Aristotelian substance theory and transubstantiation

[Alberti_Devoveo]

But it does make a claim that a conversion happens to the substance of the bread and wine. That means that the substance of the bread and wine must be actionable.

Substance can indeed change. When I die, I go from a living being to a corpse; my substance has changed. Do any of my accidents change when I die? Nope.

 

[Muze]

Substance can indeed change. When I die, I go from a living being to a corpse; my substance has changed. Do any of my accidents change when I die? Nope.

Actually, they do. Your body chemistry has changed such that it no longer functions. We might even say that your spirit has left your body. The change, then is all due to your accidents, and not your substance.

More “examples” of substance isn’t going to change the fact that substance theory as used by Aquinas and Trent is incompatible with modern science.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Actually, they do. Your body chemistry has changed such that it no longer functions. We might even say that your spirit has left your body. The change, then is all due to your accidents, and not your substance.

Fair enough that there are some accidents that change. However, you are still assuming that everything about us can be described purely in accidental form. I again refer you back to the quote in Post 179 (which I will post again here so that you might read it):

A mechanist materialist would probably then appeal to the atom as the prime building block of DNA and hence the cat. Of course, atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles, which demand explanation. These particles are also made of sub-particles, and so on… Eventually, the materialist must arrive at some particle which is the fundamental reality of the cat; the one thing that makes the cat real. However, even if he were to stop his sub-atomic chain at such a particle (such as pure energy or super-strings) he would still have to explain where the particle derives its “reality”. In this event, the materialist would just admit that the energy particle (for arguments sake lets call it a super-string) just is real; it has no explanation for itself and must be a completely simple reality. If he did this he would find himself agreeing with Aristotle. Why? The reason is that the materialist will have agreed that the super-string is a fundamental reality. The super string has mass, quality (such as brightness or texture), quantity and possibly other modes of existence called accidents by Aristotelian thinkers. The materialist must agree that the fundamental particle (the super-string) has accidents, otherwise where does the quantity, quality, position, posture, etc. of the cat come from? If the materialist agrees to the fact that the super-string is a fundamental reality with accidental qualities, then he has just defined an Aristotelian object. His object has substance (a primary mode of being which fundamentally just is) inhered with accidents (secondary modes of being which give the substance discernable characteristics). In the end, the materialist will be forced to admit the reality of substance and accidents over the philosophy of an endless string of mechanistic materialism. We can also simply say that the cat just is a simple substance inhered with accidents that are divisible into parts (DNA, proteins, atoms, quarks, super-strings, etc.) The cat is defined as a whole rather than a sum of parts. The cat is fundamentally composed of primary matter with the form of a cat. The parts (such as cat DNA and its constituent atoms) are also feline since the form of the cat is inherent in every part of the cat. The substance of the cat determines the parts to be what they are. An individual atom separate from the form of the cat is substantially different because the substance of the atom is atomic, but an atom in a cat is only part of the whole: therefore its substance is feline.

Source

More “examples” of substance isn’t going to change the fact that substance theory as used by Aquinas and Trent is incompatible with modern science.

More empty assertions will not make your statement true, especially when your understanding of the theory you are attempting to refute is extremely limited.

 

[Muze]

Fair enough that there are some accidents that change. However, you are still assuming that everything about us can be described purely in accidental form.

That’s what modern science has discovered.

I again refer you back to the quote in Post 179 (which I will post again here so that you might read it):
…
The cat is fundamentally composed of primary matter with the form of a cat.
…

This is an oversimplification, as the article I posted previously shows. If by “form” one means that the form of the cat only explains what a cat is, then there is nothing actionable to be changed.

If the by “form” one means something external to the mind that is actionable and defines things like the efficient cause of the cat and such, then modern science has completely supplanted that idea. The idea from your article that science has to explain the cause of some fundamental particle is simply inaccurate.

Eventually, the materialist must arrive at some particle which is the fundamental reality of the cat; the one thing that makes the cat real.

And this is precisely where Aristotle went wrong and where substance theory falls down. There isn’t some particle which is the fundamental reality of the cat. The fundamental reality of the cat is ALL of the atoms and particles that make it up. The accidents ARE what is fundamental to the cat. There is nothing more That’s what modern science has shown.

