Aristotelian substance theory and transubstantiation

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

First of all, science has not disproved any of our beliefs or teachings. You have simply interpreted the meaning of science incorrectly. Or you are simply accepting someone’s invalid assertions without investigating them for yourself.

You haven’t raised any objections we haven’t heard before and you haven’t provided any new twists or turns. So what is the point? We are not shocked, we are not intimidated. We will adhere to the truth even if the whole world goes mad - which it seems to be doing.

Linus2nd

 

[PeaceInChrist]

This is possibly one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve seen carried this far into a thread, and one based on a false definition of a word, at that!

As though by redefining ‘substance’ to be something physically observable, and not finding it by observation, it is suddenly disproved, even when our very definition is that substance is beyond physical observation! How absurd!

Pray tell, what am I? A human? And what makes me human? A materialist might try to describe humanity solely on physical observation: I have flesh, organs, and perform biological functions. Yet what am I? I am human, and I have a soul, do I not? I cannot observe my soul, yet I have one, do I not? I am a human, but what makes me human? Man is both physical and spiritual; can I really be ‘redefined’ as anything other than ‘human’? What if they were to change the ‘language’? Would I then cease to be what I am? NO!

I am that which God made me, I am human, and even without language, I am still what I am. GOD made me thus, and whatever I call myself, I am what I was created to be, by God. Denying that anything physical has a substance, a ‘being’ (that which it is), is purely materialistic and completely irrational if one believes in anything spiritual. If there were no language to describe God, He would still be God, and His creation would still be creation, ordered as He pleased, because He so willed it.

Language only transmits to us, as rational humans, a reality greater than ourselves, as seen in the case of God revealing Himself to us. And when He reveals His love to us in prayer, is that merely the physical process of our neurons firing, and it has no real meaning or substance behind it? To an atheist, perhaps. But one would, in reality, be a fool to describe an experience of God’s love as merely a physical process, and deny the spiritual, the reality of what was revealed.

The reason that things have a substance that is beyond observation is because we, first, were given a substance by God. God willed us into existence, He created us. We are as He made us, and it is Him, His Mind, His Will, that makes us so. Why does it not follow that anything created by Almighty God also has substance, for did He not intend created things to be ‘what’ they are? Does God not create things which He intends ‘to be’? YES! To say otherwise is to say that God created randomly, with no intent or purpose behind His actions. We may as well be the gods, for we, according to the OP, decide ‘what’ things are, with our mighty ‘language’. If we called a mountain something else, it would cease to be what it is.

God also commanded that things be made, by us men, for specific purposes. One such thing was the Ark. It was specified by God to be made, and to carry His Law. It was sacred, yet physical. If God had not called it the ‘Ark’, and had left it nameless, would it not still be what it is? Would it cease to exist? How absurd!

How about the tablet that bore the Commandments? Does the stone tablet define the Law? Or is the Law, while written, something that transcends mere physical properties? If the tablet were broken, would the Law cease to be? They are gone, and the moral Law is still here.

Then the OP has said that the Church Fathers, even blessed Ignatius, the disciple of John himself, were mistaken in their understanding of this Holy Mystery! And that the Lord let His Church wallow in a sacrilegious heresy for 1500 years! His promise of the Holy Spirit and protection from Hell amounted to nothing, I suppose.

I am sorry to see that no arguments have even swayed the OP from his strawman, the defining of ‘substance’ as something that must be observed, and not simply a greater, unobservable reality of the ‘nature’ of the thing. This kind of argument I might expect from an atheist, that language and physical properties alone define things. But someone who claims to believe that we are created by an Almighty God, who ordered all things mightily? I cannot grasp this, at all. That, and the OP has refused to entertain even our own definition of substance, or any argument whatsoever.

OP, my brother in Christ Jesus, I will pray for you. Please, at least consider our own definition of our own doctrine.

 

[Muze]

First of all, science has not disproved any of our beliefs or teachings. You have simply interpreted the meaning of science incorrectly. Or you are simply accepting someone’s invalid assertions without investigating them for yourself.

Said the bishop to Galileo. LOL

You haven’t raised any objections we haven’t heard before and you haven’t provided any new twists or turns. So what is the point? We are not shocked, we are not intimidated. We will adhere to the truth even if the whole world goes mad - which it seems to be doing.

