Help in Understanding Transubstantiation, Accidents and Substance

[Roscoe_Turner]

There was a thread about Transubstantiation that I was participating in and it disappeared, so I thought I’d start a new one.

I know that the Eucharist is the Real Presence but when I think about it, I come to a non Catholic answer. So I’m trying to see where I err.

The Council of Trent defines Transubstantiation as:

CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation.
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

In Summa Theologica Aquinas puts it this way:

I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ’s body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ’s body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ’s body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is “what a thing is” (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ’s body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye

The substance which is the thing that is said to change can only be seen with the intellect. The accidents stay the same, the bread and wine still appear as bread and wine. The change can’t be measured empirically.

I can see this like marriage. Two people decide to make a life long commitment to one another and it is witnessed by the Church and they are married. There is no empirical test that tells a married man from a non married one, but there is a difference. It’s a conceptual change how the two people and the Church ( and the rest of society) see(s) them(selves). It is a mutually agreed upon idea of marriage that gives the bond strength. Nothing physically changed just how they think of themselves and how society sees them.

It seems to me that is the case with the Eucharist, although I know it wrong by Catholic teaching. It seems that we agree by the nature of our Faith in the Church that a change has occurred. This change can’t be shown empirically. It can only be seen by the intellect, which makes it conceptual. The change is in us rather than the bread and wine.

It seems our concept of the Bread and Wine changes, because of faith we agree to it. Like we give respect to an American (being American) Flag. The flag is just cloth but it represents more than the cloth that makes it. It is a symbol of freedom and the men that died for it. We mutually agree that the symbol deserves respect, so we show it respect although we know it’s just cloth.

I know that this view is incorrect by Church teaching but I can’t see why it is, logically.

 

[bzkoss236]

I’ll relate it this way.

Any person has a body and a personality/mind. Both their body and their mind are their own.

Transubstantiation would be somewhat akin to swapping one’s mind with another’s mind. Scientifically speaking, they can do all these tests on their DNA, body profile, etc. and come to the conclusion that physically speaking, it is the same person as before. So this person might have the same allergies, tastes, etc, but their mind, which is how we judge who a person really is, is different; belongs to someone else. So even though they look the same as the original person, they are in actuality, someone else.

The ‘accidents’ are the physical properties, like the body of a person, that can be measured by physical tests. The ‘substance’ is what something actually is in a metaphysical (beyond physical) sense, like the mind of a person, which has no physicality.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I know that this view is incorrect by Church teaching but I can’t see why it is, logically.

RT,

Can you explain more what you mean here? Are you saying that you can’t see why the Church teaches what it does, or are you saying you can’t see why it is wrong to disagree with what the Church teaches, or are you saying that you can’t see why what you propose is wrong over and above it being in disagreement with the Church?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

RT,

Can you explain more what you mean here? Are you saying that you can’t see why the Church teaches what it does, or are you saying you can’t see why it is wrong to disagree with what the Church teaches, or are you saying that you can’t see why what you propose is wrong over and above it being in disagreement with the Church?

Thanks,
VC

What I am proposing seems logical to me but I know that it is in disagreement with the Church. I am trying to figure out the Church’s logic and/or why my logic is wrong or disordered.

The terms accident and substance aren’t in line with my modern understanding of the world, although I think I grasp what they are trying to discern.

The term Substance seems to mean The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: In terms of a person “the real person” behind the accidents ( the chemicals, flesh and bones, blood etc) The substance seems to be the idea of the person; what the collection of the accidents materializes.

The Substance is a concept, an idea. So to say the substance changes is a conceptual change. Which would be adding or changing the symbolism to/of an object rather than the object changing. The Church teaches it is not symbolic but actual. My logic only leads me to it is an actual conceptual change. It is something we all participate in by having Faith in the Church. This one thing is now another thing because we believe it to be so and call it so. So the change occurs in us rather than in the Bread and Wine itself. Substance is an abstraction, a concept only given power by agreement. That is why I used the Flag and Marriage as examples of other things that we give symbolic power by agreement.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

RT,

Thanks.

Another question occurs to me that might help focus responses. Do you think that there are non-material realities, such as angels and the soul, and do you think there are such things as grace and sin?

VC

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I don’t think “substance” is a non material reality. It’s a concept.

After reflecting a bit, I guess my question is what logic that “substance” is anything more than a concept rather than an actual thing that can be changed.