Aristotle rejected the idea that everything is made of atoms, and so his ontology wants to explain how there are different forms from earth, wind, fire, and water.

But now that we know that there are atoms with differing properties that act differently when combined into different molecules, the need for this external “substance” to define efficient cause and such becomes unnecessary and is supplanted by the fact that what is fundamental to any material thing is the matter, the atoms and particles, that comprise it.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

That’s what modern science has discovered.

Except it has not. Science has no idea what is more fundamental to quarks. It could be strings, it could be fields. It could be something else.

This is an oversimplification, as the article I posted previously shows. If by “form” one means that the form of the cat only explains what a cat is, then there is nothing actionable to be changed.

You are conflating two ideas here. Plato’s Form that you are referring to here is not Aristotle’s Substance, though the two are similar, but the “form” used in the text I cited is talking about the material form (i.e., its shape).

If the by “form” one means something external to the mind that is actionable and defines things like the efficient cause of the cat and such, then modern science has completely supplanted that idea. The idea from your article that science has to explain the cause of some fundamental particle is simply inaccurate.

Again, it is referring to the accidental form, not the substantial form.

And this is precisely where Aristotle went wrong and where substance theory falls down. There isn’t some particle which is the fundamental reality of the cat. The fundamental reality of the cat is ALL of the atoms and particles that make it up. The accidents ARE what is fundamental to the cat. There is nothing more That’s what modern science has shown.

What are quarks made out of?

Aristotle rejected the idea that everything is made of atoms, and so his ontology wants to explain how there are different forms from earth, wind, fire, and water.

Aristotle did not employ the word “form” (Plato’s word), he used substance (ousia). Aristotle wanted to explain things as being comprised of what they are made of and what it is (its essence, its being), regardless of his views on atoms.

But now that we know that there are atoms with differing properties that act differently when combined into different molecules, the need for this external “substance” to define efficient cause and such becomes unnecessary and is supplanted by the fact that what is fundamental to any material thing is the matter, the atoms and particles, that comprise it.

As the text states,

An individual atom separate from the form of the cat is substantially different because the substance of the atom is atomic, but an atom in a cat is only part of the whole: therefore its substance is feline

An atom alone is different from an atom as part of the cat.

And, again, substance is not external to anything, it is an intrinsic part of being that makes a cat a cat. Atoms and molecules cannot give a cat its catness.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Let me make a few comments, coming late. First, this topic has been discussed many times in this Forum and in others here. I’ve commented several times. First you have to understand that the Dogma of the Church on Transubstantiation is tied neither to science nor to any particualr philosophy but to the clear teaching of Christ Himself and to that teaching as it has been held by the Tradition of the Church, which can be found in the comments of the early Church Fathers and as historically taught by the Church.

However, the Church found it convenient to use the understanding of Substance and Accident as taught by Thomas Aquinas to convey the language of the Dogma, which defines Her belief and that of all faithful Catholics.

In the Church’s teaching, the " accidents " of the bread and wine remain without a substance in which to inhere after the Consecration. Of course these " accidents " can be detected with ease by normal observation and in detail by scientific tests. The accidents have not changed - all physical attributes that make bread to be bread and that make wine to be wine are still present. Science would say that nothing has happend to the substance of either, since all the identifying attributes are still present.

But science has never defined what it means by " substance. " All science has ever dealt with are the accidents of things - those things which can be touched and measured in some way.

It is philosophy which has defince substance as that in which accidents inhere and that which inheres in nothing else itself. It is that particular thing which exists beneath all the detectible accidents ( and here there is some room for discussion, since philosophers have indeed differed on the exact, precise meaning.). We can also say that it would include the form which makes a thing to be a particular type of thing, since a thing must have both existence and form or it is nothing ( we could now go to the current thread " Aristotle’s notion of substance " for more discussion on these points ).

It is enough to know that at the Consecration a miracle takes place, actually several.
The substance of the bread and wine is turned into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. In other words the substances of the bread and wine ( which we cannot see ) are changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, which we cannot see, **and **
all the accidents of Christ’s body and blood as well. Not only this but the entire glorified Christ is physically present under/beneath/behind each species - both the bread and the wine, and this by concomitence as Thomas says.

