Aristotelian substance theory and transubstantiation

[Muze]

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.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

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.

How does this not enhance/promote further the idea of substance theory?

Further, the more-than half a billion Catholics who truly believe in Transubstantiation ought to be enough to say that (A) there are people who embrace substance theory and (B) substance theory is not a universally rejected ontology.

 

[Muze]

How does this not enhance/promote further the idea of substance theory?

No one believes it anymore. Modern science has demonstrated it to be false.

Further, the more-than half a billion Catholics who truly believe in Transubstantiation ought to be enough to say that (A) there are people who embrace substance theory and (B) substance theory is not a universally rejected ontology.

(A) half a billion Catholics believe in transubstantiation. I’m sure the vast majority of them have no idea what substance theory is, nor would they embrace it as their ontology for any other area of their lives.

(B) No one uses substance theory as a part of their ontology in general anywhere. Science has proven it to be false. The RCC is the only organization to have a doctrine based upon it.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No one believes it anymore. Modern science has demonstrated it to be false.

That does not answer the question. How do your words,

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.

not directly advance the theory itself? Substance theory states that accidents are the physical properties, substances are that which makes it so. This is precisely what you have described here!

(A) half a billion Catholics believe in transubstantiation. I’m sure the vast majority of them have no idea what substance theory is, nor would they embrace it as their ontology for any other area of their lives.

But I bet if you told them that substance theory was what gave rise to the belief of transubstantiation, they probably would accept it.

(B) No one uses substance theory as a part of their ontology in general anywhere. Science has proven it to be false. The RCC is the only organization to have a doctrine based upon it.

Show me how science has proven it false.

 

[JimG]

I don’t even think of it particularly as substance and accident, although that is the way that philosophical theory states it and I have no qualms whatever about the theory.

But the fact is this: all that we can ever perceive are sense perceptions. I can’t ever touch the substance of any object. All I get are the sense perceptions: light waves, sense of touch, sound waves, sense of smell. And no matter how greatly our sense perceptions are magnified by scientific instruments, it is still just sense perception.

We hope that the sense perception will correspond to the underlying reality. And it does in nearly every case. That’s how we know things; that’s how we know reality. That’s how science works. We get sense perceptions and scientifically magnified and modifed sense perceptions. But we can never directly perceive reality, only the sense perceptions.

Now, in the singular case of the Eucharist, God has chosen to change the reality—change the substance of bread and wine into Jesus whole and entire—and yet KEEP the sense perceptions of bread and wine. The sense perceptions are what we think of as the “physical substance” of a thing. But they never were, and the still aren’t.

That’s why when we break a consecrated host, we don’t break Jesus; all we break are the sense perceptions that remain, and remain unattached to any underlying substance.

 

[Muze]

That does not answer the question. How do your words,

not directly advance the theory itself? Substance theory states that accidents are the physical properties, substances are that which makes it so. This is precisely what you have described here!

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.

But I bet if you told them that substance theory was what gave rise to the belief of transubstantiation, they probably would accept it.

But I bet if you described substance theory without telling them it was tied to transubstantiation, they’d reject it. Which is the point.

Show me how science has proven it false.

We now know that all matter is comprised of atoms and subatomic particles, and there are only around 120 or so naturally occurring elements that form all matter. Thus, things that Aristotle described as having a “substance” which reveals certain accidents aren’t actually fundamental things at all, but nothing more than a particular arrangement of atoms into molecules and conglomerations which gives a given item its “accidents” or attributes.

Thus, the source of an item isn’t this mythical, unseen “substance”, but rather simply the arrangement of atoms in a particular way. “Substance”, then, is something in our minds have already subjectively (based on language) categorized so we can speak to one another about it. If it is not categorized, then our language must find a way to accommodate this thing so we can do so.

So, in reality as modern science has revealed it, the only place that bread changes to body and wine into blood is in the mind of the person partaking of it. There is no substance to change.

 

[davidv]

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation comes from the council of Trent (although that simply defines what the RCC believes),

This is not true. The doctrine comes from the teachings of Jesus. The Council only formalized the teaching.

