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

[brb3]

Here is one extremely pertitent example: Post #79

Ok … I went back and reviewed that post for ‘context’.

What I was saying/implying [but, didn’t elaborate in great detail] … was that I believe in a literal/physical presence of Christ in the daily Eucharist. I said there that God however, does not wish us to test the hosts, for his physical presence. We are not to put God to the TEST.

That is not to suggest that He is not physically present. He indeed is … but, He ‘cloaks’ his physical presence from our 5 physical senses. Just as He was known to do during the time between the Resurrection and his Ascension. We are to take this FACT of his physical presence ON FAITH. But, on rare occasions, he has allowed the hosts to be transformed into a VISIBLE physical appearance we can see with eye & microscope.

Would you not agree that these several miracles have served our Church and the flock very well ? But, now that we have them recorded by scientific processes … is that not enought for us ? Can we not now move on in Faith Sufficient … & not further desire additional demonstrable proofs ?

We are not allowed to test God on our scientific terms, but God has graciously allowed us several miracles of his choosing, to show forth the proof thereof.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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 ?**

Thats admirable, and I join you in a desire to know more about Trent.

Yes, I think the fathers at Trent saw the error and countered it. They took pains to define that the whole substance of bread changes, which means a radical change unlike even any other substantial change we know of. In other substantial changes of composite material substances, only the form changes (i.e a transformation) and not the matter (prime matter) of the thing. A new form informs the matter and you have a new substance.

But Trent is talking about such a radical change that not only the form changes but the matter and form change. That is what is meant by the whole substance of bread. There isnt any bread left AT ALL (not even its uniformed prime matter). Hence it isnt a transformation but fittingly called transubstantiation, a change of the entire substance. Consubstantiation denies this.

VC

 

[brb3]

But Trent is talking about such a radical change that not only the form changes but the matter and form change. That is what is meant by the whole substance of bread. There isnt any bread left AT ALL (not even its uniformed prime matter). Hence it isnt a transformation but fittingly called transubstantiation, a change of the entire substance. Consubstantiation denies this.

Bravo !! That is the SUBSTANCE of their argument !

But, how do we today in 21st century, with scientific understandings, that Trent lacked … express the Body/Blood Transformation to modern man/woman ? I like Nita’s Acorn:Tree PHYSICAL analogy … but, also thought of the Pluri-Potential StemCell idea, which holds the truth that from a single cell … an entire PHYSICAL & SPIRITUAL organism with a PERSONA … can result.

 

[Nita]

(Your post #296)

Nope …

.

Well brb3, I guess then you know more about philosophy than D.Q.McInerny who teaches philosophy at the Fraternity of St. Peter’s seminary. Perhaps you should contact him and let him know that he is teaching error.

 

[Nita]

Bravo !! That is the SUBSTANCE of their argument !

But, how do we today in 21st century, with scientific understandings, that Trent lacked … express the Body/Blood Transformation to modern man/woman ? I like Nita’s Acorn:Tree PHYSICAL analogy … but, also thought of the Pluri-Potential StemCell idea, which holds the truth that from a single cell … an entire PHYSICAL & SPIRITUAL organism with a PERSONA … can result.

You just can’t believe in the true substantial presence of Our Lord on faith alone can you? You seem to have a need that there should be some sort of a detectible physical proof/manifestation of His presence, detectible to science - if not now, at least at some point in the future.

 

[brb3]

You just can’t believe in the true substantial presence of Our Lord on faith alone can you? You seem to have a need that there should be some sort of a detectible physical proof/manifestation of His presence, detectible to science - if not now, at least at some point in the future.

nope …

I claim just the opposite … see Post #3OO.

I’m suggesting that Christ is absolutely present, in EVERY consecrated Eucharist … Both physically & spiritually. B/B/S/D present, a REAL PRESENCE. But, only in several occasions, appropriate for the Church, during the last 2000 years … [when certain of his Priests began to DOUBT his Physical presence] ------ did He make his PHYSICAL presence visible, via cardiac flesh & blood tissue [verified by scientists].

Same as he ‘willingly’ allowed for the 12 … esp. to Thomas, who had doubts of the Resurrection. Did not Christ PROMISE … “whereever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, I AM there” ? At every Mass, when the faithful gather, Christ keeps his promise.

Trent knew this promise … they reaffirmed it to the Church, as the final revelation of God to the Church on the subject.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But, on rare occasions, he has allowed the hosts to be transformed into a VISIBLE physical appearance we can see with eye & microscope.

brb3,

I’m perfectly willing to grant to you that either everyone was misunderstanding what you said or that you yourself didn’t say what you meant. I can only take your word for what you believed at the time.