It seems that this has been raised in the past, and the RCC is burying its head in the sand just as it always does when science challenges its doctrines.

 

[Muze]

This is possibly one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve seen carried this far into a thread, and one based on a false definition of a word, at that!

As though by redefining ‘substance’ to be something physically observable, and not finding it by observation, it is suddenly disproved, even when our very definition is that substance is beyond physical observation! How absurd!

No one said anything about “physically observable.” But if it is to be changed, it must exist in some form other than a concept.

Pray tell, what am I? A human? And what makes me human? A materialist might try to describe humanity solely on physical observation: I have flesh, organs, and perform biological functions. Yet what am I? I am human, and I have a soul, do I not? I cannot observe my soul, yet I have one, do I not? I am a human, but what makes me human? Man is both physical and spiritual; can I really be ‘redefined’ as anything other than ‘human’? What if they were to change the ‘language’? Would I then cease to be what I am? NO!

Which doesn’t address substance theory at all, especially as Trent uses it.

I am that which God made me, I am human, and even without language, I am still what I am. GOD made me thus, and whatever I call myself, I am what I was created to be, by God. Denying that anything physical has a substance, a ‘being’ (that which it is), is purely materialistic and completely irrational if one believes in anything spiritual. If there were no language to describe God, He would still be God, and His creation would still be creation, ordered as He pleased, because He so willed it.

Again, this has nothing to do with substance theory, especially as Trent uses it.

Language only transmits to us, as rational humans, a reality greater than ourselves, as seen in the case of God revealing Himself to us. And when He reveals His love to us in prayer, is that merely the physical process of our neurons firing, and it has no real meaning or substance behind it? To an atheist, perhaps. But one would, in reality, be a fool to describe an experience of God’s love as merely a physical process, and deny the spiritual, the reality of what was revealed.

Still nothing to do with substance theory.

The reason that things have a substance that is beyond observation is because we, first, were given a substance by God. God willed us into existence, He created us. We are as He made us, and it is Him, His Mind, His Will, that makes us so. Why does it not follow that anything created by Almighty God also has substance, for did He not intend created things to be ‘what’ they are? Does God not create things which He intends ‘to be’? YES! To say otherwise is to say that God created randomly, with no intent or purpose behind His actions. We may as well be the gods, for we, according to the OP, decide ‘what’ things are, with our mighty ‘language’. If we called a mountain something else, it would cease to be what it is.

And so, all you have here is God’s conception of what a human being is. There still isn’t a substance to change, so, again, nothing here about substance theory, unless you’re claiming that God created us with this substance, in which case there is no basis for the claim.

God also commanded that things be made, by us men, for specific purposes. One such thing was the Ark. It was specified by God to be made, and to carry His Law. It was sacred, yet physical. If God had not called it the ‘Ark’, and had left it nameless, would it not still be what it is? Would it cease to exist? How absurd!

And yet it would still only be assembled pieces of wood and tar, made from the atoms and molecules and subatomic particles.

How about the tablet that bore the Commandments? Does the stone tablet define the Law? Or is the Law, while written, something that transcends mere physical properties? If the tablet were broken, would the Law cease to be? They are gone, and the moral Law is still here.

And that’s a mental concept. There’s nothing about substance there.

Then the OP has said that the Church Fathers, even blessed Ignatius, the disciple of John himself, were mistaken in their understanding of this Holy Mystery! And that the Lord let His Church wallow in a sacrilegious heresy for 1500 years! His promise of the Holy Spirit and protection from Hell amounted to nothing, I suppose.

Hey, Aquinas is the one who articulated it, and Trent the one who declared it. I had nothing to do with that.

I am sorry to see that no arguments have even swayed the OP from his strawman, the defining of ‘substance’ as something that must be observed, and not simply a greater, unobservable reality of the ‘nature’ of the thing.

Which is either only explanatory, or incompatible with modern science. Either way presents an issue to the RCC

This kind of argument I might expect from an atheist, that language and physical properties alone define things. But someone who claims to believe that we are created by an Almighty God, who ordered all things mightily? I cannot grasp this, at all. That, and the OP has refused to entertain even our own definition of substance, or any argument whatsoever.

Not sure if this is an ad hom or a guilt by association. Either way, it’s arrogant snobbery.

