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

[Nita]

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.

Thank you.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Re Underlined:
No, Christ (His substance) does not take on the molecular structure of bread.

I don’t say ‘take on’ as if to signify a change in substance, I mean what was stated at Trent:

Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof

What are the ‘parts thereof’ if not the molecular structure?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I don’t say ‘take on’ as if to signify a change in substance, I mean what was stated at Trent:

Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof

What are the ‘parts thereof’ if not the molecular structure?

IBS,

Maybe it is time to start a new thread to discuss these things? I think we stand a good chance of getting stuck in a mire again on this thread if brb3 decides to pursue your questions instead of him trying to explicate his own position (which needs explication).

For instance, a new thread on what “parts thereof” means? Usually this is taken to mean a visible part of thing that you saw before, i.e. a part of the seen bread. So, if you break a piece of the host such that you would say “I see what looks like two pieces of bread” then Trent is pointing out that under both those seen “pieces of bread” the whole Christ is present.

It really doesn’t have anything to do with molecular structure.

VC

 

[Nita]

I don’t say ‘take on’ as if to signify a change in substance, I mean what was stated at Trent:

Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof

What are the ‘parts thereof’ if not the molecular structure?

The molecular structure of bread and wine are present in the consecrated host and wine - that is, the dimensions, weight, etc. of the molecules of bread - as they are the accidents/properties. But the underlying substance of bread in which those accidents originally inhered is no longer there.

But I don’t think Trent is referring to individual molecules here when it refers to "parts. The teaching is that Christ remains present in the Eucharist as long as the consecrated bread still has the appearance of bread - and I think this means appearance to the naked eye and not what can be seen only under a microscope. A single molecule, or even a few, would no longer have the appearance of bread. What the Trent statement means regarding the “parts” is that if a single consecrated host is later broken into smaller parts (that still retain the appearance of bread), Christ is present whole and entire in each of those parts. (At least, that’s how I understand it.)

 

[Nita]

IBS,

Maybe it is time to start a new thread to discuss these things? I think we stand a good chance of getting stuck in a mire again on this thread if brb3 decides to pursue your questions instead of him trying to explicate his own position (which needs explication).

Sounds like a good idea.

For instance, a new thread on what “parts thereof” means? Usually this is taken to mean a visible part of thing that you saw before, i.e. a part of the seen bread. So, if you break a piece of the host such that you would say “I see what looks like two pieces of bread” then Trent is pointing out that under both those seen “pieces of bread” the whole Christ is present.

It really doesn’t have anything to do with molecular structure.

VC

I see I ended up repeating what you already said in this post.

 

[James224]

Which is best supported by 21st Century Physics/Chemistry ? Both require a miracle, both require faith to believe. But, which seems to fit the science of molecules and matter ?

The only way to answer this is took look at the miracles of the Eucharist like the one in Luciano, Italy. I think that’s the city where the miracle is. I’ve heard that it has the molecules or makeup of a heart.

 

[brb3]

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

… we know what the substantial reality is only through faith - through belief in Jesus and the truth of His word.

QUOTE]

---

DQM’s statement above is very nebulous, when taken by itself. I’d have to read more of what he writes, to see what context frames his statement. Regarding your statement … it is clearly errant. Did Christ ask us to come to the altar, and honor the hosts[Him] with ‘faith alone’ ? [what Luther once claimed was all sufficient unto salvation]. NOPE …

We are commanded to receive the Eucharist as TRUE FOOD, that must be eaten. Except we do, “we have no life in us”. Metaphysical contemplation, by faith alone, is not sufficient unto our receiving the full, substantial reality of Christ.

 

[brb3]

The molecular structure of bread and wine are present in the consecrated host and wine - that is, the dimensions, weight, etc. of the molecules of bread - as they are the accidents/properties. But the underlying substance of bread in which those accidents originally inhered is no longer there.

Nita —

with all due respect …

What does SUBSTANCE mean to you ? Define your terms for us. Do bread and wine’s molecules/atoms not compose its substance ? … or is substance purely metaphysical, existing only in your mind’s eye ?

 

[ivebeenshown]

But I don’t think Trent is referring to individual molecules here when it refers to "parts. The teaching is that Christ remains present in the Eucharist as long as the consecrated bread still has the appearance of bread - and I think this means appearance to the naked eye and not what can be seen only under a microscope. A single molecule, or even a few, would no longer have the appearance of bread. What the Trent statement means regarding the “parts” is that if a single consecrated host is later broken into smaller parts (that still retain the appearance of bread), Christ is present whole and entire in each of those parts. (At least, that’s how I understand it.)

I thank you and Verbum Caro, that makes very much sense.

 

[brb3]

IBS,

if you break a piece of the host such that you would say “I see what looks like two pieces of bread” then Trent is pointing out that under both those seen “pieces of bread” the whole Christ is present.

