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

[Verbum_Caro]

Nita:

Thanks. That’s what I got from Aquinas also. I did notice however that He said where there was a change of the host into flesh, the flesh was not to be considered that of Our Lord, even tho Our Lord was still present substantially if the dimensive quantity remained unchanged,.

I guess what strikes me is the absence of any mention of exceptions in the Catechism section (#1377). It would have been very simple to have added a clause at the end of the sentence – eg. “except in instances of approved miraculous changes where the Eucharistic species is converted into flesh and blood” – if that’s what the Church believes and teaches.

Nita,

My guess is that it would be so case dependent that you couldnt make a general statement.

About the flesh not being Christ’s. . . Right.

As a didactic miracles, these miracles of the Eucharist seem to be given to individuals to bolster faith in the eucharistic per se, and seem to be more devotional instead of theology. After all, how could a visible miracle really show what is going on during transubstantiation, when the thing itself hinges on that which isnt and cant be sensed.

VC

 

[brb3]

Trent didn’t say a single word about molecular structure.
Substance does not mean molecular structure. It might mean that in the physical sciences and in ordinary language, but not in theology and philosophy which is the language used by Trent.

Ha … Don’t get scientific technical on us now !!!

Actually, it has been known since earlier time of Greeks … that substances were composed of microscopic, invisible ‘atoms’. St. Thomas and Trent knew all this. But, according to Trent’s testimony … they defined the doctrine in their day as the H.S. directed them, — and, to be the final word on the ‘matter’ [substance] …pun intended

 

[brb3]

So,

We shouldnt expect to see something else other than bread type molecules, right? We should expect to see carbs and etoh on a molecular level?

Wrong !!

Our eyes see ‘appearances’ of bread [or wine] … but our ** ‘regenerated’ bodies know we are receiving ONLY ** ‘supernatural’ Christ, and not a ‘co-existing’ substance of bread/wine. It’s a mystery … so says Trent.****

 

[Philthy]

Yes … as I said : “If we accept the Church’s definition at face value” … the Substance** [molecular structure]** of Bread and Wine are no longer there [co-existing with Christ].

You attempted to make this point very early on, as I pointed out, and you are mistaken.
Substance and molecular structure are not the same thing. So your claim that the “…molecular structure…of bread and wine are no longer there” is simply wrong. The molecular structure of bread and wine remain in a consecrated host but the substance of Christ has replaced their substance without altering the molecular structure. Thus, under a microscope we would see nothing different between a consecrated and unconsecrated host.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Wrong !!

Our eyes see ‘appearances’ of bread [or wine] … but our ** ‘regenerated’ bodies know we are receiving ONLY ** ‘supernatural’ Christ, and not a ‘co-existing’ substance of bread/wine. It’s a mystery … so says Trent.****

Brb,

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?

(please try to stay on one topic . . . )

Thanks
VC

 

[Nita]

Ha … Don’t get scientific technical on us now !!!

You’re the one that used the “scientific technical” term molecular – not me and not Trent.
You may think that the Church and Trent mean molecular when they use the word “substance” in regards to the Eucharist, but your thinking doesn’t reflect the Church’s thinking/teaching, I challenge you to find one faithful Church teacher or bishop that teaches such a thing. The Church doesn’t keep her teachings hidden and she has written much on the Eucharist. And it’s not like “molecule/molecular” is a word people wouldn’t understand. It’s a lot easier than some of the other words the Church uses in presenting her teachings and explaining them (eg. hypostatic,…).

Cite us some actual passages (or provide a link) from official writings/teachings of the Church (encyclicals, council documents) that use the word molecular in explaining to the faithful what is meant by substance/substantial. Without that you’re basing your whole position on what you (and/or possibly others) think - but it is not a Church teaching that must be believed and supported.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yes … as I said : “If we accept the Church’s definition at face value” … the Substance [molecular structure] of Bread and Wine are no longer there [co-existing with Christ]. Only the B/B/S/D of Christ remains. We still SENSE bread/wine via their accidents, but we are receiving the Substance of Christ [under the appearances/species] of bread & wine.

Thusly did Trent define Transubstantiation. For you to believe otherwise, would be to promote the heresy of Luther’s Consubstantiation.

You simply misunderstand the theological difference between ‘substance’ and ‘accidents’.

‘Substance’ in theological terms does not have anything to do with physical matter.

It’s a mystery … so says Trent.

