Help in Understanding Transubstantiation, Accidents and Substance

[Alindawyl]

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

Good point. Take, for example, a chair. If someone points to a chair and says “What is the substance of this thing?” then because of the culture in which we’ve been raised we’re conditioned to respond with a purely materialist answer. We would quite naturally say “wood” or “metal” or “plastic” or some combination thereof. We would want to equate the chair’s substance with the matter that comprises it.

But substance is a universal. The substance of “chair” is what makes a chair a chair instead of anything else, like a potted plant, or a haircut, or a motivational speech. The matter of any particular chair is particular to that chair, but not universal to all chairs. If we say the substance of a chair is wood, then what do we do when someone shows us a metal folding chair? If we say the substance of a chair is metal, what do we do when someone shows us a purely wood kitchen chair? Even though the matter is different, there is something about a chair that makes it a chair regardless of its matter. The matter used to make a particular chair is therefore not essential for a chair, in general, to be a chair. The only universal when it comes to chairs and matter is that chairs are material.

Even what we might think of as essential with regard to the appearance of a chair is not necessarily essential. Fold up a metal or plastic folding chair, ask someone what it is, and they will still say “a chair”. Chairs don’t even have to have multiple legs (a stool), or legs at all (it could have two solid rectangles of material in lieu of legs). They don’t even need to sit still or flat (rocking chair) to be a chair. No matter how common something might be in chairs, unless it’s essential it’s an accident, not substance.

The substance of a chair is, at its most basic, a piece of furniture containing a raised surface designed with the purpose of being sat upon, usually by a single person. It’s a universal and can’t be described in materialist terms. We shouldn’t have any trouble with that, but in our modern, materialist, nominalist culture, we seem to have a great deal of trouble with universals. Even if we don’t think that we’re a materialist, we almost unconsciously expect substance to be something that can be described in a purely physical manner. Getting around that mental block from our cultural upbringing is necessary in order to understand what is meant by substance in this context.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

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

No I don’t think so,

In the standard model Atoms are made up of Quarks, Leptons and force carriers but ultimately the answer is energy, what form it takes gets into the theoretical the smaller you go. It isn’t a final unchangeable answer. As our technology to observe improves our understanding deepens, it isn’t a closed system.

Karl Rahner is one of a few people that proposed new understanding of the Eucharist they were summarily dismissed as conflicting with the dogma of accidents and species as the explanation. So it isn’t the same process.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

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

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.

The article you cited is fine down to where it starts talking about the thoughts of Karl Rahner and modern Theologians. Dismiss them, stick to Paul VI. His is the true interpretation. Stop trying to squeeze your preferred ideas into the reality of the miracle. Christ is wholely present, the bread and wine are gone, having been changed into the body and blood of Christ. And the accidents remain without a subject. Forget all the stuff about substance since that causes you trouble.

Can you explain how God created the universe out of nothing, can you explain how a Virgin gave birth to a man, can you explain how God became man, can you explain how He rose from the dead, can you explain how there are Three Persons in God? Then why be so puzzled over the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

Just accept the reality and stop trying to figure how it is possible.

Linus2nd

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The substance of a chair is, at its most basic, a piece of furniture containing a raised surface designed with the purpose of being sat upon, usually by a single person. It’s a universal and can’t be described in materialist terms. We shouldn’t have any trouble with that, but in our modern, materialist, nominalist culture, we seem to have a great deal of trouble with universals. Even if we don’t think that we’re a materialist, we almost unconsciously expect substance to be something that can be described in a purely physical manner. Getting around that mental block from our cultural upbringing is necessary in order to understand what is meant by substance in this context.

It’s still a conceptual model, not a thing. You can design a chair that doesn’t function as chair and still have people recognize it as chair. e.x. A one legged chair. You can design a chair that doesn’t have the form of a chair that functions as a chair. ex. Beanbag chair.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The article you cited is fine down to where it starts talking about the thoughts of Karl Rahner and modern Theologians. Dismiss them, stick to Paul VI. His is the true interpretation. Stop trying to squeeze your preferred ideas into the reality of the miracle. Christ is wholely present, the bread and wine are gone, having been changed into the body and blood of Christ. And the accidents remain without a subject. Forget all the stuff about substance since that causes you trouble.

Can you explain how God created the universe out of nothing, can you explain how a Virgin gave birth to a man, can you explain how God became man, can you explain how He rose from the dead, can you explain how there are Three Persons in God? Then why be so puzzled over the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

Just accept the reality and stop trying to figure how it is possible.

Linus2nd

None of those other things are supported by a quasi-scientific theory of matter. No explanation is given.

 

[davidv]

It’s still a conceptual model, not a thing. You can design a chair that doesn’t function as chair and still have people recognize it as chair. e.x. A one legged chair. You can design a chair that doesn’t have the form of a chair that functions as a chair. ex. Beanbag chair.

I call this the fallacy of equivocation. A seat with only one leg is not properly called a chair. The one I used as a teenager was called a milk stool.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I call this the fallacy of equivocation. A seat with only one leg is not properly called a chair. The one I used as a teenager was called a milk stool.

no legged then if it suits you better

 

[davidv]

no legged then if it suits you better

Its still not a chair.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Its still not a chair.