But, let me check again, because it is difficult to see how you didn’t either believe or at least say you believed that at a normal, non-miraculous, consecration that scientific instruments should (or might, or may) detect some sort of change.

Look at what you said again:

1. “In case of Transubstantiation… one would not detect either alcohol or wheat, by lab testing.” (#21) Which implies that lab testing would detect something else, i.e. detect a change (‘Jesus cells’ or something). And note that you said in the “case of Transubstantiation”, you weren’t talking about miracles but transubstantiation simply, i.e. normally, i.e. at every non-miraculous consecration.
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) Note you say that if science identifies wheat in a Catholic host, than the doctrine of transubstantiation is wrong. This is the what you said in #1 above, but in a different way. You are saying that you expect a scientific test to NOT find wheat, and to find something else in every normal case of transubstantiation.
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) AGAIN repeating #1 and #2, saying that the doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION ITSELF (i.e. not the rare Eucharistic miracle occurrences) dictate that science shouldn’t be able to detect bread.
4. "at the molecular level, we should not find carbohydrates/etoh/ or vegetable protein … by chemical / physical testing. " (#35) Again, normal transubstantiation, science shouldn’t be able to detect carbs.
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) Note, I explicitly asked NOT IN EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES but in normal transubstantiation would a microscope show a change and you answered not only yes, but INDEED I DO!
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) Again I specifically ask about AN ORDINARY MASS. Here you seem to be using Eucharistic miracles as the key to understanding what happens at a normal transubstantiation. But this isn’t how you can properly understand transubstantiation, and it leads to all sorts of misunderstandings and errors. You yourself (taking your words at face value) are extrapolating from Eucharistic miracles to the notion that science should detect a change in normal everyday occurrences of transubstantiation.
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)

These last three, just repeat your position. And, again, this is in normal transubstantiation. Unless you didn’t mean that. But you seem to have said you did throughout.

If you read through this thread try to see how careful I am about asking you what your believe, how I keep asking you to clarify, and how I take pains to understand what you are trying to say.

My conclusion was (is?) that you believe (believed?) that at the consecration, in a normal mass, due to transubstantiation and because of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the eucharist, at a normal mass, without any additional eucharistic miracles, if it were tested scientifically, should show some change, that for instance a microscope could show some molecular change.

I think anyone reading what you wrote would conclude the same about what you think. I think that numerous posters on this thread did so conclude.

Can you clear this up? The most obvious way to clear it up is to say “Yes, I was wrong”. But there might be other ways to clear it up.

VC

 

[brb3]

brb3,

Look at what you said again:

1. “In case of Transubstantiation… one would not detect either alcohol or wheat, by lab testing.” (#21) Which implies that lab testing would detect something else, i.e. detect a change (‘Jesus cells’ or something). And note that you said in the “case of Transubstantiation”, you weren’t talking about miracles but transubstantiation simply, i.e. normally, i.e. at every non-miraculous consecration.

Can you clear this up?

I did for you already ,… you posed that question, in different forms, many times already …

I’ve previously answered that Christ does not wish us to TEST him, in the Eucharist. Except in those several occasions where dramatic ‘visible’ miracles occurred … Lanciano/ Corpus Christi, etc. … in which case the Church allowed scientist to test the consecrated hosts to some degree, on several occasions. Regarding whether the substance of bread/wine [wheat/alcohol] would remain & be found in the ordinary consecrated hosts, by lab testing … I stated I was not aware if the Church has ever allowed the testing of. I said I would not ‘palm’ the bread and test it by lab measures … believing that a sacrilege. Furthermore, my answer was predicated on Trent saying that Luther was wrong in claiming Christ resided ‘along with’ [beside] the substance of bread/wine.

Your other 8 questions are takeoffs on this first question … and my answers were predicated upon Trent’s claim that the SUBSTANCE of bread/wine no longer remain in the Eucharist, after consecration.

If you know of lab proof showing that the substance of bread/wine ARE present in the blessed Eucharist … present your scientific evidence, and explain in light of Trent’s dogmatic doctrines to the contrary.

 

[brb3]

Well brb3, I guess then you know more about philosophy than D.Q.McInerny who teaches philosophy at the Fraternity of St. Peter’s seminary. Perhaps you should contact him and let him know that he is teaching error.

Perhaps U could be more specific here. Cite to us what DQM has said that you agree with, and feel I have violated or contradicted.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

??

Could you humor me and read through all my quotes again slowly?

How about this one:

1. 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)

And this:

1. 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) Note, I explicitly askedNOT IN EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES but in normal transubstantiation would a microscope show a change and you answered not only yes, but INDEED I DO!

