Argument against trnsubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter ccmnxc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ccmnxc

Guest
A friend told me this was an argument Martin Luther gave in arguing against the Real Presence (don’t know if it is true, and it doesn’t really matter). The gist of the argument was the the accidents must change if the substance changes. As far as I know, transaccidentiation does not take place, only transubstantiation. I don’t know a whole lot about substance of accident as is philosophically defined, so I don’t really know where to begin. Any thoughts?
 
Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence. He rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass, and believed that the Catholic attempt to explain the Real Presence via transubstantiation was an ill-advised activity, but He still believed that Christ becomes present in the Eucharist at the Consecration. Your friend is obviously not steeped in Church history, as the RP is one of the main points of argumentation between Luther and Zwingli, and later the Lutherans and the Reformed. I’m no philosophy buff, so I’ll leave the main part of your question to someone else.
 
ccmnxc said:
A friend told me this was an argument Martin Luther gave in arguing against the Real Presence (don’t know if it is true, and it doesn’t really matter). The gist of the argument was the the accidents must change if the substance changes. As far as I know, transaccidentiation does not take place, only transubstantiation. I don’t know a whole lot about substance of accident as is philosophically defined, so I don’t really know where to begin. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Luther forgot both his Catechism and his St. Thomas. St. Thomas teaches that Transubstantian is a special Substantial Change in which, not only the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Substance of Christ, but the accidents of the bread and wine remain but inhere in no subject. In the usual substantial change the matter of the subject changed would remain, the old form would receed into the matter and the new form would be brought out of the old matter. This does not happen in Transubstantiation because it is a miracle of God.

Also, this is the way the Dogma is defined, in so many words. According to the Dogma, the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ but the accidents remain but do not inhere in any subject. And the whole of Christ is physically present in His Glorified condition, His whole human nature and His Divine nature, body, blood, soul, and Divinity.

Linus2nd

.
 
We need to thank the Lord that Transaccidentation does not happen too often.

Not many would have the courage to throgos (gnaw) at a piece of raw meat dripping blood, which is the word Jesus used to describe eating His flesh when the Jews did not believe Him the first time He told them.

However every now and then especially in presence of doubting priests, transaccidentation DOES happen.

Google “Eucharistic miracles” and you will find a phletora of examples of this.

Transubstantiation is just a term that attempt to explain a miracle. Namely that a piece of bread and a little wine are transformed into the body and blood of our risen Lord and yet remain the appearence of bread and wine.

The real miracle to me is that the TRUE nature of the host and the wine are kept hidden from our senses so that we may take them without fear or even disgust.

–
 
JamesTheJust said:
Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence. He rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass, and believed that the Catholic attempt to explain the Real Presence via transubstantiation was an ill-advised activity, but He still believed that Christ becomes present in the Eucharist at the Consecration. Your friend is obviously not steeped in Church history, as the RP is one of the main points of argumentation between Luther and Zwingli, and later the Lutherans and the Reformed. I’m no philosophy buff, so I’ll leave the main part of your question to someone else.
Click to expand...
I know that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus because the Holy Spirit revealed this to me, however, I did believe this before it was revealed to me.

I don’t really know what all of the particulars are about Transubstantiation, so I can’t really say that I agree or disagree with what it says, but it seems to me that sometimes we take the simple (This Is My Body, This Is My Blood) and in our human way attempt to complicate it.

I don’t know exactly how I am being fed with the Eucharist and I don’t need to know exactly how I am being fed, I just pray that I am being fed in a way that I can at least attempt to do the “job” that God chose me to do.

I knew that Martin Luther believed in the Real Presense and that that was a source of contention with others of his time but what do you mean by “He rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass”?

