Aristotelian substance theory and transubstantiation

[Muze]

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?

You’ve completely ignored my answer. I was speaking about how language and our concept of “human” defines what we mean and what is necessary for something to fit our language’s definition of the term.

So, while I may have hit the nail on the head, you’re missing the point altogether. Indeed, you’ve taken this quote out of context.

And since you haven’t defined what “typical human characteristics” are, the answer is, “it depends on your definition of human and what characteristics we’re talking about.”

If we go back 200 years, slaves were only 3/5s of a human. So, the definition of “human” didn’t really include slaves. They were considered to be subhuman.

Go back 4000 years, and the Egyptians felt that what made someone human was the internal organs. Indeed, their mummification rituals gently harvested the internal organs, but discarded the brain. So, what they considered to be “typical” is certainly different than what we do, and thus their definition of “human” different than ours.

So you’re going to have to be more precise with the language of this topic before I can answer the question.

 

[Eleve]

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.”

What’s the problem? Fido is a substance, and Fido is composed of things like legs and a tail. Aristotle was certainly aware of this, and yet he didn’t take it to mean that “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.” If there’s some reason to draw that conclusion from that premise, it would be because of some philosophical argument, not because of an empirical discovery since the time of Aristotle.

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.

Sure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we can investigate the truth of substance theory through physics. To draw an analogy, immanent realists about mathematical objects think that mathematical objects are in the physical world. But that doesn’t mean that we do philosophy of mathematics by investigating the physical world and looking out for mathematical objects.

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.

How on earth do you make the leap from “Substances don’t exist before they’re created” to “Substances are concepts of the mind expressed in language”?

My house didn’t exist before it was built, but that doesn’t mean I’m just imagining that I’m inside, cuddled up under a blanket, surviving the cold Michigan spring.

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?

I get the feeling that you set the bar for the “death” of a philosophical view rather low. There are plenty of Kantians around today.

 

[Muze]

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.

I’ve already pointed out that whether the trinity uses Aristotelian substance theory is irrelevant to the topic, as it is nothing more than an argument from bad consequences.

Ousia had its own definition apart from Aristotle, as you’ve already admitted, and it is likely (IMHO) that the Nicene fathers used their own definition to define their own philosophy.

You do not need to rephrase anything, you clearly claimed that the Council of Nicea had used ousia to mean accidents.

No, I didn’t. I already explained this. We will discuss this no further until you acknowledge this.

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.

Given that it 100 the early church Fathers decades to come up with an acceptable statement of the trinity, I think it’s pretty unreasonable for you to ask one individual to do so in any reasonable time frame for an internet forum, don’t you think?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

You’ve completely ignored my answer. I was speaking about how language and our concept of “human” defines what we mean and what is necessary for something to fit our language’s definition of the term.

So, while I may have hit the nail on the head, you’re missing the point altogether. Indeed, you’ve taken this quote out of context.

And since you haven’t defined what “typical human characteristics” are, the answer is, “it depends on your definition of human and what characteristics we’re talking about.”

Please go back and note that I asked for your definition, not mine, so the definition of “typical human characteristics” comes from you, not me.

You started on it with “typical,” but stopped. The question then follows: what are those beings that do not exhibit your typical properties?

If we go back 200 years, slaves were only 3/5s of a human. So, the definition of “human” didn’t really include slaves. They were considered to be subhuman.

Go back 4000 years, and the Egyptians felt that what made someone human was the internal organs. Indeed, their mummification rituals gently harvested the internal organs, but discarded the brain. So, what they considered to be “typical” is certainly different than what we do, and thus their definition of “human” different than ours.

So you’re going to have to be more precise with the language of this topic before I can answer the question.

Again, it is your definition. If you want to use the Egyptian definition, feel free. If you want to work from the definition of the 1800’s, feel free. If you want to make up your own, feel free. It is your definition that we are working from, not mine.

 

[Love4All]

Written eyewitness testimony and ongoing organizational witness from Eastern and Western Churches.

Then why do you remain Protestant?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I’ve already pointed out that whether the trinity uses Aristotelian substance theory is irrelevant to the topic, as it is nothing more than an argument from bad consequences.

Bad consequences or not, it is completely relevant to the subject of substance theory.

Ousia had its own definition apart from Aristotle, as you’ve already admitted, and it is likely (IMHO) that the Nicene fathers used their own definition to define their own philosophy.

Well your opinion is contradicted by the Council’s decision. The Council was discussing the Relation of the Trinity, there is no possible alternative to their use of ousia in this manner. None.

No, I didn’t. I already explained this. We will discuss this no further until you acknowledge this.

Acknowledge what? That you think substance (ousia) is a physical thing? Yes, I acknowledge that. Does that mean it is correct? No. Substance is a metaphysical term. You cannot just say “substance = accident” and be metaphysically correct, it is metaphysically inconsistent to equate diametrically opposed concepts.

Given that it 100 the early church Fathers decades to come up with an acceptable statement of the trinity, I think it’s pretty unreasonable for you to ask one individual to do so in any reasonable time frame for an internet forum, don’t you think?

