Aristotelian substance theory and transubstantiation

[Muze]

I’m no scientist, but do you think the wine and the host actually ever changed into real blood and flesh?

On a physical (or even metaphysical) level, no. The idea of a mysterious or spiritual/consubstantial Eucharist makes more sense to me.

I think we should understand it as more of an essential change, very mysterious, but never-the-less a profound change. What was once ordinary wine and bread is blessed and infused with the essence of Christ. Sort of like holy water. (I don’t know if this is Church-doctrine, but that’s how I see it).

Do ya’ll know the joke about how the Church makes holy water? (Am I out on a ledge, here?)

 

[Muze]

You are even misusing the word substance in the first sentence here! “external substance” is nonsense, like a square circle. Substance is not an external anything, it is an objects being.

External to the attributes, to the physical makeup. Sorry if you can’t grasp what I mean.

 

[tafan]

Sorry, I don’t see where Jesus claimed to change bread into his body. He stated, “This is my body.” That can be taken any number of ways from literal (Jesus pulled off a piece of his flesh and turned it into bread) to symbolic (eating of the bread symbolizes embracing Him as the Messiah as His body is literally broken during the passion.)

But He never claimed to change bread into His actual body. That’s your imposition on the text.

The text says clearly He took bread. So we know that is what he started with, ie it was not a pice of His flesh. A few movements later He said “This is my body”. So at that time, it was His body. So the bread had to change to His body.

Your symbolic interpretation has a couple of problems. One, Jesus gave no indication that it was a symbolic act. Two, it was never accepted as symbolic by any Christian until the 15th century. Three, John chapter 6 specifically says, 3 times, that we must eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood. And most of His disciples left him over this issue, yet He never explained he was speaking symbolically, He let them go (despite His sadness they could not accept it).

 

[CHRISTINE77]

On a physical (or even metaphysical) level, no. The idea of a mysterious or spiritual/consubstantial Eucharist makes more sense to me.

Do ya’ll know the joke about how the Church makes holy water? (Am I out on a ledge, here?)

I’m sure it’s a Protestant joke but let’s hear it.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

What I’ve done is pointed out what you’ve ignored, and oddly enough requoted:

You don’t transcend something and then remain subject to it. This is a refutation of Aristotelian substance theory, because the theory is transcended.

The key part was the “Supreme Substance” and the “at once substance and relation” parts. You chose then, and now, to focus on the transcending, which I really want to know what you mean by “transcending substance theory.” Could you deeply explain what that means.

Sorry, but just because it uses “ousia” doesn’t mean it’s Aristotle’s use of it. There were many ontologies that used “ousia” to refer to the substance of a thing. In this case (and if you’d read it, you’d see it) the substance is the attributes or “accidents”.

Could you then explain what ousia means in this context? And I hope you realize that the word ‘ousia’ (substance) is very different from the word ‘sumbebêkos’ (accident), right? So if the Council of Nicea had meant “accidents,” why did they use the word ‘ousia’ and not ‘sumbebekos?’ Seems awfully far-fetched to me.

 

[Muze]

The text says clearly He took bread. So we know that is what he started with, ie it was not a pice of His flesh. A few movements later He said “This is my body”. So at that time, it was His body. So the bread had to change to His body.

But nowhere in the text are we told that Jesus does this. So, that’s a clear imposition on the text, especially when the obvious metaphorical use of “X is Y” is a far clearer exegesis.

Your symbolic interpretation has a couple of problems. One, Jesus gave no indication that it was a symbolic act.

You mean other than the claim that Jesus changed it is clearly not in the text anywhere?

Two, it was never accepted as symbolic by any Christian until the 15th century.

Which is as easily a result of poor exegesis in the early church as anything else.

Three, John chapter 6 specifically says, 3 times, that we must eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood.

Read John 6. Nowhere in that chapter does Jesus mention the Eucharist or associate this with passover in any way. Indeed, the “bread” in most of this chapter is used to contrast Jesus with Moses. Read verses 30-34. Jesus is having a dialogue with the Jews about who He is and what the Jews require to receive eternal life.

The people already stated that their forefathers ate manna from heaven in the desert, and they claimed that this was a sign that Moses, the Old Covenant Law bringer, was from God. In contrast to that Jesus is saying that we must eat the bread which is His flesh and drink His blood, because He is the one who will establish the New Covenant by His own body and blood.

Again, read John 6. There is nothing in that chapter about passover or Eucharist. That’s been put into the text by Church scholars for a very long time.

And most of His disciples left him over this issue, yet He never explained he was speaking symbolically, He let them go (despite His sadness they could not accept it).

