself into little round hosts. He personally remains physically the same, but becomes present UNDER the accidents of bread and wine, which nevertheless do not inhere in Him.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“If it be further asked, whether these appearances have any subject at all in which they inhere, we must answer with St. Thomas Aquinas (III:77:1), that the idea is to be rejected as unbecoming, as though the Body of Christ, in addition to its own accidents, should also assume those of bread and wine.”
 
“If it be further asked, whether these appearances have any subject at all in which they inhere, we must answer with St. Thomas Aquinas (III:77:1), that the idea is to be rejected as unbecoming, as though the Body of Christ, in addition to its own accidents, should also assume those of bread and wine.”
Click to expand...
I may be getting tired, but the first thing that popped into my head was “The Ginger-Bread Christ”.

:rotfl:
 
A quick answer to a complex question…

Before the consecration we have bread and wine, each with the substance and accidents proper to the species. After the consecration we have the substance of Jesus present under both species, but no substance of wine or bread. Yet the accidents of wine and the accidents of bread remain. Since accidents are always “linked” to the substance which gives rise to them, we have a “second miracle” in that the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substance (nature) that gives rise to them. They are not properly the accidents associated with the substance of Jesus, and so they do not pertain to him. Nor do the accidents of Jesus appear at all.

Does that help?

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
katewithak:
Back up a little. Why are they called accidents,Please?
Click to expand...
From Mirriam-Webster online (edited by me, taking out definitions #1 and 2):

Accident

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin *accident-, accidens *nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of *accidere *to happen, from *ad- + cadere *to fall – more at CHANCE

3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>
 
tjmiller,

Well, what did you think of the responses to your question?
Has the “why?” been answered?

VC
 
I believe that St. Thomas said that after the consecration, the accidents (appearances) of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject; they do use the primary accident (appearance) called “quantity” as a kind of substrate.

So, as others have pointed out, the accidents or appearances of bread and wine do not inhere in Jesus, as He has in own proper appearances. They do not inhere in the substance of the bread and wine, which is now gone, so they are all left to inhere in no substance whatever, simply carried under the one primary appearance of quantity.

Jesus does not “take on” the appearances of a little round wafer. Rather, he remains whole and entire, with his own proper appearances, but hidden under those appearances of the bread and the wine.
 
Hello all,
thank you for all the very prompt and erudite responses!
(What a smart bunch we all are here! 😃 )

I believe I am now much closer to satisfactorily understanding the rationale behind the dogma.

As I doubt any further responses are likely to be better than the ones already offered, I invite the imminent closure of this thread…

(And I’ll forthwith open up another esoteric line of inquiry.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top