I think most would recognize it as such. They might describe it as a broken chair but a chair none the less.

 

[vlf7973]

You’re missing the point. A “chair” is any piece of furniture that was made for the purpose of being sat upon. It doesn’t matter how many legs it has. A beanbag chair is a chair because it is a piece of furniture and you sit on it. A folding chair is a chair because it is a piece of furniture that you sit on. A table is not a chair because it is a piece of furniture and you could sit on it but that’s not its purpose.

The “abstract” substance of the chair is a concept. But there truly are concrete instances of that concept in this world, and those instances are not concepts. They are literally chairs.

This same holds true for the body and blood of Christ. The definition itself is conceptual. But we aren’t taking about the concept… we’re talking about a concrete instance of that concept. There is a physical piece of bread that loses all of its bread essence and takes on the body and blood of Christ essence, becoming the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

No I don’t think so,

In the standard model Atoms are made up of Quarks, Leptons and force carriers but ultimately the answer is energy, what form it takes gets into the theoretical the smaller you go. It isn’t a final unchangeable answer. As our technology to observe improves our understanding deepens, it isn’t a closed system.

That’s what I mean though. If you keep breaking things down into smaller and smaller particles, do you reach an end point where you can’t break it down anymore? Or do you suppose you can go on identifying constituent particles? You mentioned the ultimate answer is energy. Do you suppose that there is a “final” particle, below which is only energy? I don’t know enough physics to understand what the transition would be between energy and matter. . . in other words, I wouldn’t understand unless it is explained to me (and perhaps not even then) how energy is the fundamental constituent part of the fundamental particle of matter. I could possibly understand the fundamental packet of energy being a different phase or form of the fundamental particle. . .

In any event, when you get down to that fundamental principle (whether it be a quanta of energy or a primary particle) why do you think it is actually real? What makes it real as opposed to conceptual? Can one point to anything that supports or undergirds it? Is it’s reality observable, or only it’s properties? If only it’s properties are observable, do we say that it has no reality, since only that which can be observed is real? But, in that case, are we saying that the bottom of it all are just free floating properties? No thing itself?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Alindawyl]

You’re missing the point. A “chair” is any piece of furniture that was made for the purpose of being sat upon. It doesn’t matter how many legs it has. A beanbag chair is a chair because it is a piece of furniture and you sit on it. A folding chair is a chair because it is a piece of furniture that you sit on. A table is not a chair because it is a piece of furniture and you could sit on it but that’s not its purpose.

The “abstract” substance of the chair is a concept. But there truly are concrete instances of that concept in this world, and those instances are not concepts. They are literally chairs.

This same holds true for the body and blood of Christ. The definition itself is conceptual. But we aren’t taking about the concept… we’re talking about a concrete instance of that concept. There is a physical piece of bread that loses all of its bread essence and takes on the body and blood of Christ essence, becoming the body and blood of Christ.

This right here.

We can talk about the intellectual, abstract concept of the Eucharist, as we are doing here on this forum. But we can also say, “And if you are wondering how this intellectual, abstract concept is apparent in reality, attend Mass or exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. That little white disc in the monstrance is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus under the accidents of bread, not just some abstract concept in the mind”.

You can’t do that with something that exists only in the mind. Unlike the Eucharist, you can’t show someone a unicorn, or Gandalf the wizard, or my six pack abs. They aren’t real.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

That’s what I mean though. If you keep breaking things down into smaller and smaller particles, do you reach an end point where you can’t break it down anymore? Or do you suppose you can go on identifying constituent particles? You mentioned the ultimate answer is energy. Do you suppose that there is a “final” particle, below which is only energy? I don’t know enough physics to understand what the transition would be between energy and matter. . . in other words, I wouldn’t understand unless it is explained to me (and perhaps not even then) how energy is the fundamental constituent part of the fundamental particle of matter. I could possibly understand the fundamental packet of energy being a different phase or form of the fundamental particle. . .

In any event, when you get down to that fundamental principle (whether it be a quanta of energy or a primary particle) why do you think it is actually real? What makes it real as opposed to conceptual? Can one point to anything that supports or undergirds it? Is it’s reality observable, or only it’s properties? If only it’s properties are observable, do we say that it has no reality, since only that which can be observed is real? But, in that case, are we saying that the bottom of it all are just free floating properties? No thing itself?

Thanks,
VC

I think because we haven’t gotten there yet. We working from what is known and can be observed to theorizing a smaller devision. Because of what we observe we can theorize what is needed mathematically. The Higgs Bosen is an example it was theorized in 64’ and confirmed in 2013. We finally have a particle accelerator that can be used to observe it.

With substance theory it’s working in reverse. It takes the concept and makes a necessary and nothing observable happens. It isn’t a case of because we observe x, y must make it happen. Nothing observable happens.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This right here.