So all arguments about science disagreeing with what the Church teaches really doesn’t mean a thing, since the Church gets her teaching from Christ himself and uses the language of Aquinas to try to help make the miracle understandable - as far as possible.
I hope this helps explain the Church’s teaching.

So remember that " substance " was and has always been a philosophical term and is still used by Catholic Philosophers and Theologians today. Science has grabed the term and put it to its own use. Science cannot now tell us we do not use the term correctly. That seems a bit unfair. Hadn’t we better say that traditional Aristotelian and Thomistic Philosophy and the Catholic Church use the term in its most original and basic way and that Science has extrapolated and changed the meaning of the term because it was convenient. And no, the Church will not change its teaching, though perhaps some day it may elaborate more by trying to make the teaching more clear - but I wouldn’t wait for that.

Linus2nd

 

[jbeck43]

Let me make a few comments, coming late. First, this topic has been discussed many times in this Forum and in others here. I’ve commented several times. First you have to understand that the Dogma of the Church on Transubstantiation is tied neither to science nor to any particualr philosophy but to the clear teaching of Christ Himself and to that teaching as it has been held by the Tradition of the Church, which can be found in the comments of the early Church Fathers and as historically taught by the Church.

However, the Church found it convenient to use the understanding of Substance and Accident as taught by Thomas Aquinas to convey the language of the Dogma, which defines Her belief and that of all faithful Catholics.

In the Church’s teaching, the " accidents " of the bread and wine remain without a substance in which to inhere after the Consecration. Of course these " accidents " can be detected with ease by normal observation and in detail by scientific tests. The accidents have not changed - all physical attributes that make bread to be bread and that make wine to be wine are still present. Science would say that nothing has happend to the substance of either, since all the identifying attributes are still present.

But science has never defined what it means by " substance. " All science has ever dealt with are the accidents of things - those things which can be touched and measured in some way.

It is philosophy which has defince substance as that in which accidents inhere and that which inheres in nothing else itself. It is that particular thing which exists beneath all the detectible accidents ( and here there is some room for discussion, since philosophers have indeed differed on the exact, precise meaning.). We can also say that it would include the form which makes a thing to be a particular type of thing, since a thing must have both existence and form or it is nothing ( we could now go to the current thread " Aristotle’s notion of substance " for more discussion on these points ).

It is enough to know that at the Consecration a miracle takes place, actually several.
The substance of the bread and wine is turned into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. In other words the substances of the bread and wine ( which we cannot see ) are changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, which we cannot see, **and **
all the accidents of Christ’s body and blood as well. Not only this but the entire glorified Christ is physically present under/beneath/behind each species - both the bread and the wine, and this by concomitence as Thomas says.

So all arguments about science disagreeing with what the Church teaches really doesn’t mean a thing, since the Church gets her teaching from Christ himself and uses the language of Aquinas to try to help make the miracle understandable - as far as possible.
I hope this helps explain the Church’s teaching.

So remember that " substance " was and has always been a philosophical term and is still used by Catholic Philosophers and Theologians today. Science has grabed the term and put it to its own use. Science cannot now tell us we do not use the term correctly. That seems a bit unfair. Hadn’t we better say that traditional Aristotelian and Thomistic Philosophy and the Catholic Church use the term in its most original and basic way and that Science has extrapolated and changed the meaning of the term because it was convenient. And no, the Church will not change its teaching, though perhaps some day it may elaborate more by trying to make the teaching more clear - but I wouldn’t wait for that.

Linus2nd

Excellent. Thank you, Linusthe2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

At least give us credit for being honest. We believe what the Church teaches because the Church is credible, it is always based on Scripture, which is based on God’s own Revelation handed on to the Church through the Tradition of that Revelation as handed on by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church, protected and defined by the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium of the Church. That is why, though the words may change, the content of the belief in the Miracle of the Eucharist through Transubstantion will never change. And the same for all our other beliefs. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

How can one have faith in a religion whose doctrines change with the fickle winds of public opinion ? Wouldn’t that make us just another Protestant denomination? Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Thank you for these posts. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Correct, The " accidents or species " indicate the presence of Christ’s glorified Body and Blood, soul and Divinity, Jesus Christ as He walked the earth after His Resurrection, but vailed by the Species and present after the manner of the Sacrament.

