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

[brb3]

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

Well, unofficially perhaps … off the record, [in a PM ]

No…you’re the Eucharist expert, self-declared in fact. I’m the novice here. I wanna keep you ON THE RECORD. Wanna see you fully explain Transubstantiation, in the public domain.

Do you agree with Philthy’s definition of Substance, just several posts above # 274] ?

 

[Philthy]

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 …

The substance of something is that component which is essential for it to be what it is. If that component is missing, the thing is no longer what it was. The substance of something is normally related closely to its accidental nature in the material world. This is not the case for God, however, and not the case for God in the Eucharist.

Bread has a substance. It is not eternal. It can cease to exist. Christ can become present substantially anywhere and at any time He chooses to. He has chosen to do so at consecration. At consecration there is a change of substance: the substance of bread ceases to exist and the substance of Christ becomes present in the Eucharist.

It appears that we are all the way back to you not having the slightest answer as to:

Why is Luciano declared “miraculous” in a way that is not spoken of with respect to consecration?

Why has no anti-catholic group “proven” the CC wrong by stealing a consecrated host and subjecting it to microscopic evaluation?

The obvious answer remains that something different happens at consecration than you have purported.

• Luciano is miraculous because there was, in addition to the “normal” transubstantiation, an observable change in accidents.
• No anti-catholic group has stolen a consecrated host and subjected it to scientific tests to prove the CC wrong because the Church - unlike you - doesn’t claim that a consecrated host would have anything observably different about it.

It is really that simple.

Have a blessed Triduum!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well, unofficially perhaps … off the record, [in a PM ]

Actually I meant post 119.

brb3:

No…you’re the Eucharist expert, self-declared in fact.

Did I? As you are fond of saying, cite the post. Or retract.

brb3:

I’m the novice here.

OK. No shame in that. I’d consider myself an amatuer.

brb3:

I wanna keep you ON THE RECORD. Wanna see you fully explain Transubstantiation, in the public domain.

Fully explain transubstantiation?

brb3:

Do you agree with Philthy’s definition of Substance, just several posts above # 274] ?

Not completely, no. But it was off the top of his head. As you pointed out, bread isnt a who.

But, I dont think explaining what substance is, is as pertinent to our discussion as the notion of seeing a substance.

So, do you have someone in mind that we could consult?

VC

 

[brb3]

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.

As a beginning, an introduction of sorts … I’ll offer up F.J Sheed, author of THEOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS, pub. 1981 …

In Chp. 18 Eucharist & the Mass ], he discusses the topics of : THE REAL PRESENCE, TRANSUBSTANTIATION, & SACRIFICE OF MASS.

He admits his discussion is superficial … & intended for beginners, who can expand their understandings with additional resourses …

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ok! Sheed, one of my favorites.

This should clear up everything for you, I hope!

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes- the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

In other words, whatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality-for example, that which was wine and is now Christ’s blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.

VC

 

[brb3]

Ok! Sheed, one of my favorites.

This should clear up everything for you, I hope!

He does ‘shed’ some light on the matter … pun intended

At least he makes an effort to really explain what is occurring. For example, modern scientists don’t normally speak of ‘accidents’, ‘appearances’, ‘species’, etc … with regards to what we can perceive via our 5 senses. I know Thomas A. did, but, that kind of language is very confusing to people today … as this thread has clearly shown.

Sheed brings in today’s common terminology … and uses the more standard term PROPERTIES. It’s time we start to use today’s parlance, which is more natural to us, from our science studies. All substances have characteristic properties, by which we recognize/detect them. Some substances are ORGANIC, others INORGANIC. Some are LIVING, others are NON-LIVING. Bread and wine are carbon-based ‘living’ substances … rocks and minerals are ‘non-living’ substances. If we discovered bread/wine on Mars tomorrow … scientists would exclaim “MARS HAS LIFE, living in its LIFELESS ROCK/MINERAL SOILS”. However, both these living & non-living examples are substances w/o a PERSONA.

Christ takes ‘living’ bread/wine substances [w/o personas] … and transforms their SUBSTANCES into Himself, but allows their PROPERTIES to remain. In otherwords, Christ takes ‘soul-less’, living organic substances … and transforms them into his SUPERNATURAL substance ** … a RESURRECTED Christ, who has physical/chemical & spiritual [substance] properties that we can’t percieve via our 5 senses / lab instruments. Christ’s supernatural substance is either beyond our scientific laws, or additional laws apply we have yet to discover. Either way, we can’t perceive the ‘supernatural’ substance of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ either ‘assumes’ or ‘cloaks’ his REAL PRESENCE with those of the bread/wine that he transformed/changed. A Transubstantiation process, that we will never be able to understand … unless, a ‘visible’ miracle is granted, like occurred @ LANCIANO, CORPUS CHRISTI, etc.**

 

[Philthy]

He does ‘shed’ some light on the matter … pun intended

 

[Verbum_Caro]

He does ‘shed’ some light on the matter … pun intended

Brb3,

I’m surprised that you havent acknowledged that either a) you had some incorrect notions regarding transubstantition or b) we misunderstood your notions.