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.

The Catholic Church does not have to deal with it. The doctrine does not depend on Aristotelian substance theory. Therefore the state of this theory is irrelevant to establishing the truth of the doctrine.

 

[Muze]

This is not true. The doctrine comes from the teachings of Jesus. The Council only formalized the teaching.
The Catholic Church does not have to deal with it. The doctrine does not depend on Aristotelian substance theory. Therefore the state of this theory is irrelevant to establishing the truth of the doctrine.

“…denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue” and anyone who "saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the **substance **of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole **substance **of the bread into the Body, and of the whole **substance **of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

That’s based on Aristotelian substance theory. The language is all there. If you read Aquinas on transubstantiation (which is where Trent got its language), it becomes even clearer.

 

[davidv]

That’s based on Aristotelian substance theory. The language is all there. If you read Aquinas on transubstantiation (which is where Trent got its language), it becomes even clearer.

I don’t think we are speaking of the same thing.
The doctrine, no matter what words are used to descibe it, is that the bread and wine offered during the Mass are changed to the body and blood of Jesus. This happens through the power of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with any substance theory. No one knows how this happens.

None of this is based on any theory. The theory may have be used to decribe it. However, the doctrine is not based on the theory. The doctrine is based on reality.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

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.

You are only claiming that it has been shown to be false, based on a misunderstanding of the theory itself. Please read on…

We now know that all matter is comprised of atoms and subatomic particles, and there are only around 120 or so naturally occurring elements that form all matter. Thus, things that Aristotle described as having a “substance” which reveals certain accidents aren’t actually fundamental things at all, but nothing more than a particular arrangement of atoms into molecules and conglomerations which gives a given item its “accidents” or attributes.

‘Naturally’ occurring elements is actually closer to 90, the remaining 30 elements are all either man-made or hypothetical.

I think the problem you have with substance theory is that you are confusing what an accident and a substance is, and it is present in the above quote. Accidents are the physical properties (what it is made up of, size, smell, color, feel, and so on) and substance is the notion of what the thing is.

There is no physical property to substance, thus science cannot disprove it!

Thus, the source of an item isn’t this mythical, unseen “substance”, but rather simply the arrangement of atoms in a particular way. “Substance”, then, is something in our minds have already subjectively (based on language) categorized so we can speak to one another about it. If it is not categorized, then our language must find a way to accommodate this thing so we can do so.

No, the properties of an item (that is, the accidents) are described by the arrangement of the atoms. The what it is (that is, the substance) is not described by anything physical, only notional (perhaps even linguistic)!

So, in reality as modern science has revealed it, the only place that bread changes to body and wine into blood is in the mind of the person partaking of it. There is no substance to change.

Again, you are confused as to what substance actually is. Substance is not physical, accident is.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I don’t think we are speaking of the same thing.
The doctrine, no matter what words are used to descibe it, is that the bread and wine offered during the Mass are changed to the body and blood of Jesus. This happens through the power of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with any substance theory. No one knows how this happens.

None of this is based on any theory. The theory may have be used to decribe it. However, the doctrine is not based on the theory. The doctrine is based on reality.

Actually, transubstantiation is indeed based on Aristotlean substance theory.

 

[bzkoss236]

No one believes it anymore. Modern science has demonstrated it to be false.

(A) half a billion Catholics believe in transubstantiation. I’m sure the vast majority of them have no idea what substance theory is, nor would they embrace it as their ontology for any other area of their lives.

(B) No one uses substance theory as a part of their ontology in general anywhere. Science has proven it to be false. The RCC is the only organization to have a doctrine based upon it.

How can science prove it to be false if substance cannot be observed? Science can only prove or disprove that which is observable.

The arrangement and interactions of atoms, protons, electrons, etc. are all a part of the accidents and have no reflection on what something actually is. Take Jesus himself as an example. If you took a sample of his blood and brought it to a lab, you would see it is human blood of whatever blood type and is made of of such and such atoms, and is made up of quarks, etc. But Jesus is God, and science cannot prove or disprove that by observing his body, no matter how far down they go.

