Aristotelian substance theory and transubstantiation

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Ah, the unsubstantiated claim…

Actually, it held up. You are a bit confused about what an accident and what a substance is. Nothing makes up substance.

Well, given that Hume’s criticism that we ought not to assume the substance exists if we are not able to perceive it suggests that the theory believe that “substance” doe exists outside of our concept of it. Indeed, in Aristotle’s Categories, chapter 7, Aristotle suggests that substances do actually exist and aren’t just concepts.

In your interpretation, Aristotle may have suggested that (though I strongly disagree and would like you to quote the line or two that you believe suggests that interpretation of yours). However, if you read Chapter 5 of Categories, you would see, plain as day,
"Aristotle:

Substance, in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject

How can something exist as a physical entity, yet not be “present in a subject?”

What science shows is that the source of an items attribute is its physical makeup, not any unseeable substance.

Again, you have confused accident and substance. The attribute is an accident, not a substance. Substance is the “that which is” of the item.

In which case, the only way that the bread and wine are the body and blood is in the mind of the one who thinks about them. Thus, the bread and wine don’t really change.

The bread and wine do not change physical properties, yes; even the Church is able to admit that. But the substance, the “that which it is,” changes from bread to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Well, your own admission has defeated Trent. It’s pretty clear you don’t really get what substance theory really is. Yes, it sounds better when the “substance” is just the linguistic or subjectively built concept of a category, but then you lose transubstantiation altogether.

My admission has not defeated Trent & Church teaching, it has held it up. You have confused substance with accident at least 4 times in the discussions with me, so I cannot imagine that I am the one erring with regards to substance theory.

 

[Muze]

It is not essential to the doctrine of Real Presence that we can perfectly articulate what is happening through a system of metaphysics. In fact, transubstantiation as a metaphysical construct is not essential to the doctrine in-and-of-itself, but an attempt to ontologically explain what is happening. As far as I understand, a Catholic in good conscience does not have to believe that metaphysics even exists, so long as they reject unorthodox propositions about the Real Presence as well.

Well, Trent seems to say otherwise, as it clearly uses substance theory language.

Also, I hope we can engage in fruitful dialogue for the purposes of advancing in understanding of Christ and his Church, and not merely for intellectual stimulation or reasons of personal ego.

Agreed. But first we have to realize what Trent says, what it is based upon, and that this basis has been universally rejected.

 

[Anthony_V]

Since God is spirit and distinct from physical creation, this would not work. However, transubstantiation speaks about body and blood that ARE part of physical creation, so “spiritualizing” this doesn’t work.

And yet his human nature (body and blood) have been glorified in the Resurrection. It would be folly to try and investigate that change through some empirical method. Can you biologically measure immortality as a property in itself, instead of merely a fending off of entropy? No, it is rather the process of the body being most perfectly informed by the immortal soul.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Actually, after thinking about it some more, denying substance theory means you must deny the Trinity.

The reason we speak of 3 Persons yet 1 God is because they have the same substance (“consubstantial” (of the same substance) is even in the Nicene Creed!). If you speak of substance theory as false, then you must accept that either Jesus is not God or that there are Three Gods.

 

[Anthony_V]

Well, Trent seems to say otherwise, as it clearly uses substance theory language.

Yes. But the words themselves are not the doctrine. To say otherwise would to be suggesting that sacred mystery can be fully and perfectly articulated by human words. Rather, we believe in doctrinal development for this reason. The Church has, not a particular philosophy, but her Faith in Christ which she carries.

There is no one aspect deep enough to exhaust the contents of a real idea, no one term or proposition which will serve to define it; though of course one representation of it is more just and exact than another, and though when an idea is very complex, it is allowable, for the sake of convenience, to consider its distinct aspects as if separate ideas.
John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

 

[jbeck43]

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation comes from the council of Trent (although that simply defines what the RCC believes), and that is based upon the articulation of this doctrine by Aquinas, and that is based upon Aristotelian substance theory, which states that when we strip away the accidents of a particular thing we are left with its substance, which cannot be observed. Aquinas uses this to state that the accidents of our senses’ perception of the bread and wine don’t change, but God changes the substance of those things to be the actual body and blood of Christ.

Here’s the problem: No one actually embraces Aristotelian substance theory any more. It has fallen victim to the developments of science in our understanding of the universe and the actual substance of matter and energy. The “accidents” are actually a reflection of how the atoms and subatomic particles interact and not some unseen substance. “Substance”, it seems, is nothing more than the subjective (although roughly agreed upon within a given language) idea behind a given term that we apply to a category of items. Nothing more.

And yet the Church continues to embrace transubstantiation as its explanation for the bread and wine being the actual body and blood of Christ.

How does the RCC deal with this? Their doctrine is based upon a universally rejected ontology.

You believe Jesus is God in the second person of the trinity. If you lived at the time Jesus did on earth, and snipped off the tip of His finger, and put it under a microscope, would you be able to prove it based just on that?

