Aristotelian substance theory and transubstantiation

[Muze]

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

No, I don’t, actually. I can be trintarian without substance theory. Even if the Nicene creed used substance theory (which I don’t believe it does), Trinitarian doctrine can be expressed without it.

 

[Muze]

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.

The metaphysics of Aristotle just don’t work in our understanding of the world anymore.

And, you’re right, I don’t have to state as strong an objection as I do. If Nicea is based upon Aristotelian substance theory, then the Church is going to need a new statement about the trinity. It doesn’t make the trinity false or impossible.

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.

I agree.

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.

Clearly you’d have to shift the discussion to the nature of God’s existence, which is problematic to the point of being a non-starter. I think that’s one of the reasons trinitarian doctrine is hard to accept. We want to conceptualize everything in terms of the world we know, and God exists outside of that world, and we don’t have a lot of concepts to grasp onto there.

And, fundamentally, the argument about whether the trinity uses substance theory is an argument from bad consequences. If substance theory is dead, that just means that doctrines based upon that theory are currently somewhat in error and need to be reformulated. It doesn’t requires that we abandon the concept entirely.

 

[Muze]

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.**

Any word can be used symbolically. What a silly statement.

Read Exodus 24. It is the establishing of the covenant. A sacrifice is made, blood sprinkled, and then they ate (v11), and then Moses departed to complete the covenant.

What Jesus is describing to them is the establishment of a new covenant. Jesus already likened the manna those in the desert ate with bread that leads to eternal life. Now, Jesus is describing a New Covenant, but rather than a bull or another animal being the sacrifice, HE is the sacrifice. And the Jews must eat his flesh and drink his blood just as they ate and drank when the Old Covenant was established.

That’s why they walk away. They don’t understand how Jesus will make HIMSELF the sacrifice. That’s why they ask if He will kill Himself! If they just needed flesh and blood, Jesus wouldn’t necessarily need to die. But as a sacrifice for a New Covenant he would.

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?

Or maybe they just got it wrong.

And, in case you missed it, the Bible isn’t a RCC book. It’s a catholic book. East AND West. It belongs to ALL of the church, not just the RCC.

Nice try on the equivocation, though.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Muze,

I’m interested in why you reject substance theory per se. You have said it is incompatible with modern understanding of physics but I’m not sure you have shown why. Proponents of substance theory were aware, even in Aristotle’s time of component parts and in our time even in the atomic age, you find proponents.

I am also interested to find out what you think subatomic particles are made of?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No, I don’t, actually. I can be trintarian without substance theory. Even if the Nicene creed used substance theory (which I don’t believe it does), Trinitarian doctrine can be expressed without it.

The Trinity cannot be explained without substance theory, that was the whole point of the Nicene Council.

accidents → sumbebekos
substance → ousia

If the Council of Nicea meant accidents, why did they use ousia and not sumbebekos?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Muze: If I were born without my left hand, would I still be a human?

 

[Just_Lurking]

FYI, here is an article on this in Theological Studies:

Selvaggi Revisited: Transubstantiation and Contemporary Science by Richard G. Cipolla

 

[Muze]

Muze,

I’m interested in why you reject substance theory per se. You have said it is incompatible with modern understanding of physics but I’m not sure you have shown why. Proponents of substance theory were aware, even in Aristotle’s time of component parts and in our time even in the atomic age, you find proponents.

It’s dead. No one embraces it anymore.

The RCC wants to hold on because some doctrines are based in it, but there’s no evidence anywhere that this substance exists, that there is some metaphysical “thing” that is the substance of which we see the accidents.

Also, we understand better today that the things Aristotle wanted to attribute to substance are simply our minds creating language.

I am also interested to find out what you think subatomic particles are made of?

I’m not a physicist, and I haven’t studied the topic to that extent, so I don’t have an answer, nor is one necessary to continue the subject.

 

[Muze]

The Trinity cannot be explained without substance theory, that was the whole point of the Nicene Council.

The point of the Nicene council was to refute Arianism and express the doctrine of the trinity properly.