He didn’t need to explain that he was speaking symbolically. Jesus just told them that they would be rejecting the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses, walking away from the very thing that defined the fabric of their lives, and embracing a New Covenant. The disciples understood exactly what He was saying. Again, go read verses 30-34. Read verses 41-42. The Jews GRUMBLE against Jesus. The last time the Jews grumbled against God, they were stuck in the desert for 40 years, and that generation died without entering the promised land.

the Jews got it. They didn’t need it explained. Jesus’ teaching was very clear to them, and they didn’t want to accept it.

 

[Eleve]

And the issue with this is that there isn’t some external substance apart from the concepts in our minds with respect to our language that metaphysically make that thing “that thing.”

Well, you can say this until you’re blue in the face, but you haven’t given us a single example of a scientific result which shows it to be true.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I was just thinking (I know, that’s bad ), but if Nicea DOES use Aristotelian substance theory (which I don’t think it does, but I could be convinced otherwise), and we realize that AST (tired of typing that out ) is rejected as a reflection of reality, that only means that the Churches (East and West) are going to have to reformulate the statement of the trinity using a valid philosophical basis.

Saying that the idea of AST is dead means that the trinity isn’t stated correctly is only an argument from bad consequences, which isn’t a valid argument at all.

If it is, in fact, true, then that just means the Churches have some work to do.

If substance theory is not valid, then you must accept one of the heretical positions:

• Ebionism – Jesus was not God but merely a man
• Arianism – Jesus was not God but a powerful (and subordinate) Being
• Adpotionism – Jesus was God via “Adoption”
• Apollinarianism – Jesus was “possessed” by God

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Well, you can say this until you’re blue in the face, but you haven’t given us a single example of a scientific result which shows it to be true.

What more evidence do you need, the science proves it!

 

[MPat]

And of what are atoms and subatomic particles composed?

Atoms are composed of electrons, protons and neutrons.

And…? Is that a “trick question”? Did you expect the answer “Atoms are composed of electrons, protons, neutrons and substance.”…?

But it isn’t so. In this case the isolated atom is a substance. It has accidents. For example, energy. When it is hit by a photon, energy increases, but the atom stays. Aristotle would probably say that it is an accidental change. If nuclear fission or fusion happens, we would have something that he would call a substantial change: we no longer have the same atom.

As you can see, talk about substance and accidents (as such) is not even that incompatible with materialism.

Are you saying that the redness of an apple inheres in the molecules that make up the apple’s skin?

How do you explain where the accidents we refer to as qualia come from?

Yppop

I have no idea. I only know that they must come from somewhere.

Anyway, when I was writing the part you’re answering here, I meant that Muze seems to be a little too certain that molecules must count as accidents. That is, one can argue that they should, but then one should give some arguments in favour of such position.

 

[Eleve]

“Which chemistry book says this?”

“Any chemistry book.”

“Could you explain why science is incompatible with substance theory?”

“Science says there aren’t any substances!!!”

“…”

 

[Eleve]

By the way, Muze, I find it curious that you object so strongly to substance theory with regards to the Trinity. You reject substance theory apparently because you find it incompatible with the view that physical objects are composed entirely of the particles of fundamental physics, or something like that. But of course nobody thinks that the Father or the Holy Spirit are physical beings, so anything you can say about the composition of physical objects, or anything that you can learn about physical objects through the natural sciences, isn’t going to tell you anything about the Trinity to begin with. Whereas, for example, you apparently think it’s a problem for substance theory that when we go looking for substances through the lens of science we only find quarks and gluons and so on, there can be no such problem for accounts of the Trinity; we certainly have not found that the Holy Spirit is composed of quarks or gluons or anything remotely like that. So if your objection to substance theory just comes from physics, I don’t see how you can extend it to trinitarian theology.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

By the way, Muze, I find it curious that you object so strongly to substance theory with regards to the Trinity. You reject substance theory apparently because you find it incompatible with the view that physical objects are composed entirely of the particles of fundamental physics, or something like that. But of course nobody thinks that the Father or the Holy Spirit are physical beings, so anything you can say about the composition of physical objects, or anything that you can learn about physical objects through the natural sciences, isn’t going to tell you anything about the Trinity to begin with. Whereas, for example, you apparently think it’s a problem for substance theory that when we go looking for substances through the lens of science we only find quarks and gluons and so on, there can be no such problem for accounts of the Trinity; we certainly have not found that the Holy Spirit is composed of quarks or gluons or anything remotely like that. So if your objection to substance theory just comes from physics, I don’t see how you can extend it to trinitarian theology.

Love it:thumbsup:!!

 

[tafan]

But nowhere in the text are we told that Jesus does this. So, that’s a clear imposition on the text, especially when the obvious metaphorical use of “X is Y” is a far clearer exegesis.

.

I have posted the quote from Mathew once already, I will do so again.

Mathew 26:26
"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take eat; this is my body”.

