Aristotelian substance theory and transubstantiation

[ngill09]

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?

Suppose you did dissolve a communion wafer, put it in a centrifuge, and separate all the particles. Would all the particles still have the “substance” of the body of Christ?

Another thing I’ve been thinking about: relating the substance of the “body” of Christ to human flesh. Would it be possible that what’s being referred to as the “body of Christ” is something completely unlike human flesh? Is there Church teaching on this?

 

[levinas12]

Suppose you did dissolve a communion wafer, put it in a centrifuge, and separate all the particles. Would all the particles still have the “substance” of the body of Christ?

There may be a misunderstanding here of Aristotle’s concept of substance.

“Substance” first and foremost is a concrete being, e.g., “this tree”, “this human being”. I don’t think “substance” in this sense has been superseded. We couldn’t be having this conversation without “substances”, e.g., imagine me telling you that you’re not really there, or better yet, than neither you nor myself are not really there.

Closely connected to “substance” is “essence”, the intelligibility of a concrete being. “Intelligibility” is the “gist”, the “point”, of something. Even jokes, poems, paintings, and yes, scientific theories have a “gist”, a “point” (you might say, a “sticking point”).

I think we sometimes forget that the “intelligibility” is not something inside our heads - it’s “out there” .

So too, in the Eucharist, the “intelligibility” is Jesus.

p.s. this is not heretical unless you assume that the “intelligibility” is inside our heads.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

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.

The Doctrine of the Real Presence is based on Jesus’ Sermon in John 6:25-59 and what He says at the Last Supper (specifically Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, and Luke 22:19-21).

Transubstantiation was an attempt to explain, in metaphysical terms, what happens when the Sacrifice is re-presented.

 

[levinas12]

Even jokes, poems, paintings, and yes, scientific theories have a “gist”, a “point” (you might say, a “sticking point”).

I should have said that “essence” is the “point” or “gist” of something, analogous to the way jokes, poems, poems, painting, scientific theories have a “gist” or “sticking point”.

“Essence” primarily applies to natural beings. But “gist”, “point” are good words for “essence” because they play off against the inessential (or, in metaphysical terminology, the “accidental”). As when we say of someone that they have missed the “point” of the joke or the mathematical demonstration.

 

[levinas12]

The “accidents” are actually a reflection of how the atoms and subatomic particles interact and not some unseen substance.

“Substance” is not a mysterious, weird, “unseen”, “noumenal”, “subterranean” reality. We encounter “substances” is “This tree”, “this dog”, “this human being” are substances. Even “this electron”, or “this neutron”, is a substance (albeit only indirectly accessible to everyday perception).

I don’t think that trees, dogs, human beings, are merely private, inside-our-head, subjective phantasies.

 

[levinas12]

“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.

I have to disagree. A “substance” is not a “subjective” idea locked up in a private cabinet. It is a concrete public entity out there in the world at large, e.g., “this tree”, “this dog”, “this human being”. I’m not saying that these “substances” are not also configurations of atoms - these “public” entities are both “trees”, “dogs”, “human beings” and configurations of atoms. One is not exclusive of the other. It depends on the context.

In fact, assuming that everyday life is closer to the truth, “trees”, “dogs”, “human beings” might be more “real”.

 

[jbeck43]

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.

Nobody is claiming anything. But you believe Jesus was divine. Why?

 

[R_C]

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.

What was there besides the “RCC” before the so-called “reform” of Luther, Calvin, et co.? The Orthodox Church and, of course, heretics.

So when in the XI Century the Church speaks of “transubstantiation”, is it the “RCC” or is it the universal Church?

The Orthodox Church has sometimes used the term “transubstantiation” (metousiosis); however, terms such as “divine mystery”, “trans-elementation” (μεταστοιχείωσις metastoicheiosis), “re-ordination” (μεταρρύθμισις metarrhythmisis), or simply “change” (μεταβολή) are more common among them and they consider the change from bread and wine to flesh and blood a “Mystery”.

Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ himself (statements from Luther’s Small Catechism) - a doctrine termed “sacramental union”, or “consubstantiation” (though not all believe in or employ this term). All that Luther did was to “roll back” to a stage when the doctrine was not explain and speak of “union” just like the Orthodox speak of “mystery”, though Luther’s explanation of the “union” was inconsistent with the understanding that the Church always held.

So even if we were to agree that the change that takes place does not properly speaking involve a “substance” (mind you, I am taking for granted the scientific speculation and theories that supposedly dismiss substance theory, which may be ultimately flawed), we can still show that the basic doctrine which is held by the apostolic Church as a whole affirms that there is an actual change such that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the Lord, though they seem to remain bread and wine.

As for whether the romish doctrine stands thanks to Aristotle or thanks to the Church Fathers, I can quote the scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, who at the time of this writing (“The Emergence of Catholic Tradition”) was a Lutheran:

The victory of orthodox Christian doctrine over classical thought was to some extent a Pyrrhic victory, for the theology that triumphed over Greek philosophy has continued to be shaped ever since by the language and the thought of classical metaphysics. For example, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 decreed that “in the sacrament of the altar… the bread is transubstantiated into the body [of Christ],and the wine into [his] blood,” and the Council of Trent declared in 1551 that the use of the term “transubstantiation” was “proper and appropriate.” Most of the theological expositions of the term “transubstantiation,” beginning already with those of the thirteenth century, have interpreted “substance” on the basis of the meaning given to this term by such classical discussions as that in the fifth book of Aristotle’s Metaphysics; transubstantiation, then, would appear to be tied to the acceptance of Aristotelian metaphysics or even of Aristotelian physics.

Yet the application of the term “substance” to the discussion of the Eucharistic presence antedates the rediscovery of Aristotle. In the ninth century, Ratramnus spoke of “substances visible but invisible,” and his opponent Radbertus declared that “out of the substance of bread and wine the same body and blood of Christ is mystically consecrated.” Even “transubstantiation” was used during the twelfth century in a nontechnical sense. Such evidence lends credence to the argument that the doctrine of transubstantiation, as codified by the decrees of the Fourth Lateran and Tridentine councils, did not canonize Aristotelian philosophy as indispensable to Christian doctrine.

Funny though…we don’t even understand what stuff is made of, and we want to understand the divine mysteries and what takes place on the altar of the living God, or even use it as an instrument of division rather that as a means of unity. I can appreciate your personal desire to reconcile faith and reason, of course, but even if we discard transubstantiation, that doesn’t make the Eucharist any less than it is in the eyes of the universal Church: the real presence of Christ, in body, blood, soul and divinity, though to our senses it remains bread and wine.

 

[R_C]

Suppose you did dissolve a communion wafer, put it in a centrifuge, and separate all the particles. Would all the particles still have the “substance” of the body of Christ?

If you did any of that, you’d be committing a pretty bad sacrilege Let us do the thought experiment, though. The Church has the understanding that as soon as the bread ceases to be bread and the wine ceases to be wine, the real presence of Christ is no longer there. If you *dissolve *the consecrated host, it ceases to be bread. If you break it in such way that it is not dissolved but can still be put together as identifiable bits of bread, then yes, the real presence of Christ would still be present, because the bread has been consecrated: if you can look at it and say “bread”, you can look at it and say “Jesus”. The Church Fathers refer to the smallest bits of the Eucharist as more precious than gold particles or than one of our limbs. Of course, this also applies to the consecrated wine.

Another thing I’ve been thinking about: relating the substance of the “body” of Christ to human flesh. Would it be possible that what’s being referred to as the “body of Christ” is something completely unlike human flesh? Is there Church teaching on this?

Good question!! The one quote that addresses it directly is from St. Augustine (from “Commentary on Psalms 98:9”):

He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation.

 

[tafan]

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.

First of all, your history is wrong. newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

Secondly, your understanding of the metaphysics is quite off also.

 

[tafan]

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.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is an explanation of what happens when the bread and wine change into Christ’s body and blood. It is best to go back to the beginning and see what Christ did and said

From the Gospel of Mathew:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins

.