Whether they used substance theory or not is simply the method, not the point.

accidents → sumbebekos
substance → ousia

If the Council of Nicea meant accidents, why did they use ousia and not sumbebekos?

I never said that they meant accidents.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It’s dead. No one embraces it anymore.

The RCC wants to hold on because some doctrines are based in it, but there’s no evidence anywhere that this substance exists, that there is some metaphysical “thing” that is the substance of which we see the accidents.

Also, we understand better today that the things Aristotle wanted to attribute to substance are simply our minds creating language.

Again, your complete lack of knowledge on substance theory is showing here. Substances are not physical. You cannot test them with science because science studies only the physical.

 

[Muze]

Muze: If I were born without my left hand, would I still be a human?

That would depend on how your language defines “human.” If your language requires humans to have left hands, then no.

You see, you’re trying to make some metaphysical reality out of something that only exists in the human mind’s concept of category and language.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The point of the Nicene council was to refute Arianism and express the doctrine of the trinity properly.

Whether they used substance theory or not is simply the method, not the point.

Right, they refuted Arianism because Arianism supposed that God the Father and God the Son were of different substances, that God the Father created God the Son.

I never said that they meant accidents.

Um, what?

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”.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

That would depend on how your language defines “human.” If your language requires humans to have left hands, then no.

Is the left hand required to be human? I am asking you personally, not language.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It’s dead. No one embraces it anymore.

The RCC wants to hold on because some doctrines are based in it, but there’s no evidence anywhere that this substance exists, that there is some metaphysical “thing” that is the substance of which we see the accidents.

Also, we understand better today that the things Aristotle wanted to attribute to substance are simply our minds creating language.

There has to be more too it, doesn’t there, then simply saying “no one embraces it”? It seems like that isn’t even a true statement.

Do you have a reason why you don’t think it is true beyond the assertion that no one else thinks it true (an assertion, which, I think, is falsifiable)?

Muze:

I’m not a physicist, and I haven’t studied the topic to that extent, so I don’t have an answer, nor is one necessary to continue the subject.

But, it really might be necessary to formulate a real objection to substance theory. After all, you are basing your objection on knowing that atoms and subatomic particles make up matter, and, you seem to be saying that if subatomic particles make up matter then that explains the thing itself. But, since you wish to explain a thing itself by appealing to its component parts, then you must also be able to explain the component parts.

So, what makes a subatomic particle a subatomic particle?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Muze]

There has to be more too it, doesn’t there, then simply saying “no one embraces it”? It seems like that isn’t even a true statement.

Do you have a reason why you don’t think it is true beyond the assertion that no one else thinks it true (an assertion, which, I think, is falsifiable)?

That it is dead is a part of the reason. Modern science has simply overwhelmed its claims.

I think part of the reason this has happened is that we realize that things like “bread” aren’t fundamental things. They are a composite of many things, molecules, atoms, etc. So to claim that there is a metaphysical substance “bread” apart from our mind’s conception of what that words means in our language, is quite artificial, since there is also a substance “carbon” and a substance “hydrogen” and several other substances that comprise this composite substance, and even these would be comprised of more fundamental “substances.”

You see, if we posit that the substance of any item can be changed, then we posit the actual existence of these metaphysical “substances” outside of the concept of the human mind, and somewhere they exist, and exist as part of the physical universe, which is where we cross into the world of physics.

Now, if we’re going to say that the metaphysical substance IS only of the mind and language, and we say that there is a change in the substance of the bread, that means that the change has to happen in the minds of all those who use the language that includes the term “bread”, in which case “real presence” only means that we think it’s there.

And another question arises: Has there always been a substance “bread”, even before the first human made bread? Maybe a better example is: Has there always been a substance “automobile”, even before the first one was made? It seems obvious that there was not. Thus, what is this “substance”? Where does it come from? Who creates it? The substance is nothing more than a concept of the mind expressed in language. And that’s more or less what metaphysics is. Except that Aristotle (and Aquinas and the doctrine of transubstantiation) tries to take this metaphysical concept and make it a “thing” that exists outside of language and human conception.