And you’ve not presented an actual, coherent definition of “substance” as Aquinas and Trent use it. It is painfully clear that both intended to use Aristotle’s substance theory to create the doctrine of transubstantiation, although I’m not convinced that Aquinas intended for it to become doctrine for a council. Either way, you’re stuck with a theory that either has nothing in the substance to actually be changed other than the explanation, or a doctrine that is incompatible with reality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

In the Eucharist we have the Whole Christ. It is the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Trinity, united with Christ’s human nature that is the Person of Jesus Christ, the man. In Christ there are two natures, the human and the Divine. No one said that " Jesus’ blood " was an " accident of Divinity. " That is your interpretation of what was said.

Where the blood of Christ is present, the body is present also and, indeed, the Whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and Divinity. The Church has defined how we are to understand this. But if the body of Christ is present, the accidents of his human nature are all present. His Divinity is there as well but not as an accident but as the Divine Second Person, which informs the human nature of Christ, making the Person of Jesus Christ.

If one would dare to describe the precise relationship, I would say that the Second Person of the Trinity serves the same function in the Person of Jesus Christ as the soul does in the human person - that of a substantial form. But certainly no accident.

Linus2nd

 

[PeaceInChrist]

No one said anything about “physically observable.” But if it is to be changed, it must exist in some form other than a concept.

If ‘physically observable’ is not a parameter of your supposed definition, then how can you possibly refute it? It is metaphysical. It exists beyond the physical, yet is a part of the reality in which we dwell. You have done nothing to refute that things have substance.

And so, all you have here is God’s conception of what a human being is. There still isn’t a substance to change, so, again, nothing here about substance theory, unless you’re claiming that God created us with this substance, in which case there is no basis for the claim.

God’s conception of what a human is, is what a human is. It is beyond merely our physical make-up. So it is with the Eucharist.

So yes, a person is more than merely the physical, and thus has substance, as does God, who is being itself.

And yet it would still only be assembled pieces of wood and tar, made from the atoms and molecules and subatomic particles.

Really? It isn’t more than that because God defined it as ‘something’? Of course it is beyond simply its physical characteristics. God defines things, so that what ‘is’, is not merely based on the physical. The Mind of God defines substance.

Take, for instance, the Allegory of the Cave. What ‘is’ is seen only in part (the physical) by us with our eyes, while what ‘is’ exists beyond our seeing or understanding. You claim that what ‘is’ is defined solely by our own language and definition. If this is true, then you are essentially a Christian with a materialistic philosophy, which seems rather impossible, seeing that with God, physical things mean something and are defined.

And that’s a mental concept. There’s nothing about substance there.

It is moral law, above merely the mental. You essentially concede that things like truth, justice, mercy, love, ect., are all merely ‘mental concepts’. You really find that these are not more than just ‘mental concepts’, instead of metaphysical truths that are beyond merely our minds? You are the first Christian I have ever seen make the claim that moral principles are merely mental concepts, and this is valid only if you argue for existence limited to physical composition (you know, atheistic materialism?). With God, there can exist truth beyond what is merely our mental perception.

Hey, Aquinas is the one who articulated it, and Trent the one who declared it. I had nothing to do with that.

And you’ve not presented an actual, coherent definition of “substance” as Aquinas and Trent use it. It is painfully clear that both intended to use Aristotle’s substance theory to create the doctrine of transubstantiation, although I’m not convinced that Aquinas intended for it to become doctrine for a council. Either way, you’re stuck with a theory that either has nothing in the substance to actually be changed other than the explanation, or a doctrine that is incompatible with reality.

You are badly, badly butchering the concept of substance. For example, take a tree. It has the composition (accidents) of atoms to make it wood, and the physical appearance (accidents) to make it a tree. Because of these physical properties, it ‘is’, by nature (the nature ‘of things’) a tree (substance).

Now, take the tree, chop it down, carve it up, and make it into a chair. It still has the composition of wood (accidents), but its physical appearance (accidents) have changed in such a way that it is no longer a tree physically, and is also no longer a tree by nature (substance). It is now, by both appearance and composition (accidents) a chair (substance, what ‘is’).

Accidents and substance are, in the physical world, almost always tied to one another (as in the tree example). The accidental composition can change, and it will also change the substance of the thing. Spiritual essence goes beyond this, however. For instance, a person that dies, is still a person, as their soul exists. They are separated from the accidents that we can observe, but this does not mean that their soul is not still substantially human.