Both of these are in the context of nonmiraculous everyday consecrations. The latter explicitly so.

VC

 

[brb3]

??

How about this one:

1. 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)

And this:

1. 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) Note, I explicitly askedNOT IN EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES but in normal transubstantiation would a microscope show a change and you answered not only yes, but INDEED I DO!

[3/5] … Per Trent’s dogmatic declarations … "no bread or wine substance remains, only Christ’s " . Naturally, I & scientists] take ‘substance’ to mean no ‘molecular’/atomic substance. So in saying, “Indeed I do” … I meant I believe a ‘molecular’ CHANGE has occurred … & that lab instruments might well discover a ‘lack of’ bread/wine molecules [since the substance of bread/wine are no longer] I wasn’t restricting my response to the microscope ONLY, but to the vast array of molecular detection, lab instruments now available to scientists that can detect either presence or ABSENCE !

 

[ivebeenshown]

[3/5] … Per Trent’s dogmatic declarations … "no bread or wine substance remains, only Christ’s " . Naturally, I & scientists] take ‘substance’ to mean no ‘molecular’/atomic substance. So in saying, “Indeed I do” … I meant I believe a ‘molecular’ CHANGE has occurred … & that lab instruments might well discover a ‘lack of’ bread/wine molecules [since the substance of bread/wine are no longer] I wasn’t restricting my response to the microscope ONLY, but to the vast array of molecular detection, lab instruments now available to scientists that can detect either presence or ABSENCE !

How would you demonstrate that molecular structure is substantial rather than accidental?

Wine is wine, whether red or white. So the colors red and white are accidental to the substance of wine – and we know from scientific observation that these colors are physical/molecular realities (light reflecting from certain matter produces certain color.)

Wine is wine, whether bitter or sweet. So the flavors of bitterness and sweetness are accidental to the substance of wine – and we know from scientific observation that these flavors are physical/molecular realities (certain molecular combinations excite the varying taste buds on the tongue in particular ways.)

How could scientific instruments detect anything more than accidents if we humans cannot?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

[3/5] … Per Trent’s dogmatic declarations … "no bread or wine substance remains, only Christ’s " . Naturally, I & scientists] take ‘substance’ to mean no ‘molecular’/atomic substance. So in saying, “Indeed I do” … I meant I believe a ‘molecular’ CHANGE has occurred … & that lab instruments might well discover a ‘lack of’ bread/wine molecules [since the substance of bread/wine are no longer] I wasn’t restricting my response to the microscope ONLY, but to the vast array of molecular detection, lab instruments now available to scientists that can detect either presence or ABSENCE !

Ok, thanks for bearing with me.

So you did (and do?) think that in a normal eucharist, and not just in a miraculous one, that scientific testing (which amplifies our senses but still is interpreted by our senses) should detect a molecular change?

And, do you now realize that this is wrong? The reason you are wrong is that our senses,and our senses amplified by scientific instrument or tests, are not ordered toward the perception of bare substances. We never see substance, not with our eyes or a microscope or a telescope. We see the accidents or properties of a substance. When a scientist looks through a electron microscope and sees molecules he isn’t seeing substance. He is seeing the accidents of those molecules.

You were misunderstanding the doctrine of transubstantiation.

And, if you permit me a bit of editorializing her, instead of trying to understand what you were misunderstanding, and trying to understand what we were hoping to explain, you took a needlessly argumentative approach and relied on only your own understanding. You can’t approach Trent, or any part of the Catholic faith, based on solely on your own understanding of what words and concepts mean. That is a recipe for disaster. And, is a protestant approach.

So, are you clear on what you were misunderstanding and do you feel that you’ve corrected it?

If so, there may be more to explore and discuss. I’m happy to continue to discuss these things with you (provided that you can be a bit less argumentative, and give people the benefit of the doubt, and not accuse them of heresy)

Thanks,
VC

 

[brb3]

How would you demonstrate that molecular structure is substantial rather than accidental?

Wine is wine, whether red or white. So the colors red and white are accidental to the substance of wine – and we know from scientific observation that these colors are physical/molecular realities (light reflecting from certain matter produces certain color.)

Wine is wine, whether bitter or sweet. So the flavors of bitterness and sweetness are accidental to the substance of wine – and we know from scientific observation that these flavors are physical/molecular realities (certain molecular combinations excite the varying taste buds on the tongue in particular ways.
How could scientific instruments detect anything more than accidents if we humans cannot?

