Who's responsible for these accidents?

[Lorenz_Michael]

From Catholic dogma, is correct to say that the genus of the species of the Eucharist has changed from creature to God through transubstantiation?

Peace+
michaEl?

 

[1neophyte]

No.

 

[Lorenz_Michael]

No.

Thanks for the concise response, would you be willing to say a bit more? (Am only just starting to look more deeply at transubstantiation and am struggling with the terms essence/accidents that seem to derive more from polytheism than theism)

Peace+
michaEl?

 

[1neophyte]

Thanks for the concise response, would you be willing to say a bit more? (Am only just starting to look more deeply at transubstantiation and am struggling with the terms essence/accidents that seem to derive more from polytheism than theism)

Peace+
michaEl?

Polytheism? Really? Speak to a priest.

 

[Lorenz_Michael]

Polytheism? Really? Speak to a priest.

Do they know something you don’t?

 

[Gorgias]

Do they know something you don’t?

Maybe; maybe not.

The terms ‘accident’ and ‘essence’, as referenced in the definition of transubstantiation, are terms of art in philosophy. All priests should have a background in philosophy, and as such, should be able to offer you some insight.

Regardless, there is still a certain ambiguity in your question. In the context of Eucharistic theology, when we speak of ‘species’, we’re talking about either “bread” or “wine” (or, more appropriately, “host” and “Precious Blood”). When you talk about ‘genus’ and ‘species’ in the same sentence (as in your question), you seem to be talking about biological classification. Is that was what you intended? If so, then there’s no reasonable answer for you – biologists don’t have a taxonomic description for ‘God’.

However, taking your question at face value: the genus and species of the accidents of the Eucharist retain their appearance. Therefore, they retain the appearance of Triticum aestivum (wheat) and any of the species of genus Vitis (wine). However, these are only appearances, as the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

On the other hand, if you’re merely asking whether bread and wine become Christ (i.e., ‘God’), then the answer is “yes, they do.”

Does that help?

 

[Lorenz_Michael]

Maybe; maybe not.

The terms ‘accident’ and ‘essence’, as referenced in the definition of transubstantiation, are terms of art in philosophy. All priests should have a background in philosophy, and as such, should be able to offer you some insight.

Regardless, there is still a certain ambiguity in your question. In the context of Eucharistic theology, when we speak of ‘species’, we’re talking about either “bread” or “wine” (or, more appropriately, “host” and “Precious Blood”). When you talk about ‘genus’ and ‘species’ in the same sentence (as in your question), you seem to be talking about biological classification. Is that was what you intended? If so, then there’s no reasonable answer for you – biologists don’t have a taxonomic description for ‘God’.

However, taking your question at face value: the genus and species of the accidents of the Eucharist retain their appearance. Therefore, they retain the appearance of Triticum aestivum (wheat) and any of the species of genus Vitis (wine). However, these are only appearances, as the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

On the other hand, if you’re merely asking whether bread and wine become Christ (i.e., ‘God’), then the answer is “yes, they do.”

Does that help?

Thank you, yes it does help to clear some of my ignorance, especially on the nomenclature used.

The original statement in question was poorly phrased. I suppose I’m considering two distinct substances. One divine and one created, the created needing to be causally separated from the divine in order for transubstantiation to be of any effect, or else emanation from the same source could be argued.

I suppose it is possible for God to limit His own causality on and through creation and re-establish it directly and fully in the Eucharist by transubstantiation.

The term essences comes a bit loaded for me due to Aristotle’s theology of self perpetuating beings, a bit too close to polytheism for my full liking.

Many thanks for the response, it’s helped to reason through a visceral response I have to the essence/accidents argument. Probably better for me to stick with the council of Trent’s original terms, substance and species.

+Peace+
michaEl?

 

[Gorgias]

I suppose I’m considering two distinct substances. One divine and one created, the created needing to be causally separated from the divine

Not sure how this is a problem. Yes, creation and God are causally separated from each other. That’s pretty much the definition of “creation ex nihilo”, right?

or else emanation from the same source could be argued.

Right. No one is making the assertion that there’s any ‘emanation’ going on in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

I suppose it is possible for God to limit His own causality on and through creation

Erm… not quite sure what you’re getting at, here. God doesn’t “limit” himself (I’m thinking you mean “God’s nature” and not “God’s causality” here?) in the act of creation.

and re-establish it directly and fully in the Eucharist by transubstantiation.

Still confused. It sounds like you’re taking an apophatic approach? That is, “God is not what He creates”, and then turning it in on itself and saying “now God is what He creates”…?