We can’t experience substance without accidents. Substance is just a conceptual idea that we apply to the collection of accidents. If a person that we experience as “John Doe” changes we can point to a physical or experience that caused the change. “John” had a head injury and isn’t the same person. Or “John” was in a war and now has PTSD. We can see a physical cause to an experiential change in what we knew as “John”. We have our previous experience of “John” as the “true John” vs the “new John” - It’s a conceptual label not a thing, to me at least.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think “substance” is a non material reality. It’s a concept.

After reflecting a bit, I guess my question is what logic that “substance” is anything more than a concept rather than an actual thing that can be changed.

We can’t experience substance without accidents. Substance is just a conceptual idea that we apply to the collection of accidents. If a person that we experience as “John Doe” changes we can point to a physical or experience that caused the change. “John” had a head injury and isn’t the same person. Or “John” was in a war and now has PTSD. We can see a physical cause to an experiential change in what we knew as “John”. We have our previous experience of “John” as the “true John” vs the “new John” - It’s a conceptual label not a thing, to me at least.

We can’t experience substance without accidents. This is exactly right. Substance is what’s really out there. But our perception of it depends on our sense perception—which is not the same as what’s really out there.

If our senses were attuned to different frequencies of light waves, or sound waves, or different olfactory cues, or different tangible cues, what we would perceive might be entirely different even though what’s out there remains the same. You don’t perceive the world in the same way as a fly or a goldfish or a bat, although the real world is exactly the same for each of them. It’s just different sense perceptions.

With transubstantiation, substance—what’s out there—changes from bread and wine to Christ, but the sense perceptions remain—held in existence without inhering in any substance.

Keep in mind too that accidents include the accidents of location, both temporal and physical. That’s why each communicant in a congregation can receive the exact same body of Christ, without Christ being multiplied. Only the accidents are multiple. Christ remains one.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

We can’t experience substance without accidents. This is exactly right. Substance is what’s really out there. But our perception of it depends on our sense perception—which is not the same as what’s really out there.

If our senses were attuned to different frequencies of light waves, or sound waves, or different olfactory cues, or different tangible cues, what we would perceive might be entirely different even though what’s out there remains the same. You don’t perceive the world in the same way as a fly or a goldfish or a bat, although the real world is exactly the same for each of them. It’s just different sense perceptions.

With transubstantiation, substance—what’s out there—changes from bread and wine to Christ, but the sense perceptions remain—held in existence without inhering in any substance.

Keep in mind too that accidents include the accidents of location, both temporal and physical. That’s why each communicant in a congregation can receive the exact same body of Christ, without Christ being multiplied. Only the accidents are multiple. Christ remains one.

The only way that we know that bats and flies experience the world differently is because we know how they experience it. We experienced by “discovering” other things like light waves outside our vision spectrum. We built a machine that echolocates like a bat, sonar. Or infrared etc. We can’t sense them with out aid, but we can experience them. We know they exist.

That really doesn’t move substance out of the conceptual. Even though we may experience the accidentals differently doesn’t change the accidentals, just our perception. What we name our version of the accidentals is “the substance.” We can’t know if it’s complete “true substance” because we can’t know what we don’t know. It’s still just our conception of it.

 

[JimG]

The only way that we know that bats and flies experience the world differently is because we know how they experience it. We experienced by “discovering” other things like light waves outside our vision spectrum. We built a machine that echolocates like a bat, sonar. Or infrared etc. We can’t sense them with out aid, but we can experience them. We know they exist.

That really doesn’t move substance out of the conceptual. Even though we may experience the accidentals differently doesn’t change the accidentals, just our perception. What we name our version of the accidentals is “the substance.” We can’t know if it’s complete “true substance” because we can’t know what we don’t know. It’s still just our conception of it.

It is a truism that we can’t know reality except through sense perceptions. The mistake we make is in thereby thinking that reality is our sense perceptions.

We see a movie and the sense perceptions make us think we are seeing a different reality, but underlying those is just a movie screen.

Transubstantiation is just the obverse. We perceive the sense perceptions of bread and wine while the underlying reality has changed.

If you want to call the sense perceptions reality that’s not correct, because the sense perceptions are what is in our senses, not what’s out there. If you want to call external reality “conceptual” because we can’t be in direct contact with it (but only mediated through sense perceptions) that seems to me to be an incorrect use of the term “conceptual.” Because if that’s the case all of reality is conceptual–because we never directly touch it.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It is a truism that we can’t know reality except through sense perceptions. The mistake we make is in thereby thinking that reality is our sense perceptions.

We see a movie and the sense perceptions make us think we are seeing a different reality, but underlying those is just a movie screen.

Transubstantiation is just the obverse. We perceive the sense perceptions of bread and wine while the underlying reality has changed.