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.

Correct. But you need to ask Ismael about his opinion of what goes on at the sub-Planck level, I believe he is doing post graduate work on Relativity or something like that - pretty deep stuff.

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.

That would be correct. Although there are several Eucharistic Miracles, some of long standing. Also, there are the actual words of Christ which I don’t see how any Christian could interpret incorrectly. Then there is the witness and testimony of the early Church Fathers, not to mention the Apostles, and the unbroken Tradition of the Church’s constant teaching. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

No, but that doesn’t prove anything. If you reject Christ’s Divinity, you are not Christian in any sense at all. The history of God’s Revelation which foretold the coming of Christ and His fulfillment of these prophecies and His miracles and His message, and His Resurrection bear witness that He was Divine. That is proof enough. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by Muze
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.

Pardon me again. That is not correct. All physical reality is made out of the same ultimate matter ( molecules and atoms formed out of the exact identical sub-atomic particles ). Yet we know " animal, " " man, " " bird, " " fish, " " gold, " " carbon, " etc ad infinatum. In what does " animal, " " man," exist? Each form or nature exists not in a different mix of atoms, electrons, protons etc, each exists in something we cannot see but which we know is there - a Substance. Now, you can deny that but I wouldn’t advise it. Because I think it would make you look rather foolish. Those old Greeks had a lot more intelligence that moderns give them credit for.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes. And they do so using substance theory.

Thus, they’ve always embraced substance theory.

And thus embraced substance theory.

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.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

True, but you have to read the canons of the council to know that it does declare this De Fide. " Canon 1: If anyone denies 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,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. " ( Denzinger 883 )

Certainly sounds De Fide to me.

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

That may be true but the exact words of the Council need to be seen. Here is what the Council said, " . Canon 2: If anyone says 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 denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation,[43] let him be anathema. " ( Denzinger 884)
That is Dogma to me. And it certainly is solid Catholic teaching. Also see CCC, para 204It would be a grave error to parce this into an equivication or to say we are free to disgard the term " 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.

All true, but due to the Reformation the Council wanted to reiterate in the strongest terms ( De Fide) what Catholics had to believe.

Linus2nd

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No, but that doesn’t prove anything. If you reject Christ’s Divinity, you are not Christian in any sense at all. The history of God’s Revelation which foretold the coming of Christ and His fulfillment of these prophecies and His miracles and His message, and His Resurrection bear witness that He was Divine. That is proof enough. Linus2nd

The Council of Nicea tells us that the Trinitarian Relationship is through Substance, not Accidents. Therefore, Jesus’ blood would not contain an accident of Divinity, only the substance of Divinity. This is what jbeck was getting at there.

 

[Eleve]

sigh

Unless you’re going to say that transubstantiation only “converts” the explanation of bread, you’re going to need something external to the mind to undergo this conversion. That’s only in the incompatiblet view.

You’re not even making a token effort to respond to what I’ve said. “The explanation of bread”? What are you even talking about? The compatibilist view is that there are facts about bread - not facts about minds and bread, but objective facts about bread - that are explained by substance, thus not reducible to fundamental physics. Transubstantiation then means that those facts change. Those mind-independent facts. Not the “explanation of bread,” but facts about the bread. And that change cannot be explained without appeal to substance.

For some reason you keep jumping from the word “explanation” to the conclusion that what I’m talking about is linguistic, mind-dependent, or socially constructed. But that’s a ridiculous leap. The fact that I can’t stop sneezing when I go outside in the spring is explained by a pollen allergy. To say that the pollen allergy is explanatory is not to make a claim about language; it’s to make a claim about how the pollen allergy relates to my sneezing. If someone comes along and tells me the real problem is with my chakras, we’re not disagreeing about language. We’re disagreeing about whether my body is best described by modern medical science or by New Age-filtered Hinduism.

