Luther's Consubstantiation .... or Catholicism's Transubstantiation

[Verbum_Caro]

Brb3,

Please let’s not get sidetracked by the discussion with ivebeenshown, who is just beginnning a journey into the Church. Let’s forgive any “gnostic problems”. Let’s focus instead on you, and any problems in the things youve said.

I asked,

So, our eyes, through microscopes, see only appearances so we should find etoh through a microscope at a normal consecration, and we should not find blood type molecules, right?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Nita]

If the substance of Christ’s body does not include physical properties … you have a ‘gnostic’ problem my friend ! Since He was FULLY GOD, AND FULLY Man.

Session XIII Council of Trent
874 First of all the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that in the nourishing sacrament of the Holy Eucharist after the consecration of the bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially [can. I] contained under the species of those sensible things. For these things are not mutually contradictory, that our Savior Himself is always seated at the right hand of the Father** in heaven according to the**** natural mode of existing**, and yet that in many other places **sacramentally He is present to us **in His own substance by that manner of existence which, although we can scarcely express it in words, yet we can, however, by our understanding illuminated by faith, conceive to be possible to God, and which we ought most steadfastly to believe…
Nobody is denying that Christ is present whole and entire in every part of the Eucharist - the dispute is over the manner/mode in which He is present. You are saying He is present in His natural mode that is, where His physical body is present under the species/accidents of flesh and blood - where they can be detected by the senses. In your proposal, the physical accidents of Jesus flesh would be present and visible to the human eye by looking thru a microscope. This is contrary to Trent which teaches only that Jesus is present in the Eucharist under the species of bread and wine.

 

[brb3]

You are saying He is present in His natural mode that is, where His physical body is present under the species/accidents of flesh and blood - where they can be detected by the senses. In your proposal, the physical accidents of Jesus flesh would be present and visible to the human eye by looking thru a microscope.

No…

Trent teaches Christ becomes the substance of the Eucharist, while the substance of Bread/Wine cease to exist. Their appearances survive, but not their substance.

So … my question to you & the others here] … What is the unconsecrated ‘substance’ of the bread & wine … that ceases to exist ?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So … my question to you & the others here] … What is the unconsecrated ‘substance’ of the bread & wine … that ceases to exist ?

Brb,

Since i am one of the others. . .

I think it more important that you answer my question to you first. We need to establish a dialogue.

Thanks,
VC

 

[Nita]

No…

Trent teaches Christ becomes the substance of the Eucharist, while the substance of Bread/Wine cease to exist. Their appearances survive, but not their substance.

Correct. It teaches that the substance of the Eucharist, that is, the substance of Our Lord Jesus Christ is present under the species of bread and wine. Do you know what Trent means by “species”. Here is the definition, again from Fr. John Hardon’s “Modern Catholic Dictionary”:
Species. Appearances, especially those of bread and wine, after the Eucharistic consecration. The term “species” is used by the Council of Trent to identify the accidents, i.e. the size, weight, color, resistance, taste, and odor of bread which remain exactly the same after transubstsntiation. They are not mere appearances as though these physical properties were unreal. But they are appearances because after the consecration they lack any substance that underlies them or in which they inhere. Physical substances are perceptible to us ONLY thru their accidents/species.
**The only species **present in the Eucharist are those of bread and wine.
**The only substance **present in the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.

As soon as you talk about what will be perceptible to us when looking at a consecrated host under a microscope, you are talking about the “accidents/species” of that substance. If what you examine manifests the dimensions, weight, appearance, chemical makeup, etc. of a human pluri-potent cell, then you are seeing Our Lord in the consecrated host under the species/appearances of human flesh and not under the species/appearances of bread.

I’ll repeat: Trent says Our Lord’s substance is present under the species of bread and wine - which means the only things we’ll be able to perceive through our senses (with the naked eye or under a microscope) will be the accidents of bread and wine.

So … my question to you & the others here] … What is the unconsecrated ‘substance’ of the bread & wine … that ceases to exist ?

???
We’re not talking about substance. But to answer your question;
The substance in unconsecrated bread and wine is the substance of bread and wine.
The substance in consecrated bread and wine is the substance of Our Lord’s flesh and blood.
The species manifested by unconsecrated bread and wine is the species of bread and wine.
The species manifested by consecrated bread and wine is the species of bread and wine.

Now, I have a question for you.
If you put a piece of consecrated host/bread under a microscope and instead of seeing molecules of bread you see cell/s or molecules of human tissue. under what species are you seeing the substance under the microscope? That is, under what appearances/accidents are you then seeing the substantial presence of Jesus?

 

[brb3]

to answer your question;

The SUBSTANCE in unconsecrated bread and wine IS THE SUBSTANCE of bread and wine.
The substance in consecrated bread and wine is the substance of Our Lord’s flesh and blood.