I also think, in justice, you should retract your statement that i am self proclaimed eucharistic expert.

It’s time we start to use today’s parlance, which is more natural to us, from our science studies. All substances have characteristic properties, by which we recognize/detect them.

(. . .)

Christ takes ‘living’ bread/wine substances [w/o personas] … and transforms their SUBSTANCES into Himself, but allows their PROPERTIES to remain. In otherwords, Christ takes ‘soul-less’, living organic substances … and transforms them into his SUPERNATURAL substance ** … a RESURRECTED Christ, who has physical/chemical & spiritual [substance] properties that we can’t percieve via our 5 senses / lab instruments. Christ’s supernatural substance is either beyond our scientific laws, or additional laws apply we have yet to discover. Either way, we can’t perceive the ‘supernatural’ substance of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ either ‘assumes’ or ‘cloaks’ his REAL PRESENCE with those of the bread/wine that he transformed/changed. A Transubstantiation process, that we will never be able to understand … unless, a ‘visible’ miracle is granted, like occurred @ LANCIANO, CORPUS CHRISTI, etc.**

I think you are getting closer . . but when you say we cant perceive the substance of Christ, note that this is because we cant perceive any bare substance directly, only via its properties or accidents. There is nothing shocking about not seeing a substance. We never do. We see its accidents. In the eucharist we don’t see the accidents of Christ, though, only the accidents of bread and which are not accidents of any substance.

So, how about it brb3? We’ve stuck with you through this hoping to show you what you were misunderstanding. Now that youare starting to see things differently, do you want to revisit your language about no one understanding what substance is? Or that we go against trent? Or that we cant defend Trent’s doctrines against Luther?

I saw you started another thread about authors and mentioned Scott Hahn, and his book “Catholic for a Reason” specifically. We can add him to Sheed above (and Aquinas, and Fr. Hardon, and Fr. Barron, etc.). On page 178 he says

“If we looked at the Eucharist under a microscope we would not find “Jesus cells” floating around.”

 

[brb3]

Brb3,

I’m surprised that you havent acknowledged that either a) you had some incorrect notions regarding transubstantition or b) we misunderstood your notions.

Hey … half of what I once believed as a Protestant, I’ve later discovered to be incorrect … And, 1/3 of what I thought Catholics believe has been challenged here on the Forum.
Everyday I put my understandings before the ‘authorities’ … to let the IRON here sharpen the STEEL.

But, I never doubt the LITERAL words of Christ, the 11 plus Paul, and the Catholic-canonized Bible. But, its you guy/gals I constantly have to question / test on ‘metaphysical’ matters.

 

[brb3]

There is nothing shocking about not seeing a substance. We never do. We see its accidents. In the eucharist we don’t see the accidents of Christ, though, only the accidents of bread and which are not accidents of any substance.

So, how about it brb3? We’ve stuck with you through this hoping to show you what you were misunderstanding. Now that youare starting to see things differently, do you want to revisit your language about no one understanding what substance is? Or that we go against trent? Or that we cant defend Trent’s doctrines against Luther?

Hey … your coming over to my side now ! I’ve always been arguing that Christ is ‘literally’ present B/B/S/D in the Eucharist. I just don’t always put all my cards on the table at the beginning of a post. It’s best to slowly play your hand as the thread develops, and as one is challenged to.

And, I think Trent teaches the literal B/B/S/D as well.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hey … your coming over to my side now ! I’ve always been arguing that Christ is ‘literally’ present B/B/S/D in the Eucharist. I just don’t always put all my cards on the table at the beginning of a post. It’s best to slowly play your hand as the thread develops, and as one is challenged to.

And, I think Trent teaches the literal B/B/S/D as well.

It seems like you are being disengenuous. I havent changed my position on account of this thread. Ive certainly not had to come over to “your side”.

There is no shame in admitting you were wrong about what transubstantiation entails, that your original question and position were misguided, and that you were wrong to insinuate that others (at least myself) hold heretical views, and wrong to assert that i self proclaim as an expert in eucharistic theology. In fact, you ought to admit those things directly . . . If you wish to be sharpened and cultivate manly virtue.

Maybe go back and review this thread, and see how it all really played out.

VC

 

[ivebeenshown]

So, then… is ‘substance’ in theological terms at all physical? I was under the impression that physical attributes were all ‘accidents’.

 

[Nita]

So, then… is ‘substance’ in theological terms at all physical? I was under the impression that physical attributes were all ‘accidents’.