 

[jbeck43]

At the risk of offending some people, I’ll make an analogy that better explains the reaction of the Jews in John 6 when Christ said, “amen amen, unless you eat (Trogos) my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you” .* Here, as I have explained elsewhere, Christ switches His verb form in the Greek from eat (fago), to devour or masticate (Trogos).* The people respond by saying, “this is a hard saying.* Who can hear it?”* And then they leave.* The question here is why did they leave?* Was it because He is somehow comparing himself to Moses, and that sufficiently offends the people to leave, or was it something else?

The truth is that what Christ is saying here is so shocking to Jewish sentiment and mores, that the significance of it can’t be overstated.* The meaning is lost in English, and having heard and read it so many times over so many years, the full significance of its emotional impact is lost too.* But imagine if I said something so offensive that everyone at a gathering–ones who admired me, ones who even loved me–all left in disgusted disbelief at the same time.* That was the reaction of His followers that day, in John 6.* And I would venture to guess that even the faith of the twelve disciples we’re shaken by His words.

Let’s take an example that we would understand today.* Suppose I mentioned to my friend Bob, who wanted to know how my trip to Paris was last summer, that my trip was almost as fun as if I had… killed his wonderful mother with a knife.** What?* How would you think Bob would react to that?** Would it matter to Bob at that point how my trip actually was?* Would he simply say in his mind, well he only meant ‘kill my mother’ in a symbolic sense to express the idea that he really had a wonderful time?** Now please don’t misunderstand me.* I am not comparing the sacred words of Christ to an intrinsically evil act.*

But what I am saying is that the words Christ spoke here created the same visceral reaction in his hearers ears as Bob or anyone else would have had to the description of my Paris trip.* Why?* Because what Christ said you must do (devour my flesh), was so deeply offensive and contradictory to Jewish sentiment then.* These were God’s chosen people, and a people set apart.* So to even think about blood and flesh in the way Christ spoke of here was akin to blasphemy.* If these weren’t His friends that day that He was speaking to, they would have killed Him for it if it were possible.* All you have to do is read the book of Deuteronomy to begin to understand their social demeanor and religious sentiment.

So for Christ to have used such words and phrases even to make a symbolic point is baseless because the words were so outrageous that His point would have been missed.

So why did Christ use them?* For one reason alone:* He meant what He said.* And it wasn’t blasphemy because He wasn’t advocating something against God, since He was God.* There was simply no other way to describe what it was He needed to convey, and if He had softened His words in any way, He knew that the ones listening to Him would not comprehend the full import and stark meaning of His words even if it also meant deeply offending them.* And so He let them be outraged and walk away.*There was no other way.He also knew that if He softened His words, that His hearers would be tempted to not take Him literally. And that is why it is such a shame that people still don’t take Him literally today.

And that is why Luther, by introducing the idea of the bread being consubstantial with the real flesh of Christ, is incorrect.* It is wrong for the same reason that treating the bread as mere symbol is wrong.* Because Christ did not give His listeners the flexibility or freedom to ameliorate the meaning of His words by the possibility that He might have meant something else.* He said you must-- Trogos my flesh, or devour it like a lion ripping the flesh from the bones of its victims.* I’m not being overly dramatic here.* That is the standard use of the word in it’s normative context.* There is simply no room for bread.* He didn’t mean bread.* That’s why Christ didn’t say bread.* He said flesh.

And so here we are, knowing what we know now, the beneficiaries of a sacred trust, and a truly infinite sacrament of love.

I wonder if I had been there myself, ifIwould have stayed.* I would like to think I would, but that would be just naive.* I just don’t know.

Forgive me again for using such a terrible analogy to describe such an important sacrament, really.* It’s late and I can’t think of anything else.

 

[jbeck43]

The Council of Nicea tells us that the Trinitarian Relationship is through Substance, not Accidents. Therefore, Jesus’ blood would not contain an accident of Divinity, only the substance of Divinity. This is what jbeck was getting at there.

Yes, exactly. Thank you, Alberti

 

[Muze]

How can one have faith in a religion whose doctrines change with the fickle winds of public opinion ? Wouldn’t that make us just another Protestant denomination? Linus2nd.

How can you have faith in a religion that holds on to its statements of doctrine even after developments in science and philosophy have made them obsolete?