Understanding the Eucharist

[RobNY]

I believe in the Eucharist as the Catholic Church defines, but I want to understand it better.

Can anyone help me?

I mean, I understand the Scripture behind it and I totally believe that the Mass is a Sacrifice and that Jesus explicitly told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but I mean more to do with how it appears to be bread. (I’d like to intellectualize myself into the position, if possible, now.)

I think you understand my questions by now, so I’ll stop digging myself a hole and let you guys take the floor.

I don’t make many threads around here, I hope this is a good one.

-Rob

 

[Kielbasi]

You’re really not supposed to *understand *it, its supposed to be a mystery.

But if you like, you can get more of a deeper understanding by reading deep theological works such as Aquinas or devotional works.

 

[mosher]

We a s Catholics believe in what is called Transubstantiation. This is a long word that means “the substance changes while the accidents remain the same as the previous substance.” So, to understand this one must understand what is meant by the term ‘substance’ and ‘accident.’

The term ‘accident’ means those aspects about a substance that make it accessable to the senses. According to Aristotle there are 10 catagories of accidents and they are:

1. Quality
2. Quantity
3. Place
4. Time
5. Position
6. Possession
7. Action
8. Passion
9. Relation
10. Substance (not to be confused with substance to be described later) - In our case here - Bread one moment God the next.

These are the things that we can abstract to discern through the senses and makes the thing intelligable to us.

The next aspect is substance. Substance literally means “that which stands beneath it” and refers to the being itself apart from the accidents. The human mind cannot conceptualize what substance looks like because it does not look like anything because without the accidents attached we cannot use our power of abstraction on it. However, it is the substantial stuff that makes up the being of an individual thing.

Now, with the Eucharist what happens is the “bread stuff” goes away at the words of institution and “God stuff - Christ stuff” replaces it but the “Christ stuff” retains the accidents of the “bread stuff.”

In a sense the substance of bread slips out the back door and the substance of Jesus slips in while nobody is looking.

There was a protestant heresy that came about called Consubstantiation which is that the “bread stuff” and the “Christ stuff” share the same time and space and share the accidents of bread. However this is not a logical because two substances cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Hence Transubstantiation is the logical proof of what he believe as given us by Revelation.

 

[RobNY]

mosher:

We a s Catholics believe in what is called Transubstantiation. This is a long word that means “the substance changes while the accidents remain the same as the previous substance.” So, to understand this one must understand what is meant by the term ‘substance’ and ‘accident.’

The term ‘accident’ means those aspects about a substance that make it accessable to the senses. According to Aristotle there are 10 catagories of accidents and they are:

1. Quality
2. Quantity
3. Place
4. Time
5. Position
6. Possession
7. Action
8. Passion
9. Relation
10. Substance (not to be confused with substance to be described later) - In our case here - Bread one moment God the next.

These are the things that we can abstract to discern through the senses and makes the thing intelligable to us.

The next aspect is substance. Substance literally means “that which stands beneath it” and refers to the being itself apart from the accidents. The human mind cannot conceptualize what substance looks like because it does not look like anything because without the accidents attached we cannot use our power of abstraction on it. However, it is the substantial stuff that makes up the being of an individual thing.

Now, with the Eucharist what happens is the “bread stuff” goes away at the words of institution and “God stuff - Christ stuff” replaces it but the “Christ stuff” retains the accidents of the “bread stuff.”

In a sense the substance of bread slips out the back door and the substance of Jesus slips in while nobody is looking.

There was a protestant heresy that came about called Consubstantiation which is that the “bread stuff” and the “Christ stuff” share the same time and space and share the accidents of bread. However this is not a logical because two substances cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Hence Transubstantiation is the logical proof of what he believe as given us by Revelation.

Actually, this was at least in part what I was looking for. Thanks. (Oh and, you say, ‘we Catholics,’ if I didn’t make it clear, I am Catholic.)

I think I remember another objection to the consubstantiation-- if you are offering latria to the Eucharist under the idea of consubstantiation, are you not worshipping bread as God? An interesting thought.

Kielbasi:

You’re really not supposed to *understand *it, its supposed to be a mystery.

But if you like, you can get more of a deeper understanding by reading deep theological works such as Aquinas or devotional works.