If you want to call the sense perceptions reality that’s not correct, because the sense perceptions are what is in our senses, not what’s out there. If you want to call external reality “conceptual” because we can’t be in direct contact with it (but only mediated through sense perceptions) that seems to me to be an incorrect use of the term “conceptual.” Because if that’s the case all of reality is conceptual–because we never directly touch it.

I’m not saying that it’s conceptual because we can’t experience it. I’m saying it’s conceptual because it’s a label we use, a concept. What is the substance of Bread and Wine? (before it’s changed)

 

[JimG]

I’m not saying that it’s conceptual because we can’t experience it. I’m saying it’s conceptual because it’s a label we use, a concept. What is the substance of Bread and Wine? (before it’s changed)

I think I see what you mean. Bread and wine are common foods, but we can only KNOW them through their accidents. To call their substance conceptual though, seems to me to sort of assert their unreality apart from their accidents.

But I think it’s more the opposite. They are bread and wine, and we can only know they are bread and wine by experience their accidents in our senses. When the substance is changed to Christ but the accidents of bread and wine remain (not inhering in any substance), we can only perceive those accidents of bread and wine.

The only way I have of defining substance is: what’s really out there, outside of my sense. (I’m sure a metaphysics prof could do better.) And what’s really out there is only knowable to me through it’s accidents. The only time the accidents don’t match up with their substance is in the case of transubstantiation.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I think I see what you mean. Bread and wine are common foods, but we can only KNOW them through their accidents. To call their substance conceptual though, seems to me to sort of assert their unreality apart from their accidents.

But I think it’s more the opposite. They are bread and wine, and we can only know they are bread and wine by experience their accidents in our senses. When the substance is changed to Christ but the accidents of bread and wine remain (not inhering in any substance), we can only perceive those accidents of bread and wine.

The only way I have of defining substance is: what’s really out there, outside of my sense. (I’m sure a metaphysics prof could do better.) And what’s really out there is only knowable to me through it’s accidents. The only time the accidents don’t match up with their substance is in the case of transubstantiation.

It’s the notion of substance that is conceptual rather than the specific substance of bread and wine. If substance is “what is outside our perceptions” it’s a way of saying “whatever we aren’t perceiving” or “what we don’t know” - It’s a placeholder, a concept.

So when it is said the substance is changed, it is our concept. Something we don’t know changed into something else we don’t know. We agree that is so, but the change is in how we see it. We can’t know that substance is changed, because it something we can’t know.
It’s a conceptual change on our part. We choose to see it differently and give it reverence.

 

[JimG]

It’s the notion of substance that is conceptual rather than the specific substance of bread and wine. If substance is “what is outside our perceptions” it’s a way of saying “whatever we aren’t perceiving” or “what we don’t know” - It’s a placeholder, a concept.
So when it is said the substance is changed, it is our concept. Something we don’t know changed into something else we don’t know. We agree that is so, but the change is in how we see it. We can’t know that substance is changed, because it something we can’t know.
It’s a conceptual change on our part. We choose to see it differently and give it reverence.

I still can’t agree with this formulation. Substance is not “what we don’t know.” It’s what we DO know, through our sense perceptions. Substance is outside reality. Just because we can only know it through sense perception doesn’t make anything less real. And we don’t choose how our senses perceive the ‘accidents’ which come to them through the outside world. Our senses perceive accidents in the ways they are designed to perceive them.

If my eyes suddenly became receptive only to ultraviolet light and my ears only to sound waves below 40 hertz or above 1 megahertz, and I had eyes on each side of the head like a bird, the way in which I perceive reality would be different, but it is my sense perceptions that would be different, not reality. Reality is the substance. Sense perceptions are the accidents.

Now one may disbelieve in transubstantiation. One may decide that God has no ability to change a substance while allowing the sense perceptions of the prior substance to remain. But that’s the essence of the doctrine.

It’s not transignification. It’s transubstantiation. The underlying reality changes. The sense perceptions attributed to bread and wine remain.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It’s the notion of substance that is conceptual rather than the specific substance of bread and wine. If substance is “what is outside our perceptions” it’s a way of saying “whatever we aren’t perceiving” or “what we don’t know” - It’s a placeholder, a concept.

So when it is said the substance is changed, it is our concept. Something we don’t know changed into something else we don’t know. We agree that is so, but the change is in how we see it. We can’t know that substance is changed, because it something we can’t know.
It’s a conceptual change on our part. We choose to see it differently and give it reverence.

