Eucharist Challenge

[v1gilbert]

(Sorry I should have posted here earlier) I have been trying and failing to explain the Eucharist to an atheistic physicalist, which should be no surprise in and of itself, what I am worried about is that I am missing something very simple in my definition of the Eucharist. The problem he has is when I state that the bread and wine become literally the body, blood, soul and divinity.

Below for reference please find his replies:

Let me say quite clearly that I’m perfectly open to the logical possibility of non-material substance. I can make sense of the idea and I see no contradiction in supposing that non-material substance exists. (I doubt that there is any non-material substance, but that is another matter.) Each individual mind has often been thought of as a non-material substance (e.g., substance dualism of Descartes and others. There are even a few contemporary atheistic philosophers who endorse substance dualism.)

Now to the problem. The rub is that it is said that the wine (a kind of physical substance) changes into another kind of physical substance (blood), but without changing any of its physical properties. If that is what is being said, I cannot see how that can possibly be true. The essence of a kind of physical substance (wine, blood, etc.) is precisely those physical properties that make it that kind of physical thing. If those properties do not change, it cannot change from one kind of physical substance to another. Conversely, to change what it is physically (from wine to blood, say) it must change those physical properties that make it wine to those physical properties that make it blood. Otherwise, it would not literally be blood. And yet it is said that none of physical properties change. There’s the rub.

On the other hand, you seem to want to say is that it is not the physical substance that changes but the “metaphysical substance”. But what is the metaphysical substance of, say, blood, over and above its physical substance? What is the essence of blood, in the nature of blood, over and above it physical essence and its physical nature? If you can provide any insight answering that, I think I would be a lot closer to being able to understand your views.

To be as clear as I can, my objection is not based on denying the existence of non-material metaphysical substance – I am happy to allow non-material substance as a metaphysical possibility; it is based on the difficulty of reconciling a) the wine literally becomes blood with b) it changes none of its physical properties. I can perfectly well understand that idea that a non-material substance (say, Jesus) comes to be literally and fully present in the wine. That is no more (or less) metaphysically puzzling that saying souls inhabit or are “united with” bodies. But you seem to want to say something much more: that the wine becomes blood without changing any physical properties. Blood, Jesus’ or anyone’s, if understood literally, is a physical substance, anything that is blood has the essential physical properties of blood.

Where our disagreement may be located, I suspect, is in you saying that you believe in metaphysical substance over and above physical substance. But for a physical object they are one and the same thing. “Metaphysical substance” is a covering concept for any kind of substance, be it physical or mental or spiritual whatever. A thing’s metaphysical substance is whatever it is that constitutes the nature or essence of that thing whatever kind of thing that happens to be. For a physical kind of thing (blood, wine, bread, flesh, etc.) it’s metaphysical substance is its physical substance, just as we might say of a spiritual entity that its metaphysical substance is its non-material substance (its soul). Metaphysical substance is not something that a physical object has over and above its physical substance, precisely because it is a physical object. My physical body, for example, is a complex physical substance. Its metaphysical substance simply is nothing more or less than its physical substance. There is nothing more or less to my body than a physical thing – it is metaphysically, a physical substance. If, however, I am essentially a soul rather than a body, then my essence and nature – my metaphysical substance – lies in some non-physical substance (my soul, say). In principle, two substances – one physical and the other non-physical – can inhabit the same space, but my soul is no part of the metaphysical substance of my body, nor vice versa.

Going back to the Eucharist, if you want to say that the spirit of Jesus (which presumably would be of the essence of Jesus and constituting his metaphysical substance) is literally and fully present in the wine and bread, I can make perfect sense of that. The problem comes when you say that the wine become Jesus’ blood. Interpreted literally, that cannot be without a change in physical properties – those properties that make a difference between something being wine or being blood.

One further option occurs to me. Perhaps you will insist that the essence of Jesus is not exclusively non-physical but is essentially physical as well. Jesus cannot be Jesus without being physical as well as non-physical. If that is really what you want to say that the logical contradiction would be manifest, since no thing can be essentially physical and non-physical.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

v1gilbert

I’ve thought a bit about this since you first posted a while back in another subforum.

On the one hand, you could engage your friend in a discussion about the various concepts – substance, accidents, matter, form, dualism, etc. But I’m not sure that would be fruitful.

On the other hand – and I think this might be a better approach – you can focus on one point regarding the notion of “properties”. Your friend says that a thing (wine) can’t change to another thing (blood) if the properties don’t change. I suggest you say simply that 1) this is exactly what we believe happens in the case of the Eucharist, 2)this is a unique occurrence, 3) it is entirely supernatural.

You run the risk of letting him think that the properties of wine are the properties of Christ (which they aren’t) or that because the properties of wine are still present that the wine is still present (which it isn’t). But perhaps you can explain that as well, saying that each and every physical property that you associate with wine exists still but that the wine itself doesn’t exist.

He might not be able to wrap his head around that – but that doesn’t mean it can’t be the case. It certainly isn’t logically impossible. For instance, if you were able to make an exact physical replica of something – say a painting – it doesn’t mean that the replica painting is the original painting. Or, since atheists often like science or science fiction, perhaps if you use the analogy of a star-trek transporter creating a duplicate object, or a hologram on the holo-deck modeling a object identically down to its subatomic particles. It seems to me that if you can have two somethings which share the exact same subatomic make-up and all the same physical properties, yet be able to distinguish the things, then you can conceive of physical properties as distinct from the thing itself.

But, you might not want to go down that trail either (I can imagine some difficulties). My point is that if you say that we think it logically possible that physical properties can be made to remain without the thing the physical properties belong to remaining. If he doesn’t think that is logically possible, well, perhaps you part ways on that point?

VC

 

[PAboy57]

The Church uses the term – transubstantiation – to denote the change in substance (now the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ) of the bread and wine at the consecration although the “accidental” outward appearance of bread and wine remain.

The tracts advertised on this site are a great source to get a solid explanation of our faith. They are a few pages in length on each subject and tell us what we need to know. I’m sure you will enjoy reading them. Take care.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I agree with Verbum, stick with identifying this as “supernatural.” There are not natural things to “compare” this to. It is a miracle, it is a mystery. We would not be able to “know” it if not divinely revealed. God is not bound to natural processes.

I think he may be getting confused in your use of the term “metaphysical” change. In his analogies, he is saying metaphysical and physical are the same. If you said the change is ontological, perhaps that would help. Or you can just say it is a mystery, a real change, and leave it at that. Transubstantiation is not an “explanation” of the miracle, but rather a term identifying that what was once bread is now His body in a miraculous, real way. We don’t pretend to know “how” this can be.

 

[Spirithound]

We differentiate between the accidents and the substance of a thing. The substance is “what the thing is”. The accidents are all of the sensory features of it. In other words, nobody ever sees a substance.