As I thought … you [and the others here] have no clue what SUBSTANCE is. You can only define substance by using it in it’s definition … which is a NO NO !!! We learned this rule in grade school. Don’t you see what I’ve been saying here all along ? Substance is DIFFERENT than Appearances … SO SAYS TRENT !! You gals/guys lump them together, saying appearances are the ‘EVIDENCE’ OF EXISTANCE OF UNDERLIEING ‘SUBSTANCE’. Yet you’ve no idea what substance is ? Is it tangible … ‘to use your favorite word’ ? Is it chemical/physical, molecular/atomic, … or only a METAPHYSICAL concept ?

Trent confirmed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist… **. My premise is that the Body/Blood … is a real physical presence, the S/D is metaphysical. We get ALL of Christ … his Physical Presence & his Spiritual Presence. So, you will now ask me, “Why don’t we see Christ’s body under the microscope? Doesn’t that prove His physical presence ISN’T THERE ? … so, He must only be present to us in Metaphysical ways ?” But, to try to conceive of the REAL PRESENCE w/o allowing for Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist is very PROBLEMATIC for you guy/gals … since SUBSTANCE, becomes UNDEFINABLE for you !!!

Yet, your second statement above BELIES that you do in fact realize Christ’s physical presence to us, as being slightly different from His metaphysical presence … since you say above… “is the SUBSTANCE of our Lord’s FLESH & BLOOD”. You see … you left out His SOUL / DIVINITY. Which you would say are METAPHYSICAL ONLY, NOT PHYSICAL.

I’ve a suggestion for you. Do what Trent did. Just say … ITS A SACRAMENTAL MYSTERY … which you don’t fully understand, and can’t define ! Nevertheless, don’t you see that the PLURI-POTENT STEM CELL might be one solution to the mystery ? Yet, it need not have a microscopic APPEARANCE of its own … it [Christ’s body/blood] cloaked in mystery, under the ‘residual/remaining’ appearances of the unconsecrated [physical] bread/wine. **

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Let’s try to nail down what Brb3 is saying. Can anyone help me?

So far he or she has said:

1. “In case of Transubstantiation… one would not detect either alcohol or wheat, by lab testing.” (#21)
2. “Has science identified wheat and Etoh in the Catholic hosts ? ( . . . ) If such is the case, then the Catholic Church’s Transubstantiation is wrong …” (#32)
3. In response to another’s assertion that “So of couse science would be able to detect bread and wine” Brb3 answers “Nope … not according to the Church’s teachings on Transubstantiation” (#35)
4. "at the molecular level, we should not find carbohydrates/etoh/ or vegetable protein … by chemical / physical testing. " (#35)
5. When asked “Do you propose that a microscope would show a molecular change in the multitude of hosts used at mass?” and not in eucharistic miracles, Brb3 answered “Indeed I do !!” (#79)
6. When asked “why do you think that a microscope trained on a consecrated host from aan ordinary mass would show there has been a molecular change?” Brb3 answered “Because Christ taught this to his 12 (. . . ) Several Eucharistic miracles offer chemical lab & physical microscopic evidence of human blood/flesh.” (#84)
7. “the body & blood should be accessible to science testing” (#103)
8. “SHOULD NOT find carbos/etoh” (#234)
9. When asked “Arent you saying that we should find molecules of something ELSE?” Brb3 answers “Voila !!” (#236)

How is that?

VC

(After reviewing the thread, I think I have a sense of what Brb3 might be misunderstanding, assuming, of course, that I am understanding what he is attempting to say in the posts I’ve quoted).

 

[Nita]

Let’s try to nail down what Brb3 is saying. Can anyone help me?

So far he or she has said:

1. “In case of Transubstantiation… one would not detect either alcohol or wheat, by lab testing.” (#21)
2. “Has science identified wheat and Etoh in the Catholic hosts ? ( . . . ) If such is the case, then the Catholic Church’s Transubstantiation is wrong …” (#32)
3. In response to another’s assertion that “So of couse science would be able to detect bread and wine” Brb3 answers “Nope … not according to the Church’s teachings on Transubstantiation” (#35)
4. "at the molecular level, we should not find carbohydrates/etoh/ or vegetable protein … by chemical / physical testing. " (#35)
5. When asked “Do you propose that a microscope would show a molecular change in the multitude of hosts used at mass?” and not in eucharistic miracles, Brb3 answered “Indeed I do !!” (#79)
6. When asked “why do you think that a microscope trained on a consecrated host from aan ordinary mass would show there has been a molecular change?” Brb3 answered “Because Christ taught this to his 12 (. . . ) Several Eucharistic miracles offer chemical lab & physical microscopic evidence of human blood/flesh.” (#84)
7. “the body & blood should be accessible to science testing” (#103)
8. “SHOULD NOT find carbos/etoh” (#234)
9. When asked “Arent you saying that we should find molecules of something ELSE?” Brb3 answers “Voila !!” (3236)

How is that?