Now, if you notice, it says explicitly that Jesus took bread. So at that point it was bread. But then a few moments later he says, “This is my body”. So we know it was no longer bread, but it was Christ’s body. It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer (a phrase an old professor of mine used to use), that the bread changed into his body. There is no other way of reading this.
Likewise with the cup (ie wine), changing into His blood.

Now, when one couples this with the discourse of Jesus in Chapter 6 of John; there is no other explanation that can be had.

Alternatively, one can reject these portions of the Gospels.

 

[ngill09]

Good question!! The one quote that addresses it directly is from St. Augustine (from “Commentary on Psalms 98:9”):

What I mean, I suppose, is that the “accidents” of Jesus’ human flesh might be as unimportant as the “accidents” of bread.

 

[MPat]

Any one that describes how chemistry works.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, but the whole idea is that we cannot detect the substance directly by any experiment - we can only detect the accidents. So, if you are saying that not a single experiment managed to detect substance directly, how is that supposed to disprove this theory? That is exactly what it predicts.

Also, are you sure that atoms and subatomic particles count as accidents? In a particle accelerator they could count as substances having some accidents, wouldn’t you agree?

And, if you do not like “Substance theory”, do you prefer its alternative also described in the article - “Bundle theory” (saying that things are just “bundles” of properties without anything “behind” them)?

 

[R_C]

What I mean, I suppose, is that the “accidents” of Jesus’ human flesh might be as unimportant as the “accidents” of bread.

Then we are entering the topic of the hypostatic union. No, God the Son did not render the flesh of the man Jesus mere accidents. In Christ one divine person subsists in two natures, the divine and the human.

Hypostasis (a Greek word) means “underlying state”, is closely related to the Greek word ousia, essence or nature. Hypostatic union specifically describe the union of Christ’s human and divine natures in one hypostasis.

There are a few condemned heresies that have to do with this word. I mention a few relevant ones:

• Apollinarism, described “the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single hypostasis”. The issue being the “single nature” or “mìa phoesis”.
• Nestorianism, which argued that "in Christ there were two natures (dyophysite) (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of “essence” or “person”) that co-existed. An “accidental” union.

The Church taught with definitive sentence that according to Scripture and Tradition “in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one person and one hypostasis”

First Council of Ephesus (431 AD): the humanity and divinity of Christ are made one according to nature and hypostasis in the Logos.

Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), defining the dual nature of Christ (true God and true man): the distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one person and in one hypostasis.

“The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God.” "Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”, in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church professes the full reality of Christ’s human soul.

 

[yppop]

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. .

And of what are atoms and subatomic particles composed?

The source of the accidents is the atoms and molecules that comprise it

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

 

[Love4All]

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.

First, while I am not a professional philosopher, I’m pretty sure Albert is right about you not understanding what a substance is. But that aside.

The word “transubstantiation” does appear to rely on some theory including a notion of “substance.” This notion, however, is by no means exclusive to that word or to Aristotle’s philosophy. So, if you like, we can talk about Kant, and his distinction between phenomena and noumena. A phenomenon is an appearance of a thing, that which we immediately apprehend in our minds, from our senses. A noumenon, by contrast, is the thing-in-itself, or thing-as-such. Our direct intuition of objects in the world always consists in the phenomenon, while the noumenon is inferred to exist in reality based on our perception of the phenomenon and the logic that every effect has its cause.

So under Kantian metaphysics, the phenomenon is bread and wine, and the phenomenon does not change, but the underlying noumenon is bread and wine before the consecration, and the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, after.

So perhaps you’d prefer to call the change, “transnoumenation” or some such monstrosity.

Under common sense normal speaking English metaphysics, we would say that the appearance of bread and wine remain, but the reality that was originally bread is made the reality of the Word made Flesh. I don’t think we have to coin, “transrealization.” Probably, for the purposes of any of our discussions about reality, both “transubstantiation” and even the concept of a metaphysical substance will do just fine, despite your rather pedantic objections. But what Aristotle and the Catholics mean by “substance” is, reality.

Now are you going to assert that science has decreed there is no such thing as a reality?

The simplest statement of the reality of what we will continue to call transubstantiation is in these words, which may or may not be familiar to you.

“This is My Body.”