That’s not what Eucharistic theology asserts. It’s not that God becomes creation, as if He becomes bread and wine.

Instead, we have bread (with a certain set of physical characteristics, as well as a substance which we’ll simply call “substance of bread”) and wine (similarly, a set of physical characteristics, and a substance). The substance of these things changes – the substance of bread and the substance of wine are changed into the substance of Jesus Christ, sacramentally present. So, we no longer have ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ – we have Jesus (in a sacramental mode) – but the physical characteristics remain. However, that doesn’t imply that bread and wine remain; rather, only physical characteristics remain. Since what’s there is now “Jesus”, the physical characteristics are Jesus’ (although, to sensory experience, they’re identical to the physical characteristics of bread and of wine).

The term essences comes a bit loaded for me due to Aristotle’s theology of self perpetuating beings

Not sure I’m picking up what you’re laying down. Care to elaborate a little?

 

[fred_conty]

From Catholic dogma, is correct to say that the genus of the species of the Eucharist has changed from creature to God through transubstantiation?

Peace+
michaEl?

Remember the miracle at Cana? The water was changed into wine. One thing was turned into some thing else.

This is similar to what happens at Mass when the priest changes the bread into Christ’s body, and changes the wine into Christ’s blood.

What we see after the change is still bread and still wine. But what is present is the real living Christ. So we still see the appearances of bread … texture, color, and so forth. The appearances of bread are upheld in themselves by God, but they are not a part of Jesus. And this is the “miracle” that St. Thomas describes. Seeing mere bread and wind upheld by God, yet where these appearances are, there is presence of Jesus. So what we say is that Jesus is present “under” these appearances … really and truely, living and in his state of glory.

What is so meaningful for us is that everyone all over the world, who accepts him and this teaching, he is present. This could not have happened if he had remained on earth in his earthly body because only a limited few would be able to have him present to them.

 

[Lorenz_Michael]

OP- Thank you friends, there is no doubt in me that Christ is fully present in the Eucharist, for me this coming primarily and increasingly through tasting, then seeing.

The theology I find more challenging, though again, I believe the Catholic Church has not departed from the truth and continues to teach it’s members the truth, as much a we are able to receive it. So thanks for sharing the churches teaching and your understanding of them.

To summarise my position, the concepts and theology may bring us to the truth, yet the meeting and receiving of the truth in person is far more substantial and intimate when received in the Eucharist. I suppose it’s true to say that we can bring a man to the Eucharist, but he won’t know the truth until he eats it.

Peace+
michaEl?

 

[PJM]

From Catholic dogma, is correct to say that the genus of the species of the Eucharist has changed from creature to God through transubstantiation?

Peace+
michaEl?

CORRECT

The Holy Spirit

The Eucharist is

FROM the Father

OF the SON:thumbsup:

GBY and thanks for asking

Patrick

BY the Holy Spirit

 

[PJM]

Remember the miracle at Cana? The water was changed into wine. One thing was turned into some thing else.

This is similar to what happens at Mass when the priest changes the bread into Christ’s body, and changes the wine into Christ’s blood.

What we see after the change is still bread and still wine. But what is present is the real living Christ. So we still see the appearances of bread … texture, color, and so forth. The appearances of bread are upheld in themselves by God, but they are not a part of Jesus. And this is the “miracle” that St. Thomas describes. Seeing mere bread and wind upheld by God, yet where these appearances are, there is presence of Jesus. So what we say is that Jesus is present “under” these appearances … really and truely, living and in his state of glory.

What is so meaningful for us is that everyone all over the world, who accepts him and this teaching, he is present. This could not have happened if he had remained on earth in his earthly body because only a limited few would be able to have him present to them.

Thank you,

Eucharist like God[because it IS GOD’[ is a **MYSTERY

From God the Father

OF God the Son

BY God the Holy Spirit

 

[PJM]

OP- Thank you friends, there is no doubt in me that Christ is fully present in the Eucharist, for me this coming primarily and increasingly through tasting, then seeing.

The theology I find more challenging, though again, I believe the Catholic Church has not departed from the truth and continues to teach it’s members the truth, as much a we are able to receive it. So thanks for sharing the churches teaching and your understanding of them.

To summarise my position, the concepts and theology may bring us to the truth, yet the meeting and receiving of the truth in person is far more substantial and intimate when received in the Eucharist. I suppose it’s true to say that we can bring a man to the Eucharist, but he won’t know the truth until he eats it.

Peace+
michaEl?

May I ADD,

In, WITH & THROUGH Beleif [FAITH]