Similarly, an angel, when it appears physically, exists both substantially and accidentally. When it goes back to a spiritual existence, it is separated from our concept of its accidents, but this does not mean that the angel ceases to exist substantially and in spirit. It ‘is’ still an angel ‘by its nature’. So, too, can the 'accident’s of an angel change, as when they appear as wheels with many eyes, or as people. It is still substantially an angel, and not just a wheel with eyes or a human.

In the case of the Eucharist, it is the only instance I know of where the accidents do not dictate the substance of the object besides spiritual things, such as the example given with the angel changing forms. But we believe it happens, and there is literally no way, with physics or anything else, that you can disprove this concept of substance.

Now please stop trying to refute something metaphysical that cannot be refuted by materialism. Pretty please?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

I agree but what does this have to do with the question? How is it related to what jbeck had to say? Linus2nd

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I agree but what does this have to do with the question? How is it related to what jbeck had to say? Linus2nd

Follow the conversation:

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

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.

jbeck was trying to show that Jesus’ Divinity is not Accidental in nature but Substantial, so you would not be able to prove His Divinity through blood testing. You completely missed that point of his, thinking that jbeck was denying Christ’s Divinity. I was trying to correct your error.

Hope that helps.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Follow the conversation:

jbeck was trying to show that Jesus’ Divinity is not Accidental in nature but Substantial, so you would not be able to prove His Divinity through blood testing. You completely missed that point of his, thinking that jbeck was denying Christ’s Divinity. I was trying to correct your error.

Hope that helps.

Thank you, I missed that point. My point was that Christ’s Divinity is known only through faith - it can’t be tested. And I agree that the Divinity of the Second Person is th Substantial Form of the Whole Christ ( though I have never seen that point discussed).

Linus2nd

 

[Muze]

If ‘physically observable’ is not a parameter of your supposed definition, then how can you possibly refute it? It is metaphysical. It exists beyond the physical, yet is a part of the reality in which we dwell. You have done nothing to refute that things have substance.

Actually, I have. The article I posted clearly claims that this view of substance theory is incompatible with modern science.

God’s conception of what a human is, is what a human is. It is beyond merely our physical make-up. So it is with the Eucharist.

The body and blood are “spiritualized?” I don’t think Trent would be happy with that.

So yes, a person is more than merely the physical, and thus has substance, as does God, who is being itself.

Again, you might want to check with your priest before saying that the body and blood are spiritualized.

Really? It isn’t more than that because God defined it as ‘something’? Of course it is beyond simply its physical characteristics. God defines things, so that what ‘is’, is not merely based on the physical. The Mind of God defines substance.

That’s a pretty vague statement. Do you mean that God’s understanding of a subject is the substance, or that God creates a substance that is the fundamental efficient cause that determines its behavior?

Take, for instance, the Allegory of the Cave. What ‘is’ is seen only in part (the physical) by us with our eyes, while what ‘is’ exists beyond our seeing or understanding. You claim that what ‘is’ is defined solely by our own language and definition. If this is true, then you are essentially a Christian with a materialistic philosophy, which seems rather impossible, seeing that with God, physical things mean something and are defined.

And modern science tells us that Aristotle’s description of these things as fundamental efficient cause has been displaced by our understanding of the physical world.

It is moral law, above merely the mental. You essentially concede that things like truth, justice, mercy, love, ect., are all merely ‘mental concepts’. You really find that these are not more than just ‘mental concepts’, instead of metaphysical truths that are beyond merely our minds? You are the first Christian I have ever seen make the claim that moral principles are merely mental concepts, and this is valid only if you argue for existence limited to physical composition (you know, atheistic materialism?). With God, there can exist truth beyond what is merely our mental perception.

Please describe this actual existence for moral law, then. What is it constructed of?

You are badly, badly butchering the concept of substance. For example, take a tree. It has the composition (accidents) of atoms to make it wood, and the physical appearance (accidents) to make it a tree. Because of these physical properties, it ‘is’, by nature (the nature ‘of things’) a tree (substance).

Which is fine, as an explanatory interpretation of “tree.”

The question is whether this substance “tree” is the fundamental efficient cause and determines how the tree behaves.

