Is Holy water. Sprinkling similar to transsubstantation.? No. Physical change but spiritual impact. eventnt

[Ural]

Is sprinkling Holy water like transubtation?
No change in appearance but a spiritual change?

 

[stpurl]

Holy water is a sacramental.
Transubstantiation in the Eucharist is a sacrament.

That’s the difference.

 

[Neithan]

There is a physical change in transubstantiation though; it is just not “extended” in space, so we don’t see it, while the prior appearance remains. The Eucharist is a sacrament and its effect occurs whether or not you believe in it, described with a technical term ex opere operato Christi meaning that they are principally caused by the work of Christ.

Holy water is a sacramental and can have a spiritual impact insofar as you believe in it, described comparatively as ex opere operantis Ecclesiae meaning they are the work of the Church, and depend on the disposition of the recipient to cause their effect. It won’t do anything if you don’t believe in it.

 

[Vico]

Is sprinkling Holy water like transubtation?
No change in appearance but a spiritual change?

There is no change of substance with holy water use. The sprinkling of holy water recalls baptism.

Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon) on Holy Water:

Sacramental blessed by a priest, invoking God’s blessing on all who use it. Blessed water is a symbol of spiritual cleansing, and its use is advised in moments of physical danger and against temptations from spiritual enemies.

 

[Titivillus]

There is a physical change in transubstantiation though;

To the best of my knowledge, the Church does not explain transubstantiation as a physical change.

it is just not “extended” in space, so we don’t see it, while the prior appearance remains.

 

[Neithan]

To the best of my knowledge, the Church does not explain transubstantiation as a physical change .

Thank you, that’s not precise language, and may be misleading.

 

[Richca]

Titivillus:

To the best of my knowledge, the Church does not explain transubstantiation as a physical change .

Thank you, that’s not precise language, and may be misleading.

Christ is present in the eucharist not just in spirit but with his true material/physical body and blood. Transubstantiation means a real change occurs in the nature, reality, or ‘elements’ of the bread and wine at the substance level into the true body and blood of Christ. Bread and wine are created material/physical realities and so are Christ’s body and blood just like ours are. The change that occurs is material/physical at the substance level but not at the level of sensible appearances which are due to the accidents of a substance. Your correct that Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist are not extended in space. Extension in space is an accident of substance, the first accident of material substances according to Aristotle’s ten categories of being.

 

[Titivillus]

You are using the term material/physical where I (and I believe the Church) would use the word metaphyical. (Which, despite their similar phonics, do not mean the same thing)

 

[Neithan]

Aristotelian accident/substance is traditionally how it’s been defined because of the philosophical precision. By using physical/metaphysical it can be confusing because the bread and wine are still physically present both before and after consecration (obviously). The metaphysical category would be an ontological change, and this happens for the substance of the consecrated elements into Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity, while the accidental change is not visible (so it is not a transformation). So it’s imprecise to say there is a physical change, although Christ is physically present, entirely (substance is not separate from accident), after consecration.

Sometimes I wonder if Kant’s phenomenon/noumenon distinction could be useful too (although that aims to throw everything else we see into doubt).

 

[Richca]

It depends on what you mean by physical. If you take it to mean by what is sensible and observable, than it would be incorrect to call transubstantiation physical. If we call transubstantiation a material/physical change and that the true body and blood of Christ is physically present in the eucharist, we do not mean physical in the sensible observable sense above. I’m calling material/physical the substances of bread and wine which are changed into the true body and blood of Christ. Using Aristotlelian/Thomistic metaphysics and philosophy, material substances are material because they are made out of matter which matter is a substantial component of material/corporeal substances. And I’m calling what is made out of matter and bodily, physical, as opposed to wholly spiritual substances or beings such as the angels and God.

Material substance before considering the accidents is metaphysical in the sense that it is not sensible, observable, or quantifiable, but not that it is a pure spirit because matter is present. And what is made out of matter I call a part of the physical/material world.