It’s the notion of substance that is conceptual rather than the specific substance of bread and wine. If substance is “what is outside our perceptions” it’s a way of saying “whatever we aren’t perceiving” or “what we don’t know” - It’s a placeholder, a concept.

So when it is said the substance is changed, it is our concept. Something we don’t know changed into something else we don’t know. We agree that is so, but the change is in how we see it. We can’t know that substance is changed, because it something we can’t know.
It’s a conceptual change on our part. We choose to see it differently and give it reverence.

To understand this Sacrament you have to go back to the moment Christ Revealed it to us. He said " This is my body ( the bread) and this is my blood ( the wine), thus indicating a miraculous change from the bread and wine into his body and blood. This is the reality, but over time erroneous teachings arose and it became necessary for the Church Councils ( esp. Trent ), to explain exactly what the Holy Spirit meant by this change. So the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit in all Truth in regards to Faith and Morals, defined, by way of explanation, exactly what we are to believe in regard to this change.

In doing so the Church employed the terms substance and accident. These terms are not mere concepts, they are the genuine metaphysical structures of all that exists.

Don’t distress yourself trying to find an exact definition of these because no one has ever determined for certain just what Thomas meant, it is easier to determine what Aristotle meant. So I will describe what the Church meant in its Defined Dogma, which can be determined by the context. But I have added an explanation at the end.

The Dogma says that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, while the accidents remain and inhere in no subject ( this is a miracle and does not occur any where in nature). In both cases we are speaking of First Substances; that is , we are speaking of " this, " or " that " particular existing thing or being. It means " this bread, " " this wine, " " this Man ( Christ ), " with all their accidents.

Christ is present in His glorified humanity and Divinity, body, blood, and soul. He is present just as you would have seen Him after the Ressurection. But because the glorified body is not subject to the vicissitudes of time, space, and matter, Christ chose to be present in a way which would not cause distaste to human sensibilities, and which would allow Him to be present in each drop or spec of separated wine or bread, and simultaneously in all the souls receiving throughout the world and behind the veil of the sacred species wherever they existed.

Since Christ is bodily present, it must be understood, He is present with all His physical accidents as well, quantity, mass, size, limbs, organs, skin, hair, etc, but after the manner of the Sacrament.

Substance ( a philosophical explanation)
In the philosophy of Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas a distinction is made between First Substance and Second Substance.
We shall elaborate on this within our own vision and findings.
First Substance is the individual uniform thing. It is described in the Essay on Being and Essence. Such an individual cannot be predicated of something else, because it does not inhere in something else (like a property does so inhere).
The 10 Categories, which will be treated of shortly, all refer to the First Substance.
Second Substance is the Essence or Identity (see also the essay mentioned) of that first substance. This Second Substance inheres in the First Substance, and can therefore be predicated of the first. If we assume for a moment that the Essence of any human being is the same and can be denoted with the term ’ human ', then we can say
" Socrates (= first substance) is a human (= second substance)."

The Second Substance can be multiplied (‘copied’) over many individual cases and so gives rise to many individuals (individual human beings). See the Essay on The Principle of Individuation.
Second Substance is the first category of the System of Categories (treated shortly hereafter).

Linus2nd;

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I appreciate the time and effort that you put into your response, thank you. It’s this statement that I can’t get past.

In doing so the Church employed the terms substance and accident. These terms are not mere concepts, they are the genuine metaphysical structures of all that exists.

It’s just substance theory that I can’t get past. It doesn’t square with our knowledge of how the world works.

Like this example - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Consider the classic example[47] of the human body. All of the separate chemical compounds, minerals and water—which when piled together constitute the sum total of the actual physical matter of the human body—are not of themselves a human body, however much they may be physically compounded and mixed and rearranged in the laboratory, since they are still only a pile of organic chemicals, minerals and water in a particular complex configuration. If this has never been alive it is not a human body. If they are participant in the integral physical expression of a living human being who has absorbed and metabolized them, or if they are now the physical remains of a once-living human being, the substance of what they actually are is human, hence, a human body. The substantial reality of what is before us is human. The substance (substantial reality) of what is seen is not solely that of a complex organization of organic chemical compounds, but is (or has been) someone. The chemical elements of the food a person eats become in a few hours part of that person’s human body and are no longer food but have been turned into the human flesh and blood and bone of that person, yet the physical chemical elements of what was once food remain the same (calcium, copper, salt, protein, sugars, fats, water, etc.). The substance of any matter that has become an integral part of any human being has ceased to be the substance or reality of food and has become incorporated as an integral part of the physical manifestation or expression of that human person. To touch that matter now is not to touch a batch of chemical compounds or food but to touch that person.[48]

We can explain the processes that food is broken down into it’s chemical elements and are used by the body. It isn’t a mystery. Substance is meaningless other than a label. It’s not a thing.