Hence the mystery, indeed. Any pointers to any good devotional works?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Rob,

Oh yes, you will probably have a GREAT thread. There are so many knowlegable people on these boards – I always learn something new about the Eucharist when we have these discussions. I’m going to buckle my seatbelt and await all the interesting posts!

Mosher, excellent! But one quibble:

mosher:

but the “Christ stuff” retains the accidents of the “bread stuff.”

The accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in ANY substance, and therefore it is inaccurate to say the Substance of Christ “retains” the accidents.

What do you think?
God Bless,
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

RobNY:

Hence the mystery, indeed. Any pointers to any good devotional works?

Absolutely Rob! I have been attempting to build a library on this subject too!

How about The Basic Book of the Eucharist (Sophia Press) – excellent. Very precise, understandable, and devout.

I have recently been reading The Hidden Manna, by Father James O’Connor, which is wonderful. It is more scholarly and quite a bit longer and goes through the history of the development of the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist – as well as the various errors, heresies and misunderstandings throughout history. Well worth it!

VC

 

[mosher]

Verbum Caro:

Rob,

Oh yes, you will probably have a GREAT thread. There are so many knowlegable people on these boards – I always learn something new about the Eucharist when we have these discussions. I’m going to buckle my seatbelt and await all the interesting posts!

Mosher, excellent! But one quibble:

The accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in ANY substance, and therefore it is inaccurate to say the Substance of Christ “retains” the accidents.

What do you think?
God Bless,
VC

Accidents must by nature be attached to a substance so in effect the Christ-substances takes on the bread-accidents as his own accidents.

 

[RobNY]

Verbum Caro:

Rob,

Oh yes, you will probably have a GREAT thread. There are so many knowlegable people on these boards – I always learn something new about the Eucharist when we have these discussions. I’m going to buckle my seatbelt and await all the interesting posts!

Oh, I hope so. The internet really is a blessing it its own way.

The accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in ANY substance, and therefore it is inaccurate to say the Substance of Christ “retains” the accidents.

I was going to respond to this myself… but then I confused myself even more. I think I’ll just be silent.

Let me actually show my thoughts out loud. This could be stupid, but I’m holding against that.

You say, ‘the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in ANY substance.’ By this you mean that the accidents of bread and wine are not inherent in any substance-- but it seems almost nonsensical to say that becuase obviously the accident is not the substance, as the substance is abstract and cannot be conceptualized. In the strictest sense, perhaps it does not ‘retain’ the attributes, but we know that 1. the accidents we attribute to bread and wine were present at a chronological point in time before consecration, and 2. the accidents we attribute to bread and wine are present at a chronological point in time when the consecration occcurs, and afterward, so it would make sense to say that, over time, the bread and wine (which them becomes Jesus’ body and blood) retain the accidents. Perhaps it would be a quibble to say that it does not necessarily retain the accidents of bread and wine.

-Rob

PS- Hope I haven’t made a fool of myself.

EDIT: Made sure to add “Jesus’ body and blood”

EDIT: On a second re-read… I think I’m saying the same thing as you. This is confusing!

 

[mosher]

RobNY:

Actually, this was at least in part what I was looking for. Thanks. (Oh and, you say, ‘we Catholics,’ if I didn’t make it clear, I am Catholic.)

I intended to be inclusive and did not intend to imply that you were not Catholic. What more are you looking for on this topic and I would be more than happy to go further. I had more to say but I figured that I would stop there and wait for your reply.

 

[RobNY]

mosher:

I intended to be inclusive and did not intend to imply that you were not Catholic. What more are you looking for on this topic and I would be more than happy to go further. I had more to say but I figured that I would stop there and wait for your reply.

If wisdom is knowing what I don’t know, then please don’t count me as wise. In other words, I wouldn’t know what to ask to hear next. Say everything. I’d love to hear it all.

-Rob

 

[mosher]

RobNY:

Oh, I hope so. The internet really is a blessing it its own way.

I was going to respond to this myself… but then I confused myself even more. I think I’ll just be silent.

Let me actually show my thoughts out loud. This could be stupid, but I’m holding against that.