“Substance” is not physical in the sense that it is something that can be physically detected by our senses. We are aware of a substance only through its accidents.
All accidents have in common the fact that they reveal to us, in one degree or another, substantial reality. And, in fact, it is only through the accidents that we come to know substantial reality at all.
“The Philosophy of Nature” by D.Q.McInerny

It’s important to know that this is the meaning of “substance” in perennial (Aristotelian) philosophy - the philosophy and language adopted by the Church in defining certain of its dogmas (Eucharist, Trinity, Incarnation…). If you talk to a chemist, he will probably have a different definition; and, it’s possible other philosophies may also assign a different definition.

 

[brb3]

So, then… is ‘substance’ in theological terms at all physical? I was under the impression that physical attributes were all ‘accidents’.

Great question.

Yes, indeed it is physical. But, in case of the Eucharistic SUBSTANCE of Christ … it is both physical & spiritual **. Just as we receive the Spirit of Christ & the Divinity [graces of forgiveness] … we also receive the supernatural crucified & risen, ‘physical’ Body & Blood.

Catholics [and perhaps some Protestants] are unique in believing Christ [and his 12 apostles] taught the Body & Blood are received in LITERAL, SUBSTANTIAL ways … that constitute the REAL PRESENCE.**

 

[brb3]

you were wrong to insinuate that others (at least myself) hold heretical views, and wrong to assert that i self proclaim as an expert in eucharistic theology.
Maybe go back and review this thread, and see how it all really played out.

Do you believe in the literal, ** physical REAL PRESENCE ? If not, your views would not be much different than those held by they who broke ranks with Catholicism in 1600’s.

Well, maybe not a self-proclaimed ‘expert’ just yet … . But, in Post # 100 … you proudly admit this topic is your favorite, and you’re obviously intent on becoming an expert. **

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Do you believe in the literal, ** physical REAL PRESENCE ? **

I believe what the Church teaches. I cant answer your question as asked by you because I dont know what you think you mean when you say literal and physical. You could mean something not aligned with the mind of the Church.

But, I wont leave you perplexed about my stance, although I cant answer your question as asked by you, you can read Aquinas and see what I hold.
brb3;9166685:

I’ll withdraw that charge if I indeed made it

Are you unsure that you made the charge?

Do you still hold, that we should see microscopic particles of Christ under a microscope in an ordinary Eucharist, as you did at the start of this thread?

Or do you now admit that you were wrong?

(Just be a good egg and admit you were wrong. And please stop the tiresome accusations that people dont agree with Trent or the Church when that is certainly not the case)

You can do this brb3.

VC

 

[brb3]

“Substance” is not physical in the sense that it is something that can be physically detected by our senses. We are aware of a substance ONLY through its accidents.

Nope …

SUBSTANCES ‘ordinarily’ are physical … and have characteristic PROPERTIES, by which we can detect them. How do you recognize your parents ? … for example. They have characteristic ‘appearances’, voices, handwritings, even fingerprints and retinal ID’s.

Nevertheless, a PERSON has a unique ‘persona’… which also incorporates a mind, and personality [Spirit & Soul], within the body substance. Christians are ABSOLUTELY aware of Christ within, via the ‘extrodinary’ SUPERNATURAL HOLY SPIRIT … which is apart from our 5 physical senses, which detect only the accidents. Paul made this absolutely clear in his writings. So did John.

 

[brb3]

Do you still hold, that we should see microscopic particles of Christ under a microscope in an ordinary Eucharist, as you did at the start of this thread?

Or do you now admit that you were wrong?

I said only molecular flesh and blood were seen/detected by lab instruments/tests … in case of the famous Eucharistic Miracles … Lanciano/Corpus Christi, etc.

I posed the question … if perhaps Christ was present in the Daily Eucharistic Mass, via his Stem Cells, in response to Nita’s ‘Acorn to Tree’ analogy.

That’s old ground, from weeks ago … Nita now wishes she hadn’t brought that comparison up Lets move on, and not re-hash old topics … for Nita’s sake

 

[Verbum_Caro]

That’s old ground, from weeks ago … Lets move on, and not re-hash old topics …

brb3,

I understand not wanting to get mired down in old posts. But the problem is that the whole point of this thread is that you seemed to have a misunderstanding. The other alternative is that we were misunderstanding what you were actually trying to say, but what you seemed to say . . . Well, please look at my post #266 above were I quote you throughout the thread and cite post numbers.

Here is one extremely pertitent example:

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)

VC

 

[brb3]

stop the tiresome accusations that people dont agree with Trent or the Church when that is certainly not the case)

I’m seeking to discover what the Church [and you 21st century Catholics] really believe Christ, the Apostles, and Trent … really meant.

Why did Trent make such a big deal out of Luther’s Consubstantiation teachings … if they didn’t believe in the literal substance ** of Christ, in the Eucharist ? Were they just picking various fights with him, to discredit him on multiple levels, … or did Trent really believe Luther had made a ‘substantial’ error, and was teaching heresy ?**