I can take transubstantiation as a matter of faith, it’s a mystery. I just can’t take the explanation of how it works in terms of accidents and substance. Especially since St. Thomas says that substance can only be seen with the intellect. It’s conceptual not a thing.

I read Paul VI’s Mysterium Fidei and ran across the concepts of “transignification,” and “transfinalization” which he denounces but to me, make more sense than accidents and substance.

Here is an article that I ran across that is long but interesting -

ewtn.com/library/doctrine/really.txt

I will say that I do find the “new theology” much more in line with my modern understanding of the world…And I understand that it doesn’t square with the Church.

 

[bzkoss236]

It’s just substance theory that I can’t get past. It doesn’t square with our knowledge of how the world works.

Sure it does. There is what things appear to be, and what things actually are. It is just that we do not have the means to measure what something actually is.

We can look at you and study your body and actions all day, but we can never measure who you really are. We can make assumptions based on what others have said about you, but unless we have some way of being inside your mind, we can’t really know who you are unless you tell us.

And lucky for us that Jesus told us who he is and he held up the bread and said “This is my body” and held up the wine and said “This is my blood”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Sure it does. There is what things appear to be, and what things actually are. It is just that we do not have the means to measure what something actually is.

Then how do you know it is an actual something rather than a mental construct. If you can’t measure it or effects? St. Thomas says substance can only be known by intellect. That seems to point to that substance is a mental construct. I have an idea of bread which I can describe by it’s qualities ( accidents) but my idea of bread isn’t the “real” bread. It’s just a mental construct, not something with substance.

When I was a child my mental construct of “real bread” was WonderBread. It has since grown wheat, rye, injera, nan etc. “Real Bread” is just my idea of bread. It’s fluid and malleable because it’s just an idea.

 

[bzkoss236]

Then how do you know it is an actual something rather than a mental construct. If you can’t measure it or effects? St. Thomas says substance can only be known by intellect. That seems to point to that substance is a mental construct. I have an idea of bread which I can describe by it’s qualities ( accidents) but my idea of bread isn’t the “real” bread. It’s just a mental construct, not something with substance.

When I was a child my mental construct of “real bread” was WonderBread. It has since grown wheat, rye, injera, nan etc. “Real Bread” is just my idea of bread. It’s fluid and malleable because it’s just an idea.

When Aquinas says “intellect” he means by using reason. Thing is, a lot of scientific discoveries started out just that way. All scientific discoveries start out in philosophy. We observe things happen so there must be something that causes them to happen. We work out that something exists through reason. Sometimes these things can’t be measured, at least not with current scientific equipment. The issue with this in particular though is that something that is metaphysical (beyond physical) cannot ever be measured by physical means. So, how do we know anything metaphysical exists? That is more a question for a professional philosopher.

 

[vlf7973]

I hope I’m using this terminology properly (I am not a philosopher)…
Everything has essential properties and nonessential properties. The substance is made up of all the object’s essential properties and the accidents are made up of all the nonessential properties.

For example, a triangle is essentially three-sided. So the triangle’s substance is its three-sidedness. Everything with exactly three sides is a triangle… and nothing with any other number of sides is a triangle. So a square is substantially not a triangle. But the triangle’s color is nonessential, so the color is part of the accidents. I could paint a red triangle blue (accidental change) and it would still be a triangle, but I cannot add some extra sides to the triangle (substantial change) and have it still be a triangle. Changing a red triangle into a red square would be transubstantiation. The accidents do not change (it remains red) but the substance does (it no longer meets the defintion of a “triangle”).

Now, with the triangle example, part of the appearance (the number of sides) was substantial and another part of the appearance (the color) was accidental. So in this example, you can visually see the transubstantiation occur (due to the fact that a triangle looks different from a square) and you can scientifically evaluate that a change did occur. This is not necessary though. If the appearance is entirely accidental then the appearance would not change, and so the change would be entirely unobservable. This is the case with the transubstantiation of bread into the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Then how do you know it is an actual something rather than a mental construct. If you can’t measure it or effects? .

RT,

Leaving aside the Eucharistic change for a moment, don’t you run into the same problem if you take a purely physicalist or materialist point of view?

I mean, you mentioned the modern understanding of the world . . . I am unsure what you mean by that exactly, but my guess would be, say, atoms make up things.

But, what makes up atoms?

VC