 

[Anthony_V]

Actually, after thinking about it some more, denying substance theory means you must deny the Trinity.

The reason we speak of 3 Persons yet 1 God is because they have the same substance (“consubstantial” (of the same substance) is even in the Nicene Creed!). If you speak of substance theory as false, then you must accept that either Jesus is not God or that there are Three Gods.

I do not think he or she believes substance theory to be utterly false, but rather to be inadequate, outdated, and therefore inaccurate to some degree. That is, a person speaking about substance theory may be talking about something different than what they are proposing; e.g. atoms and molecules rather than some ontological “stuff”; more Anaxagoras-esque.

 

[Just_Lurking]

From Wikipedia (see here):

Transignification is an idea originating from the attempts of modernist Roman Catholic theologians, especially Edward Schillebeeckx, to better understand the mystery of the real presence of Christ at Mass in light of a new philosophy of the nature of reality that is more in line with contemporary physics.

For a list of other approaches, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology

 

[hicetnunc]

Yes, I am describing the theory so as to show that it is not held by anyone anymore as modern science has shown it to be false.

Sorry, Muze, but I have to call you on that because it’s just not true. When and by which scientist has the notion of substance shown to be false? “Substance” is a metaphysical term and by definition is beyond observation, as you yourself pointed out.

A great many philosophers continue to discuss and explore metaphysical questions such as substance. And in fact, a number of eminent scientists have also taken up the notion of substance, especially in connection to neuroscience and quantum theory. Take for example Raymond Tallis, neuroscientist in “Aping Mankind”; Francis Collins, “Language of God”. Alister McGrath, a biologist and convert to Christianity from atheism, frequently discusses the notion of substance. They do so not as the product of scientific inquriy, but because they are open to truths which transcend science and yet give meaning to certain conclusions of science.

Furthermore, as our protestant brother (or sister) you shoudl be very keen to defend the notion of substance, since it has application to much more than simply the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is at the very heart of the creed, which all Christians profess when they declare that Jesus Christ is “one in substance (consubstantial) with the Father.”

Substance simply describes the reality of being which goes beyond mere appearances. It may have origins in Aristotle, but it has a long Christian tradition.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

From Wikipedia (see here):

Transignification is an idea originating from the attempts of modernist Roman Catholic theologians, especially Edward Schillebeeckx, to better understand the mystery of the real presence of Christ at Mass in light of a new philosophy of the nature of reality that is more in line with contemporary physics.

For a list of other approaches, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology

You missed quoting the part that says, “The theory has been rejected by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, in particular in Pope Paul VI’s 1965 encyclical Mysterium Fidei.”

 

[Muze]

Actually, after thinking about it some more, denying substance theory means you must deny the Trinity.

The reason we speak of 3 Persons yet 1 God is because they have the same substance (“consubstantial” (of the same substance) is even in the Nicene Creed!). If you speak of substance theory as false, then you must accept that either Jesus is not God or that there are Three Gods.

The trinity isn’t based upon substance theory. That’s a difference usage of that term.

 

[Muze]

Yes. But the words themselves are not the doctrine. To say otherwise would to be suggesting that sacred mystery can be fully and perfectly articulated by human words. Rather, we believe in doctrinal development for this reason. The Church has, not a particular philosophy, but her Faith in Christ which she carries.

So, the church can’t actually express anything infallibly…

 

[Muze]

Actually, after thinking about it some more, denying substance theory means you must deny the Trinity.

The reason we speak of 3 Persons yet 1 God is because they have the same substance (“consubstantial” (of the same substance) is even in the Nicene Creed!). If you speak of substance theory as false, then you must accept that either Jesus is not God or that there are Three Gods.

Again, substance used in the trinity does not come from substance theory. You might want to take a historical doctrine course to get the difference.

 

[Muze]

You believe Jesus is God in the second person of the trinity. If you lived at the time Jesus did on earth, and snipped off the tip of His finger, and put it under a microscope, would you be able to prove it based just on that?

What does this have to do with substance theory?

I mean, yes, I could, by simple DNA testing.

 

[Muze]

From Wikipedia (see here):

Transignification is an idea originating from the attempts of modernist Roman Catholic theologians, especially Edward Schillebeeckx, to better understand the mystery of the real presence of Christ at Mass in light of a new philosophy of the nature of reality that is more in line with contemporary physics.

For a list of other approaches, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology

The concept of transignification was ultimately rejected by the Catholic hierarchy,

 

[Muze]

Sorry, Muze, but I have to call you on that because it’s just not true. When and by which scientist has the notion of substance shown to be false? “Substance” is a metaphysical term and by definition is beyond observation, as you yourself pointed out.

That doesn’t mean that scientist can’t address whether it exists or not. Evidence from science demonstrates that it does not.

A great many philosophers continue to discuss and explore metaphysical questions such as substance. And in fact, a number of eminent scientists have also taken up the notion of substance, especially in connection to neuroscience and quantum theory. Take for example Raymond Tallis, neuroscientist in “Aping Mankind”; Francis Collins, “Language of God”. Alister McGrath, a biologist and convert to Christianity from atheism, frequently discusses the notion of substance. They do so not as the product of scientific inquriy, but because they are open to truths which transcend science and yet give meaning to certain conclusions of science.