Now, take the tree, chop it down, carve it up, and make it into a chair. It still has the composition of wood (accidents), but its physical appearance (accidents) have changed in such a way that it is no longer a tree physically, and is also no longer a tree by nature (substance). It is now, by both appearance and composition (accidents) a chair (substance, what ‘is’).

Accidents and substance are, in the physical world, almost always tied to one another (as in the tree example). The accidental composition can change, and it will also change the substance of the thing. Spiritual essence goes beyond this, however. For instance, a person that dies, is still a person, as their soul exists. They are separated from the accidents that we can observe, but this does not mean that their soul is not still substantially human.

Again, making “substance” equal to “spiritual” is going to have some issues with Trent.

Similarly, an angel, when it appears physically, exists both substantially and accidentally. When it goes back to a spiritual existence, it is separated from our concept of its accidents, but this does not mean that the angel ceases to exist substantially and in spirit. It ‘is’ still an angel ‘by its nature’. So, too, can the 'accident’s of an angel change, as when they appear as wheels with many eyes, or as people. It is still substantially an angel, and not just a wheel with eyes or a human.

In the case of the Eucharist, it is the only instance I know of where the accidents do not dictate the substance of the object besides spiritual things, such as the example given with the angel changing forms. But we believe it happens, and there is literally no way, with physics or anything else, that you can disprove this concept of substance.

Science has already shown that Aristotelian substance theory is incompatible with physics’ understanding of the physical world.

Now please stop trying to refute something metaphysical that cannot be refuted by materialism. Pretty please?

Sorry, but the article I posted already says it. Metaphysics generally wants to say something about physics. Yes, it comes before, but ultimately has to reflect reality.

The way you’ve described “substance” might be better called “metaspiritics”, as you describe something that is spiritual not something that is material.

And, again, you might want to consult your priest before claiming that the body and blood are spiritually present.

 

[Richca]

And you’ve not presented an actual, coherent definition of “substance” as Aquinas and Trent use it. It is painfully clear that both intended to use Aristotle’s substance theory to create the doctrine of transubstantiation, although I’m not convinced that Aquinas intended for it to become doctrine for a council. Either way, you’re stuck with a theory that either has nothing in the substance to actually be changed other than the explanation, or a doctrine that is incompatible with reality.

In Aquinas’ explanation of the doctrine of transubstantiation, what is changed is the matter and form of the bread and wine. The substance of the bread, its matter and form, are changed into the body of Christ. The substance of the wine, its matter and form, are changed into the blood of Christ. The accidents of the bread and wine remain without a substance or matter, a divine miracle of course. St Thomas doesn’t try to explain away the miracle of the eucharist, he brings it out in full force.

Substance and accident, matter and form, are not doctrines that are incompatible with reality as Muse seems to think. It is simply how humans perceive the universe. The atomistic or mechanistic theory of the universe leaves alot of questions unexplained, for example, why are we here? What are truth, goodness and beauty? What are morals? Who or what is God? Why did Christ die on a cross? There is more to reality than to say that all things in the universe are simply an accidental conglomeration of atoms, molecules and sub atomic particles.

 

[Muze]

In Aquinas’ explanation of the doctrine of transubstantiation, what is changed is the matter and form of the bread and wine. The substance of the bread, its matter and form, are changed into the body of Christ. The substance of the wine, its matter and form, are changed into the blood of Christ. The accidents of the bread and wine remain without a substance or matter, a divine miracle of course. St Thomas doesn’t try to explain away the miracle of the eucharist, he brings it out in full force.

Substance and accident, matter and form, are not doctrines that are incompatible with reality as Muse seems to think. It is simply how humans perceive the universe. The atomistic or mechanistic theory of the universe leaves alot of questions unexplained, for example, why are we here? What are truth, goodness and beauty? What are morals? Who or what is God? Why did Christ die on a cross? There is more to reality than to say that all things in the universe are simply an accidental conglomeration of atoms, molecules and sub atomic particles.

Well, truth, beauty, and morals don’t make claims about the physical world, and thus they wouldn’t be incompatible with modern science.

OTOH, transubstantiation DOES make claims about the bread and wine, elements of the physical world, and do so based upon substance theory, which, when interpreted as Trent must do so, is incompatible with modern science, as the linked article showed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, truth, beauty, and morals don’t make claims about the physical world, and thus they wouldn’t be incompatible with modern science.

