Aristotelian substance theory and transubstantiation

[Muze]

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.

Where is the official doctrine of transubstantiation articulated for the RCC?

 

[Muze]

Nonsense. What is your evidence to support this?

Any chemistry textbook

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.

And there are several philosophies that use the same word in a different way. The fact that Nicea uses ousia doesn’t imply that it uses Aritotelian substance theory anymore than using the term “logos” means that John is referring to the Greek conception of the god-man.

If you understood language and various Greek philosophies, you’d understand this.

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.

Again, same problem. Different philosophical systems use the same words in different ways. So, to say that a particular word is used means that a particular use of that word must be intended is a fallacy.

And, TBH, all you’re arguing for is making trinity an invalid concept, since substance theory is dead.

 

[Eleve]

Which chemistry textbook says that substance theory is wrong?

More generally, what kind of experiment could prove such a claim? It’s not as if the substance theorist thinks that you can (and pardon the sacrilegious example) dissolve a communion wafer, put it in a centrifuge, and separate out the substance from the accidents.

Quit being vague. What exactly do you think is inconsistent between the observations made by scientists and substance theory?

 

[Muze]

Which chemistry textbook says that substance theory is wrong?

Any one that describes how chemistry works.

More generally, what kind of experiment could prove such a claim?

We can observe how matter is assembled and how chemistry can change attributes simply by rearranging the molecules. The positive evidence of how matter works eliminates the idea that there exists a real “substance” that does not include the “accidents” of its appearance.

It’s not as if the substance theorist thinks that you can (and pardon the sacrilegious example) dissolve a communion wafer, put it in a centrifuge, and separate out the substance from the accidents.

True, but the substance theorist think that there is a substance of communion water that exists that is the real communion water, and what we experience is just some of its attributes. That simply doesn’t fit with what we know about matter.

Quit being vague. What exactly do you think is inconsistent between the observations made by scientists and substance theory?

That matter is comprised of atoms and subatomic particles that both are and define the “accidents” of a given thing, and there simply isn’t a need for this mythical “substance” as a source of the accidents. The source of the accidents is the atoms and molecules that comprise it.

 

[ngill09]

Muze, you’re wasting your time. Catholics hold to transubstantiation very dogmatically, and absolutely nothing than can be discovered or said about the nature of reality can change their minds. Jesus himself could not even do so, because if he contradicted Catholic teaching, they would assume he was a fraud.

 

[Anthony_V]

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

Sure she can. Dare I use this analogy, doctrines don’t change in substance, but in accidentals. You seem to believe that faith is a purely static and intellectual thing disconnected from the dynamics of the will.

But this thread isn’t about doctrinal development.

 

[Muze]

Sure she can. Dare I use this analogy, doctrines don’t change in substance, but in accidentals. You seem to believe that faith is a purely static and intellectual thing disconnected from the dynamics of the will.

But this thread isn’t about doctrinal development.

Well, in a way, it is, since the current basis for the Church’s statement about transubstantiation is base in a rejected philosophical ontology, and it uses that language to express that doctrine. The RCC is going to have to change its doctrine of transubstantiation to reflect reality.

 

[Eleve]

That matter is comprised of atoms and subatomic particles that both are and define the “accidents” of a given thing, and there simply isn’t a need for this mythical “substance” as a source of the accidents. The source of the accidents is the atoms and molecules that comprise it.

What makes you think that the substance theorist rejects this? It’s hard to see how this view would fit in with transubstantiation. It’s not like Aquinas believes that the Eucharist has the accidents of bread and wine because it is the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

Simply put - nobody here doubts that God can change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord, right? Or at least, nobody doubts that if there was a god, he could do it. Last time I checked, God could also leave the accidents in place as well. I don’t think that it is all that complicated…

 

[Eleve]

Well, most people don’t think that God could create a square circle or another contradictory object. To someone who rejects substance theory, the idea of an object which has all the accidents of bread but the substance of a human body looks like the same sort of contradiction. Such a person would think that God couldn’t make such a thing, or rather that there is no such thing for God to make.

 

[R_C]

Where is the official doctrine of transubstantiation articulated for the RCC?

You don’t seem to get it, or you act like you don’t seem to get it in order to fallaciously support your flawed original question.

Did you read what the Council wrote? That it had always been the firm belief of the Church that by the consecration, a conversion is made such that the bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord.

The council simply “declares it anew”. No new definition. No definition at all.

As for “transubstantiation”, the council simply acknowledges that for a long time the Church has called this conversion “transubstantiation”.

In fact, the earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (1079), followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274). Also Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274) employs the term (for instance, Summa Theologica, III, q. 75, a. 4). Three to five hundred years before Trent.

The doctrine in itself was articulated in the Depositum Fidei, and I have mentioned a few of the most significant parts, though clearly there is much more that Sacred Tradition has to say on this.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

That matter is comprised of atoms and subatomic particles that both are and define the “accidents” of a given thing, and there simply isn’t a need for this mythical “substance” as a source of the accidents. The source of the accidents is the atoms and molecules that comprise it.

Here you again show your ignorance of the subject: substance does not give properties to anything, accidents do that alone! Substance is the essence of the item, a metaphysical term, not a physical one.