To me, the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist where we are fed in a number of ways including the Body and Blood of Jesus, isn’t this the “Sacrifice of the Mass”?
 
ccmnxc said:
A friend told me this was an argument Martin Luther gave in arguing against the Real Presence (don’t know if it is true, and it doesn’t really matter). The gist of the argument was the the accidents must change if the substance changes. As far as I know, transaccidentiation does not take place, only transubstantiation. I don’t know a whole lot about substance of accident as is philosophically defined, so I don’t really know where to begin. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Luther believed in the Real Presence. I don’t think he rejected the truth expressed in transubstantiation, but felt that such an articulation of the mystery was scholastic quibbling about words. As Ockahm demonstrated, the relationship between words and realities is tenuous at best.

There is nothing more boring and vacuous than quibbling about substance and accidents, essence and existence, etc. They are merely words…
 
The use of “substance” and “accident” terminology was mostly a scholastic (medieval theology of the Schoolmen, like Aquinas) development of Aristotle. A substance, to put it simply, is a subject/object in which accidents inhere; whereas accidents are qualities that help define the subject/object.

For example, “dog” is a substance, but the colour, size and texture of the dog are all accidents.

The idea is that the accidents of a substance can change and the substance still remain what it is: a big, brown and shaggy dog that all of a sudden shrinks, is bleached and losses its fur is still the same dog.

The dispute really arises when we ask about the degree of accidental change and the substance still being the same. I guess that’s the case with the Eucharist. It would be argued by some that since the substantial change is so extreme, the lack of corresponding accidental change suggests no change is occurring. Furthermore, we don’t have any examples of such a thing ever occurring otherwise.

While there is a point here, it’s not entirely true, as we do have good examples of substantial change that does not involve immediate accidental change. One obvious one is when a person dies. Death causes a substantial change from a human person to a human corpse, and the outward accidents do not change immediately (though they will after some time). Certainly, there are inward, detectable changes (such as lack of brain activity) but I would argue the same would be true on a spiritual level with regards the Eucharist - there is a spiritual change, only we can’t detect it, just as we could not detect brain waves two hundred years ago.

Hope that helps.
 
Tom_Baum said:
I know that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus because the Holy Spirit revealed this to me, however, I did believe this before it was revealed to me.

I don’t really know what all of the particulars are about Transubstantiation, so I can’t really say that I agree or disagree with what it says, but it seems to me that sometimes we take the simple (This Is My Body, This Is My Blood) and in our human way attempt to complicate it.

I don’t know exactly how I am being fed with the Eucharist and I don’t need to know exactly how I am being fed, I just pray that I am being fed in a way that I can at least attempt to do the “job” that God chose me to do.

I knew that Martin Luther believed in the Real Presense and that that was a source of contention with others of his time but what do you mean by “He rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass”?

To me, the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist where we are fed in a number of ways including the Body and Blood of Jesus, isn’t this the “Sacrifice of the Mass”?
Click to expand...
The doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass states that the Mass and it’s summit, the consecration and consumption of the bread and wine, is a perpetuation of the sacrifice made on the Cross at Calvary. Note that it is not a “re-sacrificing” of Christ, as some Protestants allege, but simply a re-presentation of the sacrifice to the Father. For more info:
catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass
newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchb1a.htm

Luther rejected this idea, arguing that the Mass was near-paganism. Philipp Melanchthon, Luther’s right-hand man, banned the Mass in Lutheran states and persecuted those who practiced it. Please note that it is a solemn and infallible doctrine of the Church that the bread and wine completely and utterly become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ at the Consecration. They remain bread and wine in their appearance, or subsistence, but transform in what they actually are, or substance. Hence we get the term:
Trans- Change
Substantia- Substance
Tion- Process
Trans+substantia+tion= Transubstantiation.
 
It Comes down to this who are you going to believe and follow ; Jesus Christ or Martin Luther? The Word makes this happen and we rely on God’s promise. So, do you believe God does what He says: “This is my body…”
 
Right. But the Church did use Thomas’ philosophical expressions and definitions in its formulation of the Dogma. Of course, not everyone is able to understand these things. So you are right, and some of the others above. We believe what Christ said, just as the Apostles did, we do not need to understand " how. " Except that we should understand that it is Christ’s Glorified body which is present, which was not restricted or limited by the laws of nature which govern this world.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top