Note, he took bread. A few moments later he said “this is my body”. Again, he started with bread, then it was His body. So yes, the text does tell us Jesus did this.

 

[levinas12]

Except that they aren’t. If there were no one to define the categories we create to have language, these wouldn’t exist at all, and there would simply be “this arrangement of matter” and “that arrangement of matter.” The term “dog” wouldn’t exist, nor would any underlying concept of category.

Being manifests itself to us through language.

Or, to put it in reverse, words are not opaque to the things themselves. Words reveal things.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

MPat and Muze,

But, what are subatomic particles made of? And so on.

VC

 

[MPat]

MPat and Muze,

But, what are subatomic particles made of? And so on.

VC

Er, you do understand that I am trying to defend the “Substance theory”, right…?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Er, you do understand that I am trying to defend the “Substance theory”, right…?

I do. But you responded to the question, so I thought it courteous to include you.

Thanks,
VC

 

[yppop]

Atoms are composed of electrons, protons and neutrons.

And…? Is that a “trick question”? Did you expect the answer “Atoms are composed of electrons, protons, neutrons and substance.”…?

But it isn’t so. In this case the isolated atom is a substance. It has accidents. For example, energy. When it is hit by a photon, energy increases, but the atom stays. Aristotle would probably say that it is an accidental change. If nuclear fission or fusion happens, we would have something that he would call a substantial change: we no longer have the same atom.

As you can see, talk about substance and accidents (as such) is not even that incompatible with materialism. .

MPat

Yes, this is a trick question that Muze probably suspected as such since he didn’t answer my post even after Verbum Caro in post 83 challenged him to do so.

I happen to agree with your observation that separating the substance from the accidents can be tricky. And it is the trick I was playing, namely, when you think about matter at its most fundamental level, it seems to disappear and become itself “substance”. For example:

Let’s consider the lowest atomic state of hydrogen. It consists of an electron and a proton together occupying a volume 10^-10 meters in diameter. The electron is a “point” particle (having a diameter too small to measure) in orbit around a central nucleus consisting of a single proton that has a diameter of 10^-15 meters. Hence, the diameter of the H atom is 100,000 times the diameter of its nucleus. Even though the entire H volume is filled with “space” it still exhibits materiality. And even more amazing the nucleus itself consists of three quarks which are also "point’ particles, which makes H, this ridiculously small lump of “matter”, 99.999999… % space.

And yet, Muze wants us to believe that science can find no place in our existence for a "non-material "substance. However if one assumes that the space that “matter” is immersed in is a spiritual substance and matter is composed of a some other kind of “material” substance then we could answer all those questions that science can’t and never will without conceding the existence of God and the spiritual substance.

The question then is: how does one distinguish the spiritual substance from the material substance, especially since I contend that the spiritual substance has the characteristics of space?
I contend that the material substance, the stuff that is formed into electrons and quarks, also has the characteristics of space. The spiritual is distinguished from the material simply by assuming that the spiritual substance can be modeled as continuous space and the material substance can be modeled as discrete space. This spatial bifurcation is easily explained mathematically.
What we end up with is the foundation for hylomorphic duality and the tool for explaining all those things like mind, soul, qualia, free will, transubstantiation that science doesn’t, can’t and never will explain but which should be observable to anyone with a functioning mind.

Science merely describes at the explicate level that which God creates at the implicate level.

Yppop

 

[jbeck43]

But He never claimed to change bread into His actual body. That’s your imposition on the text.

Really, Muze.* We’re imposing?* Christ said unless you eat ‘my’ flesh, and drink ‘my’ blood you have no life in you.* The Jews walked away from Him because they knew the prohibitions against such things from the TNK.* Christ also changes the words from Fago (eat–as in; your father’s ate Manna in the wilderness [call no man father–hah, good one] John 6:49… ) to Trogos (devour–as in; amen, amen, i say to you that unless you eat… John 6:53).** In the first verb form, the word can be used in a symbolic sense, but not in the second.* That verb form must be taken literally as it stands.* And that is why they left.**

Also Ignatius of Antioch in 106ad, on his way to Rome to be martyred for the faith, in his epistle to the Smyrnians said that,* ‘they are heretics who do NOT proclaim Christ truly present in His flesh in the Eucharist’.** Keep in mind that Ignatius was a direct disciple of John the Evangelist–so Ignatius knew exactly what John meant when he wrote those words in the sixth chapter of his gospel.* So unless you’re saying that Ignatius lied about what John taught him (on the way to Rome to be killed for something he knew to be a lie), or that Clement, Ireneus, Justin Martyr, and all the rest of the early apostolic fathers lied about what they had learned directly from the apostles of Christ, it’s you who are imposing your isogesis on us.* But what should i have assumed?* That a protestant using a Catholic book like the Bible should know any better?