Keep in mind that “substance” is used in a number of ways in philosophy, most have nothing to do with substance theory.

So, just because you see the term doesn’t mean it’s referring to substance theory.

Furthermore, as our protestant brother (or sister) you shoudl be very keen to defend the notion of substance, since it has application to much more than simply the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is at the very heart of the creed, which all Christians profess when they declare that Jesus Christ is “one in substance (consubstantial) with the Father.”

Again, different usage than substance theory.

Substance simply describes the reality of being which goes beyond mere appearances. It may have origins in Aristotle, but it has a long Christian tradition.

You’re confusing the usage of the term in each case. “Substance” in the Nicene creed does not come from substance theory. “Homousia” means that the members of the trinity are all the same. They share identify attributes. And in this case, their attributes are not accidents.

 

[Just_Lurking]

You missed quoting the part that says, “The theory has been rejected by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, in particular in Pope Paul VI’s 1965 encyclical Mysterium Fidei.”

Even though transignifcation (and transfinalization) were rejected by Paul VI, the point remains that some modern Roman Catholic theologians have recognized the need to replace the metaphysics of substance theory by something else that is less opposed to modern physics.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The trinity isn’t based upon substance theory. That’s a difference usage of that term.

Perhaps you should read New Advents page on The Trinity. It discusses the relationship between the Three Persons as being of substance and not of accident.
NewAdvent:

Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in the Godhead, it follows that the Divine Persons are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the Son the Divine Filiation, the Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance and relation. (How it is that there should be in God real relations, though it is altogether impossible that quantity or quality should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding the metaphysics of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.)

Seems fairly clear to me that it is Aristotle’s Substance Theory!

So, again, your choices are:
(1) Accept Substance theory & all its implications
(2) Reject Substance theory & reject the Divinity of Christ
(3) Reject Substance theory, accept the Divinity of Christ, and be a hypocrite
(4) Reject Substance theory & accept polytheism

 

[hicetnunc]

That doesn’t mean that scientist can’t address whether it exists or not. Evidence from science demonstrates that it does not.

Nonsense. What is your evidence to support this?

You’re confusing the usage of the term in each case. “Substance” in the Nicene creed does not come from substance theory. “Homousia” means that the members of the trinity are all the same. They share identify attributes. And in this case, their attributes are not accidents.

The Greek Ousia means substance, is in fact the basis of Aristotle’s teaching on substance, and is translated into Latin substantia. And homoosian certainly does not mean that “the members of the Trinity are all the same.” It means that they are three persons who share the same substance.

I am afraid it seems to be you who have confused the meaning of substance, as St Thomas explains in Book VII of the Metaphysics, where, incidentally, he translates Aristotle’s ousia as substantia, and uses it to discuss the nature of God and the nature of created being, analogically.

You are way off here Muze and you are well outside Christian tradition on this.

 

[R_C]

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation comes from the council of Trent

No.

The Catholic doctrine comes from the Sacred Scripture.

At first, it was called transmutation, later transubstantiation.

We do not know if an even better term will be used in the future.

The point is that these terms simply define a Scriptural doctrine which was fully believed by and taught by the Apostles and their disciples, the Church Fathers. A doctrine that is fully present in the orthodox Christian apostolic tradition.

Iraeneus (140 - 202 AD):

When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ. … the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly

Justin Martyr (150 AD):

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these …] the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus

Cyril of Alexandria (150 - 216 AD):

Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and ‘This is My Blood,’ in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood

Origen (185 - 254 AD):

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body

Athanasius (295 - 373 AD):

So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD):

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . .fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so

Gregory of Nyssa (335 - 394 AD):

Rightly then do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been changed [Gr., metapoieisthai] into the Body of God the Word. …] For that Body was bread in power, but it has been sanctified by the dwelling there of the Word, who pitched his tent in the flesh. The change that elevated to divine power the bread that had been transformed into that Body causes something similar now. …] In this case, the bread “is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer”, as the Apostle says, not becoming the Body of the Word through our eating but by being transformed [Gr., metapoiumenos] immediately into the body by means of the word, as the Word himself said, ‘This is my Body.’

John of Damascus (676 - 749 AD):

not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit …] the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same

What did the Church, gathered in Trent, affirm in Session XIII Chapter IV?

because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

Even if you were to be right and a better definition of the term were needed based on our current scientific knowledge, one which re-defines the term “substance” and which leads the Church to call the conversion something more suitable and proper than “transubstantiation”, there remains no doubt that in whatever way it may be, the bread and wine on which the prayer is said becomes the true body and blood of the Lord in such a way that two realities are present. On these matters we follow the indications of s. Paul to “stand firm and hold on to the tradition”, of Iraeneus (“cherish with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth”) and of Origen (“that alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”).