 

[Anthony_V]

Well, in a way, it is, since the current basis for the Church’s statement about transubstantiation is base in a rejected philosophical ontology, and it uses that language to express that doctrine. The RCC is going to have to change its doctrine of transubstantiation to reflect reality.

Perhaps of transubstantiation. But I don’t think you could call transubstantiation a doctrine when it is separated from the Real Presence. I am no theologian though. All of this is purely nescient speculation. Anyway, my point is that it doesn’t change the doctrine of Real Presence in any case, so there really isn’t a problem. Especially not if the process is performed by an omnipotent God.

 

[jbeck43]

What does this have to do with substance theory?

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

So you could prove through simple DNA testing that the ‘substance’ was divine?

 

[JimG]

Well, most people don’t think that God could create a square circle or another contradictory object. To someone who rejects substance theory, the idea of an object which has all the accidents of bread but the substance of a human body looks like the same sort of contradiction. Such a person would think that God couldn’t make such a thing, or rather that there is no such thing for God to make.

Well yes, I see what you mean. But substance and accident theory, as far as I know, would concede that the Eucharist is absolutely unique in this regard—i.e., that following consecration, the accidents do not manifest the underlying substance but rather masks it.

Other than transubstantiation, we take it for granted that we can know reality through accidents, because accidents are the ONLY thing we can perceive. Everything we can perceive is an accident related to the underlying reality, or substance. When you get to the sub-Planck level, it’s hard to match any kind of perception to anything. The perceptions impinging on our senses are not outside reality, they are just our way of knowing what’s out there by getting certain perceptions into our brain and mind.

Transubstantiation posits that the underlying reality changes—from bread and wine to Christ—but the accidents—that which we perceive—remain unchanged, and further that those accidents do not inhere in Christ (or in the bread and wine which are gone). Now one may argue that one doesn’t accept that is possible, but there is no way to prove or disprove it in a way of physical testing, since that could only involve testing the accidents, and Catholics agree that the accidents remain.

 

[davidv]

Where is the official doctrine of transubstantiation articulated for the RCC?

Start here in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#1322

 

[Surnaturel]

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.

A few things here to note:

1. Thomistic ontology is not ‘universally rejected’. Materialists reject any metaphysics from the start, so whether it be Platingas philosophy or Aquinas, it is irrelevant. I firmly believe in the veracity of the main principles of Aristotelian philosophy. Contrary to popular thought, they are not disproved by the discovery of atoms (prime matter is similar enough) nor is it even incompatible. Accidents are things or characteristics that are not essential to the thing itself…they are accidental. Metaphysics is the overarching structure that describes reality…knowing that atoms exist does not contradict an Aristotelian observation that the ‘redness’ of a particular rubber ball is accidental to the thing itself, a ball. I would recommend Edward Feser’s succinct but excellent book entitled ‘Aquinas.’ Unfortunately, this is a discussion that would take pages and pages to discuss and I would rather not devote that much time to it. In short, your assertion begins with the false premise that modern physics or biology has disproved Aristotelian natural philosophy.
2. In any case, as I tried explaining to another poster on here, Trent did not dogmatize or even use the Thomisic formula at the council. It was proposed but the council Fathers rejected it in the final vote. Rather, what you will find is the statement that the bread and wine are transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ and the Church ‘most aptly calls this Transubstantiation.’
3. council Fathers from Vatican II have employed more personalistic expressions of the doctrine of Transubstantiation by using formulas such as: a sacrament effectuates the thing being signified, I.e. the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ. Same thing as Transubstantiation with different terminology.

 

[jbeck43]

What does this have to do with substance theory?

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

The original question a little clearer:

If you somehow transported yourself back two thousand years ago during the time Christ walked the earth, and you, in order to test Christ’s divinity, snipped the end of his finger off and put it under a microscope, would you by that examination alone be able to tell me if Jesus Christ was divine?

 

[Muze]

You don’t seem to get it, or you act like you don’t seem to get it in order to fallaciously support your flawed original question.

Did you read what the Council wrote? That it had always been the firm belief of the Church that by the consecration, a conversion is made such that the bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord.

Yes. And they do so using substance theory.

The council simply “declares it anew”. No new definition. No definition at all.

Thus, they’ve always embraced substance theory.

As for “transubstantiation”, the council simply acknowledges that for a long time the Church has called this conversion “transubstantiation”.

And thus embraced substance theory.

In fact, the earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (1079), followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274). Also Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274) employs the term (for instance, Summa Theologica, III, q. 75, a. 4). Three to five hundred years before Trent.

The doctrine in itself was articulated in the Depositum Fidei, and I have mentioned a few of the most significant parts, though clearly there is much more that Sacred Tradition has to say on this.

Well, if Trent only affirms the definition it puts forth, then the RCC has always based its doctrine of the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ on substance theory.

Which has since been rejected.

 

[Muze]

The original question a little clearer:

If you somehow transported yourself back two thousand years ago during the time Christ walked the earth, and you, in order to test Christ’s divinity, snipped the end of his finger off and put it under a microscope, would you by that examination alone be able to tell me if Jesus Christ was divine?

The divine isn’t part of this universe, and thus isn’t subject to its laws, and isn’t observable.

But, unless you’re going to claim that the substance of all things is divine (process theism), the analogy doesn’t work.