You are the one asserting that it can be done, so you must have some idea about how to do it, now? I think it is fairly reasonable to request that you give at least an outline of how you can rectify 1 God in 3 Persons without the use of ousia.

 

[Love4All]

And that’s a lovely statement of Aristotle’s substance theory. Problem is that it’s dead. No one embraces this anymore. Modern science has shown that the substance of a thing is the chemical makeup of that thing. There is no actual unseen substance. All that is there is our language’s categories, which exist only in our minds.

Your own interpretation of Aristotle is not Aristotle. You don’t understand what it is you are objecting to.

I have explained it to you in Kantian terms and in plain English. You may deny that there exists a substance, because you fail to understand what Aristotle means by it, but you cannot deny that there is a reality, since you do speak English.

"Modern science has shown that the substance of a thing is the chemical makeup of that thing. " ---- no, it hasn’t. It has shown that the accidents of things manifest in predictable laws of chemistry. But your sentence I quoted is adequate proof of your paucity of understanding of Aristotle!

QED.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Your own interpretation of Aristotle is not Aristotle. You don’t understand what it is you are objecting to.

I have explained it to you in Kantian terms and in plain English. You may deny that there exists a substance, because you fail to understand what Aristotle means by it, but you cannot deny that there is a reality, since you do speak English.

"Modern science has shown that the substance of a thing is the chemical makeup of that thing. " ---- no, it hasn’t. It has shown that the accidents of things manifest in predictable laws of chemistry. But your sentence I quoted is adequate proof of your paucity of understanding of Aristotle!

QED.

I have tried telling him that several times now, but he keeps on going without recognizing this flaw.

 

[Love4All]

No. Infinity times, no! It is the ACCIDENT of the thing that is made of the chemicals (if you want to be so reductionist). The substance is that which makes the item “that thing.”

You have been confusing, repeatedly, the philosophical term “substance” with the scientific term “substance.” These two are not at all the same, in fact the scientific term “substance” is more aligned with the philosophic term “accident!” You cannot possibly hope to convince people that you are right (not that you are right, you are very wrong on this matter) if you cannot even get your definitions straight!

“Let every fact be confirmed in the mouth of two witnesses.”

I did not read this post of yours before I answered him with the exact same thing. Muze is sophistically attaching himself to names, and indeed equivocating on the word, “substance.”

SUBSTANCE/ACCIDENT
NOUMENON/PHENOMENON
REALITY/APPEARANCE

All three sets of terms denote the same concepts respectively. It doesn’t depend on Aristotle’s terminology, it only depends on common human experience.

 

[Muze]

Then why do you remain Protestant?

I find the RCC’s claims of infallibility and being the only true church to be unacceptable theologically and historically. If we are ever to achieve unity in the Church, the RCC will need to abandon these, as they are two of the major barriers to Christ’s command of unity.

 

[Muze]

Please go back and note that I asked for your definition, not mine, so the definition of “typical human characteristics” comes from you, not me.

You started on it with “typical,” but stopped. The question then follows: what are those beings that do not exhibit your typical properties?

Let me get this straight, you ask about humans without left hands, and I point out the language of pressing what “human” means in terms of “typical human characteristics”.

So, to ask the question of whether a human is still human without a left hand as a matter of my personal opinion, then yes they are still human.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Let me get this straight, you ask about humans without left hands, and I point out the language of pressing what “human” means in terms of “typical human characteristics”.

So, to ask the question of whether a human is still human without a left hand as a matter of my personal opinion, then yes they are still human.

Why are they human then?

 

[MPat]

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.

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?

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.

Actually, as far as I understand, Aristotle doesn’t say that substance can exist without an object - for the simple reason that substance is the object. That is, I am one substance, my neighbour is another substance, dog of my neighbour is a third substance etc.

If you want to talk about something that is common between dogs or between humans, it should be “form”, not “substance”. For (again - as far, as I understand), Aristotle teaches that substance “consists” (perhaps that is not the right word) of “form” and “matter”.

By the way, you have also said almost the same thing:

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.

Isn’t “this arrangement of matter” similar to “matter with form”…?

And finally, I wonder if you believe that souls do exist? Or do you think that, since they haven’t been detected by any experiment, they do not exist either? If you think that they do exist, do they, let’s say, have something to do with being the human or non-human (or dog)?

 

[jbeck43]

Muze,* take a closer look at John 6.* Jesus says in verse 53 that,* “I am the bread which came down from heaven, not as manna your fathers did eat and are dead; he that eateth this bread shall live forever.”

And in verse 49, “I am the bread of life.”

Now look at the comparison that Christ makes between the manna, which is a real food that the Jewish fathers ate in the desert, and another bread–His flesh.* This is called a ‘typology’.

The rule in understanding biblical topologies is that the fulfillment of a type is always greater than the type itself.