Actually, Trent states that the body and blood exist under the ‘parts thereof’ of the bread and wine. As in, the substantially present Christ exists under the physical matter of bread and wine, while the substance (AGAIN, this does not mean ‘physical matter’) of bread and wine is no longer present.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

‘Substance’ in theological terms does not have anything to do with physical matter.Actually, Trent states that the body and blood exist under the ‘parts thereof’ of the bread and wine. As in, the substantially present Christ exists under the physical matter of bread and wine, while the substance (AGAIN, this does not mean ‘physical matter’) of bread and wine is no longer present.

Hi ivebeenshown,

Could you clarify what you mean when you say “physical matter”?
Thanks,
VC

 

[ivebeenshown]

Hi ivebeenshown,

Could you clarify what you mean when you say “physical matter”?
Thanks,
VC

Particles? Molecules? Atoms? Quarks?

You know, that ‘stuff’ that atheists have to see/touch to believe in.

If the substance of Christ’s body and blood includes physical properties, you run into some major theological problems… such as the fact that Christ is eternal and unchanging in substance.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Particles? Molecules? Atoms? Quarks?

You know, that ‘stuff’ that atheists have to see/touch to believe in.

If the substance of Christ’s body and blood includes physical properties, you run into some major theological problems… such as the fact that Christ is eternal and unchanging in substance.

Hmmm. Im not sure I follow.

First, because i dont normally think of molecules and atoms as things that anyone, including atheists, normally want to see or touch to believe in. . .

But second, and more to the point, dont you run into a problem when you say that only the appearaces (or accidents) remain, and that the physical matter remains, and that molecules and atoms are examples of physical matter? It sounds like you would be saying that molecules and atoms are appearances or accidents, is that what you mean to say?

Thanks!
VC

 

[ivebeenshown]

Hmmm. Im not sure I follow.

First, because i dont normally think of molecules and atoms as things that anyone, including atheists, normally want to see or touch to believe in. . .

That’s wasn’t an all-too-serious statement. I just don’t know how else to describe physical matter to you.

But second, and more to the point, dont you run into a problem when you say that only the appearaces (or accidents) remain, and that the physical matter remains, and that molecules and atoms are examples of physical matter? It sounds like you would be saying that molecules and atoms are appearances or accidents, is that what you mean to say?

Thanks!
VC

That is exactly what I mean to say. ‘Accidents’ refers to ‘physical matter’. It must be this way if we maintain that the substance of Christ is eternal and unchanging – otherwise, we could say that substance of Christ changed as he developed from an infant to an adult, or that the substance of Christ (which is inherently the very substance of God) changed when it took on flesh.

Could you see how ‘taking on flesh’ may be described as the substance of the second person of the Trinity taking on accidents of human flesh?

 

[JonNC]

**Lutherans used the words -]beneath/-], with, in, under, etc] … to convey the idea of the co-existance. ** Trent said NO to this teaching. The Council taught that upon Consecration, the bread/wine was TRANSFORMED into Christ … only their appearances/accidents remained. Thus, Christ was Truly Present UNDER their appearances/accidents/species … but, NOT the substance of bread/wine.

Beneath is not used, but otherwise, the bolded part is false. Sacramental Union is not a discussion of “co-existence”, in a metaphysical sense.

Luther teaching that once the Eucharist was served … the Supper lost it’s miraculous nature, being just ordinary bread/wine.

Not true either. The Lutheran position (BTW, Luther did not reject Eucharistic adoration), is that Christ indentifies His intentions of the sUpper - to east and drink. That is the purpose of His presence - for us to eat and drink for the remission of sins. The purpose is in the sacramental act. Lutherans often reserve the consecrated body and blood for use later, such as for the sick and shut-ins, etc.

If you wish to know, and more importantly, write about what Lutherans believe, please ask one. You can PM me anytime.

Jon

 

[Verbum_Caro]

That is exactly what I mean to say. ‘Accidents’ refers to ‘physical matter’. It must be this way if we maintain that the substance of Christ is eternal and unchanging – otherwise, we could say that substance of Christ changed as he developed from an infant to an adult

Thanks for the reply.

Just so that I can make sure I understand your position, another question if you dont mind.

Regarding the above, what do you say about you or I growing from a child to an adult. Did our substance change?

(As an aside, do you have training in philosophy or theology? Not too important, just wondering)

Thanks agian,
VC

 

[Nita]

That’s wasn’t an all-too-serious statement. I just don’t know how else to describe physical matter to you.

That is exactly what I mean to say. ‘Accidents’ refers to ‘physical matter’. It must be this way if we maintain that the substance of Christ is eternal and unchanging – otherwise, we could say that substance of Christ changed as he developed from an infant to an adult, or that the substance of Christ (which is inherently the very substance of God) changed when it took on flesh.

