daugher-of-Mary Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 How should one respond to the following? [quote]My proposal is that we think of the consecrated elements of the Eucharist analogically as subsidiary entities. The substances of the bread and wine after consecration are incorporated into a larger substance, the risen and glorified body of Jesus. Hence they cease to be seperate, independent substances. Not their chemical composition, but their whole mode of existence has changed. They have been ingrafted into and exist entirely within another substance, the glorified body of CHrist. Therefore, they can be said to be transubstantiated. Yet their chemical constituion remains the same. What they cease to be is independent substances. Their natural mode of existence has been entirely taken up into the supernatural reality of the glorified Christ. Therefore, they can be said truly to be the body and blood of Christ, and no longer what we normally mean by bread or wine, since in common parlance bread and wine refer to natural substances that are not a part of any other substance. Now this incorporation must be understood as an analogy. The natural analogue is the incorporation of a substance, for example a protein molecule, into a body after ingestion. The analogous referent is the incorporation of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the glorified body and blood of Christ. This takes place at the level of existence, what Aquinas refers to as esse. It is the esse (the very existence) of the bread and wine that is ingrafted into the esse of the risen Christ, while the natural porperties of the bread and wine remain what they were. In fact, anything said about the glorified body--it is free, spiritual, and imperishable (1 Corinth. 15)--is analogous. We are taking terms from a natural human context, stripping them of their human limitations, extrapolating their meaning, and applying them to a supernatural reality...[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I do not want this to sink to the bottom, but I am going to have to sit down and think this one out first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daugher-of-Mary Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 Yeah, and that's only part of the article. I'm writing a response paper on it...why, oh why, did I choose Commonweal?! so much wishy-washy nonsense. From what I understand of the above, he is essentially presenting the Lutheran concept of 'consubstantiation' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 [quote name='daugher-of-Mary' date='Nov 30 2005, 09:08 PM']Yeah, and that's only part of the article. I'm writing a response paper on it...why, oh why, did I choose Commonweal?! so much wishy-washy nonsense. From what I understand of the above, he is essentially presenting the Lutheran concept of 'consubstantiation' [right][snapback]806293[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes. My initial response was, "Someone does not understand the difference between substances and accidents." Anyway, it could have been worse. I read an article in US Catholic that said devotions (e.g. Holy Hour) are dragging us back to the middle ages and increasing clericalism which is oppressing others. We must strive for social action and not adoration....then to top it all off he said that Chrst never said to worship him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daugher-of-Mary Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 Ok, I need some help with this bit... [quote]Trent said that the "appearance" or "form" (in Latin, species) of the bread and wine remains. Aquinas, following Aristotelian philosophy and physics, said that the "accidents" (that is, the appearance) remained, while the "substance" was converted into the body and blood of the risen Christ. But in Aristotelian physics, there is no such thing as a free-standing "accident." An accident, like the color red, must be a quality of, or inhere in, some substance. Aquinas knew this, yet held that the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine, after consecration, did not inhere in any subject, but were held in being by a continous miracle...[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Wow this guy knows just enough to be dangerous it would seem. I would like the rest of that because I get the impression that is being used to make a larger point... Nevertheless, one way of vieiwng an accident is the actualization of a potentiality in that substance. You have this substance, or this matter, wich is pure potentiality until part of it is actualized and takes form. One way of understanding this would be that you have a big slate of marble that has not yet been carved. There are innumerabe possibilites within the limits of the marble (ie: size) that could be actualized. For instance you could carve a horse, a man, etc... The accident would be the specific size and shape carved into the marble. Does that make sense? It is true that you do not have free standing accidents for you do not see size or color just walking around, but you see accidents as actualized in a substance (the color red in blood). Now the point here could be that the accident of bread has been actualized from the potentiality of the substance of the Body. Let me know if that makes sense before I go too much farther. It is always good to think of the Tantum Ergo when speaking about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daugher-of-Mary Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 Ok, questions... Would the bread and wine be considered "accidents" only after the consecration since they have become what was previously potential..the Body and Blood of Christ? What is the proper usage of the word "substance" when discussing the Eucharist? He quotes the CCC reference 1376 which says "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood." He takes that quote and runs with it. If I understand correctly, bread and wine=substance before consecration, and accidents after the consecration at which point, the "substantial" matter is now the Body and Blood of Christ our Lord "Now the point here could be that the accident of bread has been actualized from the potentiality of the substance of the Body." Could you elaborate on that point a bit? Thanks so much! I'm a highschooler and a convert, and delving into something a wee bit over my head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daugher-of-Mary Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 unfortunately I can't find this article online, and I don't have time to type it in entirety! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 [quote name='daugher-of-Mary' date='Nov 30 2005, 10:12 PM']Would the bread and wine be considered "accidents" only after the consecration since they have become what was previously potential..the Body and Blood of Christ? [/quote] Well technically bread and wine are substances which have the accidencts of such. For example this bread has this size and shape as opposed to that same type of bread that has a different size and shape. So it would be more accurate to say that the Body and Blood are the substances with the accidents of bread and wine (color, tase, etc...) I am not sure if you could call the Body and Blood potentials for they are substances. [quote]What is the proper usage of the word "substance" when discussing the Eucharist?[/quote] A substance is being and existing in and by itself, serving as the basis of accidents. It is the most basic form of existence and the only reason why I speak of it as potentiality is because it serves as the basis for change. It is important to note that, as far as I know, you never percieve substance without accidents. For example you never see a piece of bread without size, or a desk without density. The bread has substance which is its being in and by itself, then the shape, color, etc... accidents, being the realized potentiality of that substance to take that actuality. I hope that has helped. You cannot take an accident away from the substance it inhers in ( you can change the accident). For instance, you could not take all size away from something and have the accident as seperate. [quote]If I understand correctly, bread and wine=substance before consecration, and accidents after the consecration at which point, the "substantial" matter is now the Body and Blood of Christ our Lord [/quote]Yes. Before the consecration you have the substance of bread and wine with the accidents accordingly. During the consecration the substance becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, but still retains the accidents of bread and wine. This is why I said it is recommended to reflect on the Tantum Ergo because it talks about the sacrament being veiled to the senses. [quote]"Now the point here could be that the accident of bread has been actualized from the potentiality of the substance of the Body." [/quote]That was my personal musing. I would like to read the article in its entirety so that I could understand where he is going with this. But what I meant by that was I do not see anything in the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ that would prevent it from having the accidents of bread and blood. We see other things in the world that have different substances, but share many of the same accidents. One could have a statue of a man in the exact same size, shape, color, etc... [quote]Thanks so much! I'm a highschooler and a convert, and delving into something a wee bit over my head! [/quote] We are all in over our head on this one. That is because this is a mystery! Let us continue to proclaim it however. BTW I am sure that when Laudate, phatcatholic, or Jeff come along they wil be able to correct where I have erred or suppliment my explination more coherrently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daugher-of-Mary Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 God bless you, my friend!!! : That makes a whole lotta sense and it's only 4:46 in the morning. : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Could you please tell me what issue and article this is? I found out that our library has this magazine and I would be interested in reading this article to find out what the point of it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daugher-of-Mary Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 oh certainly! 'This is My Body'--How to Understand Transubstantiation by Terence Nichols from Oct 7 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 After reading the article I find that his understanding is very close, too close, to consubstansiation (sp?). He even admits at the end of the article that his view is closer to Luther's....It is lamentable that we carry this in our library. Anyway...one glaring hole that I find in his proposal is that he says that the body and bloody (he keeps them lower cased grr) is incorporated into the glorified body and blood of the raised and glorifiedChrist. Well he should be reminded that the Last Supper was the insitution of the Eucharist and wait...Christ was not raised yet, he was not even killed yet. How can this be that the bread and wine were ingrafted into something that was not then a reality? HMMMM He also states that the body and blood are not physical realites, but only spiritual ones. That is why the ECFwent on and on about not dropping the Host right? or why we adore Christ substantially present in the Eucharist. Well i plan on re-reading this and viewing what Aquinas does indeed say about the mystery. I will try to get back to you later. I am kinda hot right now because I get so frustrated when Catholic theologians attempt to buck 2000 years of tradition for the sake of peace of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 (edited) Clarification: I did not intend to deny that the Eucharist is the glorified Body and Blood fo Christ. Christ has only one body and that body is glorified and risen. My purpose was to state that at the Last Supper it could not be the risen body for it had not yet risen. It makes sense in context of the article because the author is trying to make the point for a weak type of consubstansiation based on the Eucharist only being the risen Body and therefore it can be both substantially bread and Body. I just wanted to clarify this before I earned the title phishy. Edited December 3, 2005 by Paphnutius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daugher-of-Mary Posted December 3, 2005 Author Share Posted December 3, 2005 (edited) Oh I'm glad you were able to read the whole article! The frightening thing is, he makes just enough sense to sound like he is defending Catholicism (with the selective quotes from Aquinas and the Catechism)...that could be awfully dangerous for someone who is weak in their faith. I think I'm also going to have to break out the Summa. Two other things I noticed...he leaves out the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, and our participation in Heavenly worship at Mass. He is very bent on trying to make everything "make sense", and in doing so strips a Mystery of its glory. *sigh* Edited December 3, 2005 by daugher-of-Mary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now