An example of this is when the apostle Paul compares Adam to Christ in 1 cor. 15:45-47, where he calls the first Adam, “a living soul,” and “earthly” to the new Adam who is a “quickening spirit” and “heavenly”.** Jesus who is the second Adam, is greater than the first Adam.

Another typology exists between baptism and circumcision, where in Col.* 2:11, Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ”.** Again, where according to the old law, circumcision brought one into covenant relationship with God, baptism is the perfection of that rite by truly making one God’s child.

So where both Adams are men, and both circumcision and baptism are sacramental rites, when Christ spoke both of manna from heaven, and His own flesh, He very purposely meant His flesh to be thought of as real food.* If He hadn’t wanted to point to His own flesh as true food, or true drink, then He would not have brought to mind the manna in the wilderness to the attention of the crowd surrounding Him as the typology He was fulfilling by the “devouring” (Trogos in the Greek) of His own flesh, because the comparison would have been too gruesome if He really didn’t mean it.* While this isn’t as apparent in English, the context of the verse in Greek doesn’t allow for any other interpretation.* Trust me on this.* That is why John mentions the grumbling and the comment from the crowd, “this is a hard saying.* Who can hear it?”

To add confidence to this interpretation please read Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11,* specifically verse 29,* “for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,* eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself: not discerning the body of Christ”.

Consider something else.* The feeding of the five thousand, curiously occurring just prior to the events in John 6, was also a type of Eucharistic foreshadowing.* When He blessed the loaves and fishes, did the accidents of bread or fish change?* No, of course not or the people wouldn’t have eaten it.* But the loaves and fishes did change in one way–by increasing.* So if the accidents didn’t change, since fish can’t be more “fishy” or loaves can’t be more, well “loavy” --what did?* The matter did.* And in the same way, Christ shows us that in the Eucharist–where the accidents don’t change, nevertheless does change in its nature, by becoming the body and blood of Christ, just as Paul states in his first Corinthian epistle.

And once again consider the apostolic fathers like Ignatius, Clement, and Polycarp.* Both Polycarp and Ignatius were direct disciples of John the Evangelist, and so the meaning of John 6 was quite clear to them.** Remember again that as Ignatius was being escorted back to Rome for not paying tribute to Caesar, to be martyred for the faith in a macabre display of death from a pack of lions purposefully starved for a week before being loosed on him, he took the time to write an epistle to the Smyrnians, declaring the Eucharist to be the true flesh of Christ, and heretics were those who didn’t believe it.* If He lied about what John himself told him concerning John 6, then he was willing to be killed for it, and so were the rest of apostolic fathers for the same reasons.* And It doesn’t make sense that he was just wrong about his understanding of John 6.* One doesn’t die for something he isn’t convinced of.* And Ignatius was not a casual Christian.

But do I expect you to buy any of this?* Not really.* Because more than suffering the truth, you would rather suffer the defect of pride, and forego legitimate reasons to believe in a Catholic doctrine.** And I know about this because I suffer from the same.* I don’t like to lose arguments either.* But listening to more enlightened arguments as many of the posters have submitted here I think is the start of a wiser response from you than some of the ones you’ve been writing.

God bless.

 

[Love4All]

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.”

My definitions are correct. What I’m pointing out is that without the concepts of the mind and language, there is no substance “that thing.” There is no substance to change into the actual body. Aristotelian substance theory is dead because Aristotle is describing language, which only exists in the mind, and not some unseen metaphysical existence that can be changed independent of its “accidents.”

Outside our minds, there is only the physical make up of that thing which Aristotle calls the “accidents.”

Ah! So NOW, you are showing your true colors. Why didn’t you just say so in the first place? Why all this distracting nonsense about Aristotle? Your objection is not to Aristotle, but to Jesus Christ!

You reject the Real Presence.

You adhere to some strange theory of some “psychological” presence of Christ in the Eucharist. According to you, it is impossible for the Sacrament to really be the Body and Blood of Christ because, according to you, the entire reality of anything is in its appearance. Everything is as it seems. Death is permanent, and there is no God.

Why again do you call yourself a Christian? Seems hypocritical.

 

[Love4All]

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

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).

To correct you, holy water is a sacramental, not a Sacrament. Sacramentals are instruments of grace, like statues or rosary beads. Sacraments actually contain the grace they signify.

The Holy Spirit does not reside in holy water in any sense. It is still just water, it just happens to be blessed water, i.e. water that has been set aside for a sacred purpose. There is no change in the substance of the water when it is blessed. All of this is in contrast to the Sacraments.

 

[Love4All]

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

And the Final Authority, for you, is of course your own intellect, not the words of Christ, not the teaching of His Church, not the Holy Spirit. All the words of Christ, for you, must meet the approval of your intellect, or else they are discarded.

Do you even recognize the truth in my words?

 

[Eleve]

Also, Muze, do you think that a “mysterious or spiritual/consubstantial Eucharist” has any more a place in modern physics than substance theory?

 

[Love4All]

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.

So can transubstantiation.

 

[Love4All]

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.

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.

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church IS “The Church.” Nice try on the false dichotomy though.