A Thought On The Eucharist

[Ziggamafu]

Might it be appropriate to regard "substance" in studies of metaphysics as the will of God toward a created object? In other words, might it be appropriate, in consideration of the miracle of transubstantiaion, to regard the change in substance of the bread as a change in the will of God toward the bread? For God's will toward bread is that it [i]is [/i]bread (God is omniscient and sustains all things by his intellect) but God's will toward consecrated bread is that it is Christ himself. Now what God wills is effected. So if at one moment of our time God wills the bread to be bread and at the next moment God wills it to be Christ under the appearences of bread, isn't that a good example of what we mean by a change in "substance"?

Another way of putting this is as follows: when we refer to the substance of a thing, we refer to a thing's metaphysical identity. When we refer to a thing's metaphysical identity, are we referring to anything less than the sustaining will of God toward a thing?

The reason I ask for your opinions is because I am developing a presentation on the Eucharist and at a certain point I want to say:

"The physical makeup of the bread and wine remain, but the will of God that gives them their identities is no longer willing the presence of bread and wine, but rather in their place the whole Jesus of Nazareth; body, blood, soul, and divinity."

Edited July 2, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[kafka]

God is the ground of being, however the classical definition of substance is a self-sufficient entity. A substance is radically distinct from its ground which is God. So your wording seems to befuddle a clear explanation.

I also dont like the wording of 'change in the will of God toward bread.' That is confusing, since God's will is One.

Also I think the words 'physical makeup of bread and wine remain' is confusing since 'physical makeup' could easily be confused in one's mind with substance.

As far as a substance as metaphysical identity, that would also confuse the issue, since identity is used more to describe uniqueness or personhood in a human being.

Edited July 2, 2009 by kafka

[Ziggamafu]

Hmm. Yeah, good points. I suppose I'm trying to get across an easier comprehension of "accidents" and "substance". Accidents refer to a thing's physical makeup - the physics and chemistry of a thing - while substance refers to that metaphysical reality that gives a thing its identity. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to regard this metaphysical reality as God's sustaining will toward an object.

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1909049' date='Jul 3 2009, 07:03 AM']Hmm. Yeah, good points. I suppose I'm trying to get across an easier comprehension of "accidents" and "substance". Accidents refer to a thing's physical makeup - the physics and chemistry of a thing - while substance refers to that metaphysical reality that gives a thing its identity. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to regard this metaphysical reality as God's sustaining will toward an object.[/quote]
I think that approach tends toward pantheism. I think there are better ways to approach God as the ground of substances.

Edited July 3, 2009 by kafka

[kafka]

dp.

Edited July 3, 2009 by kafka

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' post='1909184' date='Jul 3 2009, 11:37 AM']I think that approach tends toward pantheism. I think there are better ways to approach God as the ground of substances.[/quote]

Now wait a second; pantheism would be suggested by a substance being God, while what I was considering (not arguing, merely seeking other opinions, such as yours) was the idea that "substance" could be understood as God's will toward an object. Not God as the object, but his will directed toward it. After all, it is unarguably a truth of faith that things owe their existence to the will of God.

[kafka]

I said tended toward since you were basically positing God's will in the predicate, and God is not seperate from His Will. I didnt in any way mean you were trying to make a pantheistic statement, but I was suggesting that the way you were explaining it might seem pantheistic to an average mind even though I knew you werent implying it.

anyway I'm sorry I didnt mean to take it that far

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1909049' date='Jul 3 2009, 08:03 AM']Hmm. Yeah, good points. I suppose I'm trying to get across an easier comprehension of "accidents" and "substance". Accidents refer to a thing's physical makeup - the physics and chemistry of a thing - while substance refers to that metaphysical reality that gives a thing its identity. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to regard this metaphysical reality as God's sustaining will toward an object.[/quote]

I would simplify it this way:

Substance = What is it?
Accidents = What does it look/feel/touch/taste like?

Obviously it's difficult to explain because there aren't many (if any) examples of a thing changing subtance in nature without a change in accidents. I personally feel like fewer words are better... seems there is more grace obtained in pondering the mystery than in trying to wrap our heads around it.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1909229' date='Jul 3 2009, 12:12 PM']Now wait a second; pantheism would be suggested by a substance being God, while what I was considering (not arguing, merely seeking other opinions, such as yours) was the idea that [b]"substance" could be understood as God's will toward an object[/b]. Not God as the object, but his will directed toward it. After all, it is unarguably a truth of faith that things owe their existence to the will of God.[/quote]

I haven't had metaphysics in 3 years, but some of it is still up there...

Personally, I don't like the portion I highlighted. I don't think substance is God's will towards the object, rather God's will towards an object determines the substance - yet they are distinct. God wills a frog to be a frog - not that God's will is a frog. And yes it is true that things owe their existence, and substance, and all they are to the will of God, I'm not sure that means they themselves are the will of God. If I build a chair, I will the chair be built - but the chair itself is not my will, it is a chair.

I think if you're looking to explain substance and accidents and the change in the Eucharist, the best way is to explain the other 2 changes. Everyone knows that if you rip a piece of paper in half, you have changed the accidents but it still is paper. Likewise, if you burn the paper you have destroyed the accidents and no longer have paper but ash and smoke. By the virute of faith we know that the Eucharist no longer is bread and wine but Body and Blood, yet it appears as bread and wine :. the substance yet not the accidents must have changed.

Now I think where you're argument comes in is how does it change. It changes by the will of God. But I don't come to the conclusion that because the will of God changed it, it is therefore the will of God itself.

[Marie-Therese]

I don't claim on any level to be a scholar, but a point which occurred to me is that given the continuity of God and His lack of constraint by time/space...God's will toward the "substance" has not changed since His will was that it be such from time immemorial. God IS, and the action of transubstantiation is simply part and parcel of what His will has always been. Based on that, and the much more lucid metaphysical arguments laid out by my more learned brethren above, I think it would be hard to argue your initial point. I do see what you meant, though...