Could you see how ‘taking on flesh’ may be described as the substance of the second person of the Trinity taking on accidents of human flesh?

I think in any material being (animate or inanimate), matter figures in both its substance and its accidents.

I’m going to give just a couple short quotes from D.Q.McInerny’s “The Philosophy of Nature”. (His teaching is Thomistic/Aristotelian.)
Aristotle, in his “Metaphysics”, says that in a way the whole enterprise of philosophy eventually centers around the question of substance. What is substance?
…Another way of putting it is to say that a substance enjoys independent existence. It exists because of the **intrinsic principles of ** matter and form which compose its identity.

…

The term “accidental,” like the term “substantial,” is used technically in scholastic philosophy. The accidental mode of being is a dependent mode of being. If substantial being is existence in and of itself, then, in sharp contrast to this, accidental being is existence in another, and the “other” in question here is precisely substantial being. …

End quote.In being dependent on the substance, accidents are thus dependent on the intrinsic principles of matter and form which compose the identity of a particular substance.

McInerny is of course speaking about the normal pattern in nature – not the miraculous intervention that takes place in the Eucharist.
That is the miracle of the Eucharist – that the only detectible accidents are those of bread and wine and they exist without being dependent on the substances of bread and wine.

brb proposes that the molecules of bread (matter) in a consecrated host are transformed into molecules of Our Lord’s body. That may or may not be true. But he doesn’t stop there. He says that a microscopic exam of a consecrated host would prove it; it would reveal physical flesh – the accidents of physical flesh. That is what is definitely contrary to Catholic teaching which says that in the Eucharist the only accidents are those of bread and wine. Thus a microscopic exam would show only the accidental properties of bread.

Here are a couple of lines from Dr. Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, p.380 in my book:
…The Eucharistic conversion is a substantial conversion of a special kind, because the whole sustance, matter and form, of the bread and wine is converted (conversio substantialis totalis), while the accidents remain unchanged. It has no analogue either in the natural or in the supernatural order and is thus justly designated by a special name: Transustantiatio. The expression asserts that the whole substance, but also only the sustance, is converted

My head is fairly swimming after all the reading I’ve done today. At the end of the day what I’ve discovered is that the words in the official documents I’ve read (Council of Trent and the Catechism) are a relief. It’s all the lengthier underlying philosophy and the varying philosophical proposals (re the Eucharist) that make one’s head swim. I can’t wait to go to Mass tomorrow morning and just receive Our Lord - body, blood, soul and divinity. Amen.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Regarding the above, what do you say about you or I growing from a child to an adult. Did our substance change?

I would say yes, because our soul was changed in baptism, and the soul is an essential/substantial property of a human being.

(As an aside, do you have training in philosophy or theology? Not too important, just wondering)

No, I just obsess – I am not officially received into the Church yet though I gladly assent to all Church teachings which are brought to my attention. I admit I am likely of malformed opinion in regards to certain aspects of certain themes such as substance and accidents.

However, I was considering the conception of the child Jesus: and seeing that a zygote has no blood, how could it be said that blood is an essential/substantial (rather than accidental) property of a human being? Or, how can the same be said of a body considering the saints in Heaven, some of whose bodies have surely disintegrated past the point of being a body proper?

 

[Nita]

… – I am not officially received into the Church yet though I gladly assent to all Church teachings which are brought to my attention. ?

I hope it won’t be long before you are officially Catholic and can receive Our Lord in Communion. Will be glad to have you in our Church family.

 

[Nita]

…Here are a couple of lines from Dr. Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, p.380 in my book:
…The Eucharistic conversion is a substantial conversion of a special kind, because the whole sustance, matter and form, of the bread and wine is converted (conversio substantialis totalis), while the accidents remain unchanged. It has no analogue either in the natural or in the supernatural order and is thus justly designated by a special name: Transustantiatio. The expression asserts that the whole substance, but also only the sustance, is converted
.

I should have noted that the above are Dr. Ott’s words/exposition – they are not a quote from any Church document.

 

[brb3]

The molecular structure of bread and wine remain in a consecrated host but the substance of Christ has replaced their substance without altering the molecular structure. Thus, under a microscope we would see nothing different between a consecrated and unconsecrated host.

What is the SUBSTANCE of ordinary bread & wine ?

 

[brb3]

‘Substance’ in theological terms does not have anything to do with physical matter.

Same question for you … “What is the substance of ordinary bread & wine” ?

 

[brb3]

If the substance of Christ’s body and blood includes physical properties, you run into some major theological problems… such as the fact that Christ is eternal and unchanging in substance.

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.