I think it’s the word, “is,” that actually does it. A delightfully unambiguous word, asserting an identity or an “exists as” between the subject, which started out as mere bread, and the predicate, which is the Son of God. It seems uncontroversial that before He spoke those words, it was bread, but afterwards, it was Himself. Or He lied to us. So what happened under that word, “is?” The Church says a change, or a conversion, happened. What we call that change is immaterial, compared with our acknowledgement of the reality of the change, which is — forgive me! — substantial.

 

[Muze]

The Doctrine of the Real Presence is based on Jesus’ Sermon in John 6:25-59 and what He says at the Last Supper (specifically Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, and Luke 22:19-21).

Transubstantiation was an attempt to explain, in metaphysical terms, what happens when the Sacrifice is re-presented.

And transubstantiation is how the RCC describes the Eucharist in the council of Trent. It is the official statement of doctrine. And it uses substance theory.

 

[Muze]

I have to disagree. A “substance” is not a “subjective” idea locked up in a private cabinet. It is a concrete public entity out there in the world at large, e.g., “this tree”, “this dog”, “this human being”. I’m not saying that these “substances” are not also configurations of atoms - these “public” entities are both “trees”, “dogs”, “human beings” and configurations of atoms. One is not exclusive of the other. It depends on the context.

In fact, assuming that everyday life is closer to the truth, “trees”, “dogs”, “human beings” might be more “real”.

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.

 

[Muze]

Nobody is claiming anything. But you believe Jesus was divine. Why?

He claimed to be and proved it.

 

[Muze]

What was there besides the “RCC” before the so-called “reform” of Luther, Calvin, et co.? The Orthodox Church and, of course, heretics.

So when in the XI Century the Church speaks of “transubstantiation”, is it the “RCC” or is it the universal Church?

In terms of specific doctrines, the RCC is the only one that embraces Trent.

The Orthodox Church has sometimes used the term “transubstantiation” (metousiosis); however, terms such as “divine mystery”, “trans-elementation” (μεταστοιχείωσις metastoicheiosis), “re-ordination” (μεταρρύθμισις metarrhythmisis), or simply “change” (μεταβολή) are more common among them and they consider the change from bread and wine to flesh and blood a “Mystery”.

And thus has a different doctrine than the RCC.

Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ himself (statements from Luther’s Small Catechism) - a doctrine termed “sacramental union”, or “consubstantiation” (though not all believe in or employ this term). All that Luther did was to “roll back” to a stage when the doctrine was not explain and speak of “union” just like the Orthodox speak of “mystery”, though Luther’s explanation of the “union” was inconsistent with the understanding that the Church always held.

And thus has a different doctrine than the RCC.

So even if we were to agree that the change that takes place does not properly speaking involve a “substance” (mind you, I am taking for granted the scientific speculation and theories that supposedly dismiss substance theory, which may be ultimately flawed), we can still show that the basic doctrine which is held by the apostolic Church as a whole affirms that there is an actual change such that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the Lord, though they seem to remain bread and wine.

But the nature of that change is significant between the various groups. Some see a spiritual union with the physical. Some simply declare mystery.

But the RCC expresses a concrete doctrine as to how this happens, based in substance theory. Which is what is under discussion.

As for whether the romish doctrine stands thanks to Aristotle or thanks to the Church Fathers, I can quote the scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, who at the time of this writing (“The Emergence of Catholic Tradition”) was a Lutheran:

Which is fine, but then the RCC decided to codify its doctrine at Trent using substance theory.

Funny though…we don’t even understand what stuff is made of, and we want to understand the divine mysteries and what takes place on the altar of the living God, or even use it as an instrument of division rather that as a means of unity. I can appreciate your personal desire to reconcile faith and reason, of course, but even if we discard transubstantiation, that doesn’t make the Eucharist any less than it is in the eyes of the universal Church: the real presence of Christ, in body, blood, soul and divinity, though to our senses it remains bread and wine.

We can have real presence without transubstantiation. IMHO, Trent was an overreaction to protestantism in an effort to reject it wholly and entirely, and in the process the RCC embraced a pagan Greek ontology that doesn’t fit with scripture or reality.