We can talk about the intellectual, abstract concept of the Eucharist, as we are doing here on this forum. But we can also say, “And if you are wondering how this intellectual, abstract concept is apparent in reality, attend Mass or exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. That little white disc in the monstrance is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus under the accidents of bread, not just some abstract concept in the mind”.

You can’t do that with something that exists only in the mind. Unlike the Eucharist, you can’t show someone a unicorn, or Gandalf the wizard, or my six pack abs. They aren’t real.

You can’t show them Transubstantiation, you can only show them the Host and Wine. That there is a transformation is a matter of faith, not observable fact.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

None of those other things are supported by a quasi-scientific theory of matter. No explanation is given.

You might find what you want by reading Being and Essence by Thomas Aquinas.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-esse.asp

I still don’t understand what your difficulty is.

Linus2nd

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I think because we haven’t gotten there yet. We working from what is known and can be observed to theorizing a smaller devision. Because of what we observe we can theorize what is needed mathematically. The Higgs Bosen is an example it was theorized in 64’ and confirmed in 2013. We finally have a particle accelerator that can be used to observe it.

With substance theory it’s working in reverse. It takes the concept and makes a necessary and nothing observable happens. It isn’t a case of because we observe x, y must make it happen. Nothing observable happens.

I’m not sure substance theory is the reverse. It seems to me that it was simply observation of things that are extant, understanding they have reality and have properties based on that reality.

You don’t have to wait, really, until we discover a new particle. You can see the difficulty through a thought experiment. What happens when you get to the smallest particle? There must be one, wouldn’t you say? And the question is, what gives it its reality if it isn’t composed of anything smaller?

VC

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You might find what you want by reading Being and Essence by Thomas Aquinas.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-esse.asp

I still don’t understand what your difficulty is.

Linus2nd

I keep hearing it’s the underlying reality that changes but no one can point to what that is other than our idea of something.

I don’t think substance is an actual thing. Just a concept. So if it’s just a concept, it is just how we think about the Host and Wine that changes. No one can point to substance in anyway but as a concept, and ideal. It just an idea. There is no “thing” that can be changed, just how we think about it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thomas Aquinas had a very definite theory of knowledge, much of it based on Aristotle. But unlike you I never bothered much with it because it is simply the natural way people think. Certainly not something to hang your entire life on. The most uneducated people I ever met had perfectly functioning intellects and could detect the most clever falsehoods, they just couldn’t put names to them.

And of course they didn’t have to study some grand course in Epistomology to tell them that God existed. Divine Revelation as interpreted and handed on by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church was sufficient for them. But this is not enough for modern man because the truth is, he doesn’t want God to exist. So he invents all kinds of clever, rationalizations, to make him feel good and superior to all those idiot believers. Such people will never believe anything, unless God hits them over the head with a hammer, they are lost - or will be.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I keep hearing it’s the underlying reality that changes but no one can point to what that is other than our idea of something.

I don’t think substance is an actual thing. Just a concept. So if it’s just a concept, it is just how we think about the Host and Wine that changes. No one can point to substance in anyway but as a concept, and ideal. It just an idea. There is no “thing” that can be changed, just how we think about it.

We use names to indicate real things, otherwise we would not be abe to communicate. Names are signs for what really exists.

Aristotle had a list of Categories which stood for the way things exist. The first was Substance which was that which existed in no other, the remainder of the Categories were what could be said of substance, accidents which could only exist in a substance.

Thomas Aquinas distinguished between First Substance and Second Substance. First substance was that in which all the accidents of a thing existed, the total thing. You, I, Plato, Jesus Christ are examples of First Substances.

It is the First Substance of the bread and wine which is changed into the First Substance of Jesus Christ. What remains is the accidents of bread and wine, all the measureable, detectable things we associate with bread and wine. Execpt now they exist in no subject. What has happened is that that which makes bread bread and that which makes wine wine, their existing natures and existence, has been changed into the First Substance of Jesus Christ, Whose Glorified body ( with all its accidents and Divine and human natures ) now exists behind the veil of the accidents.

As far as the " underlying reality " is concerned, that refers to the nature or essence of the bread and wine. You cannot see or detect a nature, it is known by its accidents and activities. Can you see human nature, can you see horseness, or hydrogenness? No, their natures are revealed by their accidents and activities.
Does that help?

Linus2nd

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I keep hearing it’s the underlying reality that changes but no one can point to what that is other than our idea of something.

I don’t think substance is an actual thing. Just a concept. So if it’s just a concept, it is just how we think about the Host and Wine that changes. No one can point to substance in anyway but as a concept, and ideal. It just an idea. There is no “thing” that can be changed, just how we think about it.

RT,

Perhaps Linusthe2nd is coming at this from a top-down approach (see his list of First Substances), and I am coming at this from a bottom-up approach (which, I think, integrates into a top-down, or rather, observational approach).

The bottom-up approach is this: when you get to the primary particle, what is it that makes it real? What thing can you point to that gives it it’s reality? From whence does it’s being come? I assume one might point to atoms to explain the reality of a tree, and to subatomic particles to explain the reality of the atom. But, what about that first (or final) particle? What could one point to?

VC