Metaphysics Of The Eucharist

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Here it is again...

Given the background of Aristotelian Metaphysics, and Thomistic Theology; how can mere bread (substance and accidents) change. It seems that the accidents of humans subside in human substance, and the accidents of sweet in food, and the accidents of hard in material things. But what can be said about the existence of accidents? Can accidents of food exist without food, or the accidents of man exist without man, or color without material substance? It seems this window of self-subsistent accidents is opened when we open the door of transubstantiation. How can the taste of bread exist without the form of bread? And also when we factor in the 4 causes we must saw that for a loaf of bread to be a loaf of bread it requires the [b]form[/b] of a loaf of bread, and also the [b]matter[/b] of a loaf of bread. (The formal and material cause). But after Transubstantiation there is flesh existing without the matter of flesh. How is this possible? Am I just making difficulties out of something which is very obvious, or is something crazy going on? I understand that this is a matter of faith, but it must at least be possible if Aristotelian/Thomistic Metaphysics is right (which I hope is). Let me know your thoughts.

Andrew Jaeger

[Theoketos]

[quote]Can accidents of food exist without food, or the accidents of man exist without man, or color without material substance?[/quote]

Let me give you another example of accidents persisting while there is a substantial change occurs; death. When an animal dies, the soul leaves the body and all that remains are accidents.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' post='1216033' date='Mar 19 2007, 06:07 PM']Here it is again...

Given the background of Aristotelian Metaphysics, and Thomistic Theology; how can mere bread (substance and accidents) change.

...it must at least be possible if Aristotelian/Thomistic Metaphysics is right (which I hope is).[/quote]
I should start by stressing that what follows is nothing more than the opinion of this phatmasser. I hope there will be something here of value to you.

The point of the doctrine of transubstantiation is not to explain how [in the causal sense] bread, or anything else, can undergo substantial change without any change of accidents. Transubstantiation describes [i]what[/i] takes place in the miracle of Eucharistic consecration, it does not in itself presume to answer questions of how or why.

Roman Catholic Theology has long accepted a certain metaphysical paradigm which describes and attempts to understand the contents of reality in a specific way. According to this paradigm there are existents which can logically be conceived of as individuated loci of activity and distinct subjects of properties and modes. Since categorization is natural to metaphysical theorization, the identification of a logically differentiable class of being becomes a formal category, in this case substance or substantial being. In juxtaposition there are those aspects of reality which logically have no subsistence but are manifested through inherence, namely accidents.

It should be clear that simply describing an existent in terms of substance and accidents does not directly assert or imply etiological or genetic claims. I certainly admit that the doctrine of transubstantiation is directed toward the formality of the event and reality which it describes; nonetheless, I believe that the questions you have posed reflect a pattern of misunderstanding which I have noticed quite frequently, particularly in relation to the doctrines of our faith. More specifically, I would identify the problem here as what I call the misappropriation of alethiological intension.

I can sum up my assessment without going overboard with the details. The doctrine of transubstantiation is essentially descriptive of [i]what[/i] happens at the consecration. I don't deny that one can find speculative theology which seeks to excessively rationalize transubstantiation, but the doctrine as such is not about that. According to my understanding, the statement that the substance of bread and the substance of wine become the Body and Blood of Christ whilst the appearances, or accidents remain, is first and foremost an affirmation of the fact that the Eucharist is not merely figurative or symbolic--the bread and wine cease to be--and the whole affair is completely miraculous and supernatural. The possibility of this occurrence, and the efficient causality, is explained by nothing else but the omnipotence of God.
Yes, based on the conditions of nature this is "impossible"; but miracles tend to be that way--from the virgin birth down to the resurrection.

The Catechism puts it well: "the signs of bread and wine become, [i]in a way surpassing understanding[/i], the Body and Blood of Christ."

The Council of Constance highlighted the incomprehensibility of this mystery when it affirmed that the accidents of bread and wine remain in the Eucharist without a subject. In other words, the Church goes so far as to say that the accidents remain with no substantial inherence--they continue to exist by themselves.

So in fact you are quite correct when you suggest that transubstantiation is impossible. There is no true analog in nature, or absolute descriptive potency within the metaphysics of substance and accidents, for that which occurs in the Mystery of the Eucharist. Apart from the omnipotent benevolence of God there is no way of conceiving of the Eucharistic Mystery.

[i]"The word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only this much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord."[/i] - The Catechism of St. Philaret

[i]"The total conversion of the substance of bread is expressed clearly in the words of Institution: "This is my body"... When, therefore, He Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: "This is my body", the bread became, through the utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread."[/i] - Catholic Encyclopedia

[quote]it must at least be possible if Aristotelian/Thomistic Metaphysics is right[/quote]
The doctrine of Transubstantiation, and even the use of the exact term/concept, predates Thomism and the acceptance of Aristotelian metaphysics in the Latin Churches. Even if this were not so, it is a mistake to suppose that Thomistic metaphysics is hinged upon the description of an entirely Theological, supernatural Mystery. But of course Transubstantiation is not a specifically Thomistic or Aristotelian doctrine anyway (it is not even close to being an Aristotelian doctrine since Aristotle was hardly a Christian Theologian). The bottom line anyway is that miracles are possible according to Thomistic thought because Thomism accepts to the omnipotence of God.

[i]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”.[/i] – Summa Theologiae, III, q.77, a.1

There is way more that I want to get into so please don't think that I believe I have answered your questions. The problem is that I'm very tired at the moment and I'm wondering if this shouldn't take place in a different board so we can rap back and forth.