Now … some more excellent questions from IBS

These get to the heart of the Thread’s Premise. Can the SUBSTANCE of wine/bread be detected in the consecrated hosts ?.. [in which case Luther’s ‘coexistance’ Consubstantiation understanding/explanation is perhaps more c/w 21st century science]. Or, as Trent stated, the SUBSTANCE of wine/bread are no longer … [in which case Transubstantiation would better fit our current science]. I’ve proposed [on basis of Trent’s doctrine] that SUBSTANCE is both physical [Body/Blood] & metaphysical [Soul/Divinity]. The physical portion is molecular/atom “dust from dust”, Eve taken from Adam’s physical rib, etc. The metaphysical portion is the ‘God-breathed’ animus … that infuses our Physical-Chem ‘Zygotes’, after sperm meets egg. The Catholic teaching that LIFE begins AT CONCEPTION ! A person/persona has been “numbered, in the book of life”.

‘Accidents’ are only PROPERTIES of the SUBSTANCE. When Christ enters the hosts @ consecration, bread & wine are no more [per Trent] … we still see/taste their former properties, but Christ’s assumes their properties [per Trent, …“Christ, under the 'appearances of bread/wine”]. We receive true flesh and blood … but, it ‘resembles’ the former bread/wine. It is for our protection, from unbelievers, who would otherwise make cannabalistic accusations. Even tho we say we are receiving the body/blood of Christ … they don’t believe us today. They think we are deceived, believing a myth, and w/o hope …

 

[ivebeenshown]

** I’ve proposed [on basis of Trent’s doctrine] that SUBSTANCE is both physical**

I don’t see anything particular from Trent which indicates that substance must include molecular/atomic structure.

We detect a substance by its tangible qualities, or accidents, and our senses respond to physical/molecular/atomic stimuli. Rust molecules taste a certain way, iron, and so on. For Christ to take the appearance of bread, he must take the molecular structure of bread, no?

 

[Nita]

How could scientific instruments detect anything more than accidents if we humans cannot?

Your thinking is correct: It is what Dr. McInerny (seminary philosophy professor) said in the quote I gave in Post #292 – where he said:
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
Dr. McInerny is of course not speaking of miraculous phenomenon such as the Eucharist where the physical laws of nature are overidden. In the Eucharist we cannot know the substantial reality of Our Lord’s Body and Blood through testing and examination of the accidents present in it; we know what the substantial reality is only through faith - through belief in Jesus and the truth of His word.

 

[Nita]

I don’t see anything particular from Trent which indicates that substance must include molecular/atomic structure.

We detect a substance by its tangible qualities, or accidents, and our senses respond to physical/molecular/atomic stimuli. Rust molecules taste a certain way, iron, and so on. For Christ to take the appearance of bread, he must take the molecular structure of bread, no?

Re Underlined:
No, Christ (His substance) does not take on the molecular structure of bread. The teaching is that the accidents of bread remain without adhering in any substantial reality - any real substance. (At least that is my understanding. I’ll have to do some checking.) It is one part of the miracle in the Eucharist. The other part is the substantial presence of Our Lord, whole and entire, without the accidents of His Body and Blood being manifested to us, without their presence being possible for us to detect.

If we were able to detect any of the accidents of His Body and Blood, then He would be accidentally present and the Church has never taught that; she teaches only that He is substantially present. Aquinas notes that in the Eucharist, the accidents of Our Lord’s Body and Blood are present by “concommitance”. If you care to read that section, I can look it up and provide a link.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Re Underlined:
No, Christ (His substance) does not take on the molecular structure of bread. The teaching is that the accidents of bread remain without adhering in any substantial reality - any real substance

Right. Brb’s language above also is bit inaccurate:

we still see/taste their former properties, but Christ’s assumes their properties [per Trent, …“Christ, under the 'appearances of bread/wine”].

There is a relation between the accidents of bread and Christ’s body to be sure, but it isn’t one of properties to a subject, i.e. the accidents of bread don’t inhere in Christ (Nita, I think you meant “inhere” not “adhere”). Christ doesn’t “assume” the properties of bread.

But,

brb still needs to explain some things about his position. I’m hoping that he will respond to my post #312 above.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

(At least that is my understanding. I’ll have to do some checking.)

No, you’ve got it right. The Catechism of the Council of Trent mentions this specifically.

VC

 

[Nita]

The teaching is that the accidents of bread remain without adhering in any substantial reality - any real substance. (At least that is my understanding. I’ll have to do some checking.) …

From Aquinas’ Summa Theologica:
newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm#article1
I answer that, The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (Question 75, Article 2); nor in the substantial form, for that does not remain (75, 6), and if it did remain, “it could not be a subject,” as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ’s body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ’s glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.