But, it really might be necessary to formulate a real objection to substance theory.

I don’t have to formulate a real objection as to what Kantian philosophy is dead. It just is. Why would I need to formulate something for Aristotelian ontology?

After all, you are basing your objection on knowing that atoms and subatomic particles make up matter, and, you seem to be saying that if subatomic particles make up matter then that explains the thing itself. But, since you wish to explain a thing itself by appealing to its component parts, then you must also be able to explain the component parts.

Or I can let the experts explain the component parts. Which they do.

So, what makes a subatomic particle a subatomic particle?

Again, not relevant to the conversation, as we know that all matter is made up of these things.

 

[Muze]

Is the left hand required to be human? I am asking you personally, not language.

But you are asking me about language. If my language has no concept of human or left hand, then your question is nonsensical. Which then returns us to the question “what is a human?” And that has three components: Metaphysical, theological and scientific.

We must both define in our minds with language what we mean by “human”, and be informed by what we discover from science and theology about this composite of matter and spirit that we’ve chosen to label “human.”

So, in effect, you ARE asking me about language, as you’re pressing the definition of the term “human” with respect to things we typically find on humans.

 

[Muze]

Right, they refuted Arianism because Arianism supposed that God the Father and God the Son were of different substances, that God the Father created God the Son.

Which isn’t inherently Aristotelian. Plato uses the same term to mean something completely different.

Um, what?

Do I seriously need to rephrase that sentence so you can understand it?

In the case of the trinity, the substance is defined by the attributes. that’s not substance theory.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Or I can let the experts explain the component parts. Which they do.

Again, not relevant to the conversation, as we know that all matter is made up of these things.

Ok, so all matter is made up of things. What things? Why are they things? What makes them this thing and not that thing?

This is the question Aristotle asked.

You really need to confront that question in order to move forward. If you wish to explain the reality of things by saying that they are made up of parts, you are left having to explain the reality of the parts.

Perhaps I don’t understand the force of your objection. Aside from the assertion that "no one believes in Substance Theory (or in God, or in Christ, or in free will!), and the assertion that scientists “explain” the component parts (how?), I don’t know what it is that dismantles substance theory. It isn’t as if Aristotle or Aquinas were unaware that things are made up of parts, right? That bread is made of flour and water? That horses have bones? That castles are made of bricks? And bricks are made of sand particles, etc? So, the fact that material things are made of component parts was obvious to them, and wasn’t fatal to the formulation of Substance Theory. Unless, things being made of parts IS fatal to substance theory. But, if it is, can you tell us why?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Which isn’t inherently Aristotelian. Plato uses the same term to mean something completely different.

Aristotle uses ousia as a philosophic term, Plato does not, this is true. But since the discussion on Jesus’ Divinity is a philosophic discussion, it can only be the Aristotlean term in the Council’s text.

Do I seriously need to rephrase that sentence so you can understand it?

In the case of the trinity, the substance is defined by the attributes. that’s not substance theory.

You do not need to rephrase anything, you clearly claimed that the Council of Nicea had used ousia to mean accidents. The two are very different philosophic terms with very different meanings. The Council meant ousia in its proper philosophic sense.

And, yet again, you are conflating the scientific term “substance” with the philosophic term substance. These two are diametrically opposed terms.

Since you suppose that the Trinitarian doctrine can be formulated without reference to Substance theory, I would like to see it done. Please explain to us all how the Trinitarian doctrine can be formulated without it.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

But you are asking me about language. If my language has no concept of human or left hand, then your question is nonsensical. Which then returns us to the question “what is a human?” And that has three components: Metaphysical, theological and scientific.

We must both define in our minds with language what we mean by “human”, and be informed by what we discover from science and theology about this composite of matter and spirit that we’ve chosen to label “human.”

So, in effect, you ARE asking me about language, as you’re pressing the definition of the term “human” with respect to things we typically find on humans.

Aha, you hit the nail on the head on the last part: “typically.” So now would you state that people who do not exhibit the “typical” human characteristics as non-human?