VC

(After reviewing the thread, I think I have a sense of what Brb3 is misunderstanding, assuming, of course, that I am understanding what he is attempting to say in the posts i’ve quoted).

Thanks for all the tracking down.

I think it’s “species” he doesn’t understand - what it all encompasses especially as to what shows up in laboratory testing. And also perhaps the relationship between substance and species/accidents, especially in the Eucharist where the relationship is unique and not the normal one.

brb seems to think that in laboratory testing, the substance of the Eucharist can only be present under it’s proper species (that of Jesus’ flesh and blood) and no longer be present under the species of bread and wine.

 

[Nita]

… Nevertheless, don’t you see that the PLURI-POTENT STEM CELL might be one solution to the mystery ? Yet, it need not have a microscopic APPEARANCE of its own … it [Christ’s body/blood] cloaked in mystery, under the ‘residual/remaining’ appearances of the unconsecrated [physical] bread/wine.

I am glad to see that contrary to your previous statements (see Verbum’s post #266) you are finally accepting that a microscopic testing could reveal the species of bread and not those of Our Lord’s flesh.

 

[Philthy]

What is the SUBSTANCE of ordinary bread & wine ?

In what context - theology or chemistry??

 

[brb3]

In what context - theology or chemistry??

Which ever was/is the ‘contextual’ intent of Christ, as revealed to the 12 & Paul, and finally to the Popes & Council of Trent !

 

[Philthy]

Which ever was/is the ‘contextual’ intent of Christ, as revealed to the 12 & Paul, and finally to the Popes & Council of Trent !

that would be theology…
Your question represents the progress I hoping to see and leads me to believe my contribution here is done.

Blessings

 

[brb3]

that would be theology…
Your question represents the progress I hoping to see and leads me to believe my contribution here is done.

Blessings

What a DODGE !!

I guess Luther’s Consubstantiation argument is ultimately the best supportable by scientific laws. Catholics here can’t defend Trent’s doctrines against Luther.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

"brb3:

I know alot of what Catholics are saying here doesn’t jive with what Trent says

brb3:

you [and the others here] have no clue what SUBSTANCE is

Catholics here can’t defend Trent’s doctrines against Luther.

brb3,

I think you appreciate bluntness, so I’ll be blunt and say that you are misunderstanding what Trent says and the mind of the Church on this issue. You also seem not to entertain the possibility that you could be misunderstanding, while considering those who disagree with you as borderline heretics or modernists. If so, this approach is going to make it difficult for you to learn if and where you might be missing the mark.

If you’re relatively new to the Catholic Church, and if you come from a tradition or personal stance whereby the final arbiter of truth is one’s own interpretation of texts, and if you haven’t much exposure to the theology or philosophy behind certain concepts, then it could be easy to miss something.

I offer the above in fraternal charity, because I genuinely care both about the truth and your access to it. This is Holy Thursday, a day when the Church reflects on the gift of the Eucharist and the mystery of Christ’s Real Presence and I firmly believe that the more we know about the Eucharist the more we are able to love our Eucharistic Lord.

VC

 

[Philthy]

What a DODGE !!

I guess Luther’s Consubstantiation argument is ultimately the best supportable by scientific laws. Catholics here can’t defend Trent’s doctrines against Luther.

substance: who someone “is” in the fullest sense; the existential property which distinguishes said person from other persons.

accidents: the manifest physical properties, subject to change, of a substance

This is off the top of my head. Do you have a different definition for substance?

 

[brb3]

substance: who someone “is” in the fullest sense; the existential property which distinguishes said person from other persons.

Do you have a different definition for substance?

Good try But, regarding the SUBSTANCE of bread/wine :

How could UNCONSECRATED bread & wine have their own intrinsic PERSONA … which could be Transubstantiated into the Person of Christ ? :dts:

Give it another Go Philthy …

 

[brb3]

brb3,

I genuinely care about the truth … This is Holy Thursday, a day when the Church reflects on the gift of the Eucharist and the mystery of Christ’s Real Presence

I believe you are a truth-seeker. But, I don’t think you & the others here can yet defend Transubstantiation against Luther’s Consubstantiation. I will allow you one Lifeline. Who you gonna call ? Perhaps Tim Staples, maybe Father Barron ?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I believe you are a truth-seeker. But, I don’t think you & the others here can yet defend Transubstantiation against Luther’s Consubstantiation. I will allow you one Lifeline. Who you gonna call ? Perhaps Tim Staples, maybe Father Barron ?

What would you like to discuss?

Do you want to consult Staples or Fr. Barron? Will something they wrote help you out?

VC

 

[brb3]

What would you like to discuss?

VC –

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Verbum Caro;9149605:

What would you like to discuss?

VC –

Well. . . It will really be your lifeline, not mine, won’t it?

Who do you like? Who do you trust?

If I suggest someone, they might not meet your approval, especially if they say something you dont agree with.

I actually offered you this lifeline before in this thread, do you recall?

VC