 

[davidv]

Actually, transubstantiation is indeed based on Aristotlean substance theory.

Please explain how. Did Jesus need the theory at the Last Supper?

 

[Muze]

You are only claiming that it has been shown to be false, based on a misunderstanding of the theory itself. Please read on…

Ah, the unsubstantiated claim…

I think the problem you have with substance theory is that you are confusing what an accident and a substance is, and it is present in the above quote. Accidents are the physical properties (what it is made up of, size, smell, color, feel, and so on) and substance is the notion of what the thing is.

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.

There is no physical property to substance, thus science cannot disprove it!

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

No, the properties of an item (that is, the accidents) are described by the arrangement of the atoms. The what it is (that is, the substance) is not described by anything physical, only notional (perhaps even linguistic)!

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.

Again, you are confused as to what substance actually is. Substance is not physical, accident is.

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.

 

[Muze]

How can science prove it to be false if substance cannot be observed? Science can only prove or disprove that which is observable.

And what is observed is that ALL of the attributes of a given thing are derived solely from the arrangement of atoms and subatomic particles in the item in question. We can alter any attribute by simply altering the molecular structure. Thus, there is no substance controlling the item.

The arrangement and interactions of atoms, protons, electrons, etc. are all a part of the accidents and have no reflection on what something actually is. Take Jesus himself as an example. If you took a sample of his blood and brought it to a lab, you would see it is human blood of whatever blood type and is made of of such and such atoms, and is made up of quarks, etc. But Jesus is God, and science cannot prove or disprove that by observing his body, no matter how far down they go.

Which has nothing to do with substance theory or transubstantiation.

Unless you’re going to claim that the body and blood are spiritual and not Christ’s actual physical body and blood… in which case… yeah.

 

[Eleve]

And what is observed is that ALL of the attributes of a given thing are derived solely from the arrangement of atoms and subatomic particles in the item in question. We can alter any attribute by simply altering the molecular structure. Thus, there is no substance controlling the item.

Really? Is Jesus’ divinity derived solely from the arrangement of his atoms and subatomic particles? Could we re-create the Incarnation by arranging atoms and subatomic particles in the right way?

 

[billcu1]

That’s based on Aristotelian substance theory. The language is all there. If you read Aquinas on transubstantiation (which is where Trent got its language), it becomes even clearer.

What actually is the blood and body of christ if it is substance? What substance was Jesus talking about when he said “my body and my blood”? It can’t literally be his body and blood because those are physical things and “accidents” and sense perceptions of some substance.

 

[Muze]

What actually is the blood and body of christ if it is substance? What substance was Jesus talking about when he said “my body and my blood”? It can’t literally be his body and blood because those are physical things and “accidents” and sense perceptions of some substance.

Well, those would be questions the RCC would have to answer, after it realizes that substance theory is dead, and because that is the underpinning of transubstantiation, they need to rethink what transubstantiation is.

 

[Muze]

Really? Is Jesus’ divinity derived solely from the arrangement of his atoms and subatomic particles? Could we re-create the Incarnation by arranging atoms and subatomic particles in the right way?

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.

 

[Anthony_V]

We now know that all matter is comprised of atoms and subatomic particles, and there are only around 120 or so naturally occurring elements that form all matter. Thus, things that Aristotle described as having a “substance” which reveals certain accidents aren’t actually fundamental things at all, but nothing more than a particular arrangement of atoms into molecules and conglomerations which gives a given item its “accidents” or attributes.

Thus, the source of an item isn’t this mythical, unseen “substance”, but rather simply the arrangement of atoms in a particular way. “Substance”, then, is something in our minds have already subjectively (based on language) categorized so we can speak to one another about it. If it is not categorized, then our language must find a way to accommodate this thing so we can do so.

So, in reality as modern science has revealed it, the only place that bread changes to body and wine into blood is in the mind of the person partaking of it. There is no substance to change.

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.

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.

Peace,
Anthony