You say, ‘the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in ANY substance.’ By this you mean that the accidents of bread and wine are not inherent in any substance-- but it seems almost nonsensical to say that becuase obviously the accident is not the substance, as the substance is abstract and cannot be conceptualized. In the strictest sense, perhaps it does not ‘retain’ the attributes, but we know that 1. the accidents we attribute to bread and wine were present at a chronological point in time before consecration, and 2. the accidents we attribute to bread and wine are present at a chronological point in time when the consecration occcurs, and afterward, so it would make sense to say that, over time, the bread and wine (which them becomes Jesus’ body and blood) retain the accidents. Perhaps it would be a quibble to say that it does not necessarily retain the accidents of bread and wine.

-Rob

PS- Hope I haven’t made a fool of myself.

EDIT: Made sure to add “Jesus’ body and blood”

EDIT: On a second re-read… I think I’m saying the same thing as you. This is confusing!

It is necessary to say that the Christ-substance takes on the Bread-accidents (and wine-accidents) because it is only when the species-accidents (species = bread or wine) is no longer present in whole or in part then the Christ-substance ceases to be present in the now former Eucharist.

 

[mosher]

RobNY:

If wisdom is knowing what I don’t know, then please don’t count me as wise. In other words, I wouldn’t know what to ask to hear next. Say everything. I’d love to hear it all.

-Rob

Ok Socrates …

What direction do you want to go? We could continue on the substantial direction that we are going or we could move on to effect or reasoning why those not in doctrinal communion cannot receive the Eucharist with us etc.

 

[RobNY]

mosher:

Ok Socrates …

I’m not asking any cryptic questions, so wait until I start doing that.

What direction do you want to go? We could continue on the substantial direction that we are going or we could move on to effect or reasoning why those not in doctrinal communion cannot receive the Eucharist with us etc.

I think the substantial direction. But if ‘effect’ is something separate in itself, I don’t know what you are talking about (you said 'effect or reasoning why… etc… which I am assuming are two different things, not just unclear prose). Whatever though, the ‘substantial’ direction. Sounds lovely. We can move onto the other subject(s) later.

-Rob

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Mosher and RobNy,

We may be misunderstanding each other!

This is from the Catechism of Trent (The Roman Catechism):

The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding. although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine.

That is part of the miracle of transubstantiation!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

P.S.

I don’t want to derail your discussion.
Just trying to be helpful.

God Bless,
VC

 

[RobNY]

Oh! don’t worry. I agree with what your quote said. It also clarifies it, which is good.

-Rob

 

[Verbum_Caro]

mosher:

Accidents must by nature be attached to a substance

Mosher,
That’s so true. But that is one reason the Eucharist is so miraculous. I don’t want to make things more confusing than they need to be but Thomas Aquinas asked this very question: Whether the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject?

Here is his answer (or click the above link)

The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (75, 2); nor in the substantial form, for that does not remain (75, 6), and if it did remain, “it could not be a subject,” as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ’s body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ’s glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.

Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is, nay more, the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do not pass from subject to subject, so that the same identical accident which was first in one subject be afterwards in another; because an accident is individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one time in one subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of its own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect only what they signify.

Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin’s womb, “without the seed of man” (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).

A bit dense for our little evening conversation, but I thought I’d share it.

 

[mosher]

Verbum Caro:

Mosher and RobNy,

We may be misunderstanding each other!

This is from the Catechism of Trent (The Roman Catechism):

That is part of the miracle of transubstantiation!

Of course

I believe that at this point the Roman Catechism is saying that the accidents do not adhere to any substance meaning the bread and wine substance. I think this is just a difficulty with the english language.

Think of it this way, as I said previously - Christ ceases to subsisit when the accidents decay. Thus, in this case there is a relations that unites the substance and accidents post transubstantiation.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi mosher,

I really enjoy digging into this topic with you, but we lost RobNy, I hope he comes back.

I think language might be the problem here, like you said. But it was just one of your previous statements that gave me pause:

mosher:

so in effect the Christ-substances takes on the bread-accidents as his own accidents.

I don’t think thats quite right. Maybe you were just using shorthand and didn’t really mean it that way? If we assign the accidents of bread to Christ then it would be proper to say the Christ is doughy or round, etc – which we don’t do.

I found a good article here on Catholic Answers, check this out if you have a moment. (You too Rob!)
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307iron.asp

 

[mosher]

Nevermind on that … I was wrong. Objection 3 & 4 are amazing