OTOH, transubstantiation DOES make claims about the bread and wine, elements of the physical world, and do so based upon substance theory, which, when interpreted as Trent must do so, is incompatible with modern science, as the linked article showed.

But it is " substance " as used in the 13th century, not as it is used much later by science as you say.

However, if you would read Book V and Vll of Aquinas’ commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle you will find that the modern use of " substance " was one of the many acceptible uses defined by Aristotle. So what’s the beef. The Church just chose to use it in a context which helped explain what it was trying to say. Your objections are mystifying. Linus2nd

 

[Muze]

In Aquinas’ explanation of the doctrine of transubstantiation, what is changed is the matter and form of the bread and wine. The substance of the bread, its matter and form, are changed into the body of Christ. The substance of the wine, its matter and form, are changed into the blood of Christ. The accidents of the bread and wine remain without a substance or matter, a divine miracle of course. St Thomas doesn’t try to explain away the miracle of the eucharist, he brings it out in full force.

Which is precisely what modern science has shown to be inaccurate. There is no actual “matter and form” to undergo conversion. The “accidents” are the substance. The physical material the comprises the bread and wine ARE the matter. They define the form and substance. There is no “metaphysical” substance to undergo conversion.

Substance and accident, matter and form, are not doctrines that are incompatible with reality as Muse seems to think.

It’s not just me. See here

The stronger, incompatibilitist interpretation is that Aristotle did not believe that the behaviour of complex entities followed from the laws that govern their parts or their matter. (Gotthelf 1987, Robinson 1983) By contrast, the behaviour of the matter is influenced by what it is the matter of. The nature of the matter places restrictions on what the enmattered thing can do—an animal can only be made from living tissue, not of stone or fire—but exactly how that matter behaves depends on the substantial form present in it. The substantial form plays, therefore, an essential role, not merely in certain kinds of scientific explanation, but by being a fundamental efficient cause in its own right.

It is simply how humans perceive the universe. The atomistic or mechanistic theory of the universe leaves alot of questions unexplained, for example, why are we here? What are truth, goodness and beauty? What are morals? Who or what is God? Why did Christ die on a cross?

None of these things have anything to do with substance theory or substantial form or transubstantiation. Your questions are philosophical and theological in nature. The question of transubstantiation is philosophy intruding on science, and modern science simply isn’t compatible with the claims of substance theory, if substance is able to undergo conversion.

There is more to reality than to say that all things in the universe are simply an accidental conglomeration of atoms, molecules and sub atomic particles.

But there isn’t anything more to say about the bread and wine than the “accidental” conglomeration of atoms, molecules and particles. That’s exactly the point.

 

[Muze]

But it is " substance " as used in the 13th century, not as it is used much later by science as you say.

However, if you would read Book V and Vll of Aquinas’ commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle you will find that the modern use of " substance " was one of the many acceptible uses defined by Aristotle. So what’s the beef. The Church just chose to use it in a context which helped explain what it was trying to say. Your objections are mystifying. Linus2nd

In the 13th century it was acceptable. It isn’t anymore.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the 13th century it was acceptable. It isn’t anymore.

Well, you are welcome to your opinions. I thik this conversation has run its course. Everyone has offered multiple opinions, there really isn’t any reason to go on.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

Which is precisely what modern science has shown to be inaccurate. There is no actual “matter and form” to undergo conversion.

There is actual and real bread and wine on the alters of Catholic Churches that does undergo conversion at the consecration. Bread and wine are real substances composed of matter and the names we give these substances, i.e. bread and wine, are the forms in Aristotle’s language. The philosophy and natural philosophy of Aristotle can be difficult to understand and comprehend as the history of philosophy through the ages can bear out and especially in our own day because we are used to the language of modern science textbooks. However, Aristotle’s natural philosphy and modern science can co-exist as many professors of the philosophy of science demonstrate. I’m not saying everything Aristotle said is true. He obviously didn’t have the knowledge or instruments we have today to investigate the natural sciences.

The “accidents” are the substance.

 

[Muze]

There is actual and real bread and wine on the alters of Catholic Churches that does undergo conversion at the consecration. Bread and wine are real substances composed of matter and the names we give these substances, i.e. bread and wine, are the forms in Aristotle’s language. The philosophy and natural philosophy of Aristotle can be difficult to understand and comprehend as the history of philosophy through the ages can bear out and especially in our own day because we are used to the language of modern science textbooks. However, Aristotle’s natural philosphy and modern science can co-exist as many professors of the philosophy of science demonstrate. I’m not saying everything Aristotle said is true. He obviously didn’t have the knowledge or instruments we have today to investigate the natural sciences.

