I believe it would be helpful in contrasting the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation with that of Luther and Calvin and then Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan. The differences would illuminate Protestant and Liberal origins with the central Catholic mystery which is rejected.
In consideration of the fact that the accidents of bread in wine do not inhere in the substance of Christ but instead continue without a subject, how do we properly describe the relationship between the accidents of bread and wine which remain and the substance of Christ after the consecration? For the apparent "bread" is in fact Christ though the accidents of bread do not inhere in Him. So while the relationship is not a relation between a substance and its accidents, there must be some association between the two (since that which appears to be bread is, in truth, Christ).
The Orthodox have recently condemned the notion that the Eucharist can transfer disease (considering COVID). Now in the talk (27:59) it was said that the accidents in the Eucharist retain their causal influence. Is it possible, in the Catholic perspective, that the Eucharist, being still true food while remaining the true and substantial Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, might transfer also disease? (Of course, this question does not express disbelief in Christ the Divine Healer.)
Does the change in the bread occur when the celebrant says "this is my body," and the wine when he says, "this is my blood," or do they both change after the second statement, "this is my blood?"
You are correct in that the bread and wine change after the respective words of consecration over each. However, for the Mass to be valid, the priest must consecrate both of the species properly, so if he makes a mistake with the essential words of consecration, he would have to go back and correct the error before moving forward. St. Thomas doesn't address this question in the exact way that you formulate it, but he does look at potential defects during Mass that would need to be corrected during the celebration (see Summa Theologiae III, q. 78, a. 6, ad 1 and q. 83, a. 6 - aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iiia-q-78#TPQ78OUTP1 and aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iiia-q-83#TPQ83OUTP1)
What’s the difference between bread’s annihilation and it’s cessation? The speaker says at one point it isn’t annihilated, but then says it is cessated/ceased(?)
By annihilation, it would imply that the bread and wine (their substances, as well as their accidents) would be taken out existence completely - nothing would be there, and no traces or vestiges of them would remain. It would be as if they never existed. After transubstantiation, the bread and wine do indeed cease to exist as substances, as they are changed completely into the substance of Christ's body and blood. However, the substances of Christ's body and blood are there, present in what used to be substances of bread and wine. Annihilation would entail nothing being there after the consecration, whereas the cessation of one substance (bread) allows it to be changed into another substance (body of Christ). As St. Thomas says, "the substance of the bread is changed, is something, and consequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated" (see Summa Theologiae III, q. 75, a. 3 - aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iiia-q-75#TPQ75OUTP1)
This was a podcast recording, which has been re-formatted into a video format. Unfortunately, there is no actual video footage to go along with the talk.
Thank you.
You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Thank You 💐
I believe it would be helpful in contrasting the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation with that of Luther and Calvin and then Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan. The differences would illuminate Protestant and Liberal origins with the central Catholic mystery which is rejected.
In consideration of the fact that the accidents of bread in wine do not inhere in the substance of Christ but instead continue without a subject, how do we properly describe the relationship between the accidents of bread and wine which remain and the substance of Christ after the consecration? For the apparent "bread" is in fact Christ though the accidents of bread do not inhere in Him. So while the relationship is not a relation between a substance and its accidents, there must be some association between the two (since that which appears to be bread is, in truth, Christ).
The Orthodox have recently condemned the notion that the Eucharist can transfer disease (considering COVID).
Now in the talk (27:59) it was said that the accidents in the Eucharist retain their causal influence.
Is it possible, in the Catholic perspective, that the Eucharist, being still true food while remaining the true and substantial Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, might transfer also disease?
(Of course, this question does not express disbelief in Christ the Divine Healer.)
Some say yes, others say no.
Does the change in the bread occur when the celebrant says "this is my body," and the wine when he says, "this is my blood," or do they both change after the second statement, "this is my blood?"
You are correct in that the bread and wine change after the respective words of consecration over each. However, for the Mass to be valid, the priest must consecrate both of the species properly, so if he makes a mistake with the essential words of consecration, he would have to go back and correct the error before moving forward. St. Thomas doesn't address this question in the exact way that you formulate it, but he does look at potential defects during Mass that would need to be corrected during the celebration (see Summa Theologiae III, q. 78, a. 6, ad 1 and q. 83, a. 6 - aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iiia-q-78#TPQ78OUTP1 and aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iiia-q-83#TPQ83OUTP1)
What’s the difference between bread’s annihilation and it’s cessation? The speaker says at one point it isn’t annihilated, but then says it is cessated/ceased(?)
By annihilation, it would imply that the bread and wine (their substances, as well as their accidents) would be taken out existence completely - nothing would be there, and no traces or vestiges of them would remain. It would be as if they never existed. After transubstantiation, the bread and wine do indeed cease to exist as substances, as they are changed completely into the substance of Christ's body and blood. However, the substances of Christ's body and blood are there, present in what used to be substances of bread and wine. Annihilation would entail nothing being there after the consecration, whereas the cessation of one substance (bread) allows it to be changed into another substance (body of Christ). As St. Thomas says, "the substance of the bread is changed, is something, and consequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated" (see Summa Theologiae III, q. 75, a. 3 - aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iiia-q-75#TPQ75OUTP1)
No video?
This was a podcast recording, which has been re-formatted into a video format. Unfortunately, there is no actual video footage to go along with the talk.