But they can only coexist when Aristotle’s substantial forms are only explanatory, and not fundamental efficient causes. It seems fairly clear to me that Aristotle (and Aquinas) intended substance to exist and be the fundamental efficient cause, and Trent can ONLY be interpreted in the way that is incompatible with modern science.

Well, not in the language of Aristotle and Aquinas. The accidents are of the substance and in many substances some accidents are an intrinsic and even inseperable part of them. The accidents can change while the substance does not. If I lay out in the sun, my skin may turn from white to brown but I’m the same person. The accidents are sense perceptible which derives from the matter and which reveals the substance.

Correct, which is why both A&A are incorrect, unless substantial form is nothing more than an explanation.

This sounds reasonable. Matter is definitely something physical. I think Aristotle and Aquinas would agree with you here.

No, actually, they wouldn’t. To them the substance has matter, but matter isn’t physically observable. Aristotle wasn’t an atomist.

The accidents of matter certainly reveals the substance and form. However, as in the example I gave above, if my skin turns from white to brown which is some kind of chemical change to my skin, my substance remains the same. I’m still a human being and a particular person. For Aristotle and Aquinas, the accidents follow upon the substance. Bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ, are not metaphysical substances. They are material substances.

And the problem with this is that modern science has shown that what the substance supposedly does is actually a result of the physical existence of the object, namely it’s molecular composition. Thus, the ‘accidents’ result from the physical, not the metaphysical.

Aristotle was well aware of material substantial changes which is one reason why he introduced the idea of form as a way of explaining how substantial changes occur. In every material substantial change, a new substance or form comes into being while something remains. What remains is the matter and what comes into being is a new substance and form.

Which is fine if substance theory holds up. But it doesn’t. Modern science has displaced it.

Well, I wouldn’t say bread and wine are just an accidental conglomeration of atoms and such. Bread and wine have a specific molecular structure, accidents and form which is why we call it bread or wine. If you burned a piece of bread and it turned to ashes, you wouldn’t call it bread anymore would ya? I do not see your point here.

The point is that substance theory that claims that it has substantial form that is the fundamental efficient cause, that determines the behavior of the object, that is able to undergo conversion is incompatible with modern science, as modern science has shown that all of these things come from the molecular make up, and no some unseen substantial form.

 

[JimG]

Well, “the accidents ARE the substance” to this extent: the accidents are all that we can perceive.

The accidents are what is perceptible to the senses or to any scientific instrument. What we know of atoms, molecules, bread, wine, or any physical thing is only that which we can perceive through their accidents. We never perceive substance directly, yet we perceive the physical world through its accidents. It’s the only way we perceive it.

The language of metaphysics is not that of science, but it does not contradict science. The fact is, science deals with—can only deal with—accidents. Accidents are how we know reality. If accidents didn’t match physical reality, reality would be unknowable to us.

Consider that if our sense organs had a different range of sensitivities, reality would appear to us quite differently, but the underlying reality would be the same. If our eyes reacted to light waves out of the normal visual range, for example, or our hearing or sense of smell was different, how we perceive things through their accidents would be different, but we would still know reality through the accidents.

One need not consider “substance” in the metaphysical sense as some mysterious unknowable. It is knowable through its accidents. But it is undeniable that we never perceive substance directly but only through its accidents—that’s just how our sense perceptions work.

But neither can we conflate ‘substance’ in the philosophical sense with ‘substance’ in the scientific sense or common usage, which is taken to mean some substrate of matter. Anything that we perceive through our senses is accidents, not substance. But substance—or reality—is known by its accidents.

In fact transubstantiation is the ONLY example of a substance not being known through its accidents. And that’s because the accidents of bread and wine remain—the appearances, but they do not inhere in any substance after the consecration.

 

[Muze]

Well, “the accidents ARE the substance” to this extent: the accidents are all that we can perceive.

Modern science tells us that the accidents are all that there is. There isn’t some substantial form that is the fundamental efficient cause or determines the behavior of the object. This is incompatible with modern science.

Which is the original point. There is nothing to undergo the “conversion.”