It really doesn’t have anything to do with molecular structure.

Yes it does !!!

Christ is indivisible— [Omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent]. As scripture says “Where can one go, and be hidden from [eyes] the Lord.” Christ is in all, since all is His handiwork/creation. He created the atoms/molecules … they have everything to do with Christ. He speaks, and they obey him.

We don’t live in a substantially ‘metaphysical’ world/universe. We live in a physical world, the ‘cosmic’ dust from which we were made, and will return.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just in case brb3 didn’t see this, let me bump it up:

[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

This is worth getting right.

VC

---

 

[brb3]

When a scientist looks through a electron microscope and sees molecules he isn’t seeing SUBSTANCE. He is seeing the accidents of those MOLECULES.

So … then, you agree ‘molecules’/atoms are the physical part of a Substance !

Yet, you don’t think they are visible, have weights, mass, & structure … with characteristic Properties ?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Brb3,

You need to start at the beginning.

Do you understand that you are wrong to suppose that a scientist could detect a change in a normal everday Eucharist. You need to admit you dont or didnt understand wht transubstntition entails.

But if you cant admit that, at least I can make it clear to others who might stumble across this read (and have the patience to read through it) that it is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of transubstantition to even wonder if a scientist, with whatever powerful tools available to him, could detect a change through sense observation.

Your orginal question was ill conceived because of your prior misunderstanding.

Thanks,
VC

 

[brb3]

Brb3,

it is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of transubstantition to even wonder if a scientist, with whatever powerful tools available to him, could detect a change through sense observation.

a ‘misunderstanding’ to ‘even wonder’ if a scientist could detect a change via laboratory observations ?

Sorry, but that is what scientists do. They form hypotheses … and test them via observations of the data their research reveals. I don’t think Trent spoke out against science and scientists, in their dogmatic declarations on Transubstantiation.

 

[brb3]

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.

Ok … lets consider the above discussion on Substance, in light of the FIRST post-resurrection Mass, on that FIRST Easter Sunday.

Luke 24:30-31, & 35 … When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it [his body], and gave it to them. And their ‘eyes were opened’, and they recognized him [in the Eucharist]; and he vanished out of their SIGHT." … Then they told what had happened on the road, and how ‘he was known to them in the breaking of bread’.

Here we see Christ acting as HIGH PRIEST, consecrating the bread, entering under the PROPERTIES of bread, and becoming its SUBSTANCE. Christ can’t be VISIBLY seen in the Eucharist, but he ‘becomes known’ to us via his REAL PRESENCE] in it. We are not eating bread/wine … but, the physical/spiritual SUBSTANCE ** of Christ.**

 

[Philthy]

"Verbum Caro:

…it is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of transubstantition to even wonder if a scientist…could detect a change through sense observation.

a ‘misunderstanding’ to ‘even wonder’ if a scientist could detect a change via laboratory observations ? Sorry, but that is what scientists do.

This response of yours - like several you have produced in this thread alone - shows such a lack of basic analytical skills - or intellectual discipline - that it is difficult to imagine how this discussion on transubstantiation could be fruitful. Your response indicates that you ignored - or didn’t grasp - the topic of discussion: the misunderstanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation. You instead commented on what the appropriate activity of a scientist is. It is silly. The point VCis making is that only someone who doesnt understand the doctrine of transubstantiation would entertain ideas about what a scientific investigation would reveal regarding it. You know, kinda like what you are doing? For if one properly understood the doctrine of transubstantiation then they’d recognize that science will tell them nothing about a consecrated host (vs unconsecrated host). It has nothing to do with what constitutes the proper sphere of activity of a scientist.
I have already attempted to point this out to you when I explained why no anti-Catholic group has subjected a consecrated host to scientific analysis to prove the Church wrong. They don’t do it because - unlike you - they DO understand what the Church teaches on the doctrine and they understand that scientific testing wouldn’t prove anything against the Church’s teaching. The same underlying reality explains why Luciano is declared “miraculous” in a way that every Mass is not. The miracle at Luciano is that a scientifically verifiable change in the consecrated host occurred. Normally, (for the hundredth time, there is no scientifically verifiable change, but at Luciano there was such a change and that is precisely why it is called miraculous.
All of this apparently continues to go over your head or you simply wish to disagree or whatever, but it has been clearly and patiently presented to you…repeatedly. It’s time to move on…

 

[brb3]

1.) the topic of discussion: the misunderstanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation. … if one properly understood the doctrine of transubstantiation then they’d recognize that science will tell them nothing about a consecrated host (vs unconsecrated host). It has nothing to do with what constitutes the proper sphere of activity of a scientist.

2.) Luciano is declared “miraculous” in a way that every Mass is not. The miracle at Luciano is that a scientifically verifiable change in the consecrated host occurred.

1.) Differentiate the ‘physical’ difference between Transubstantiation & Consubstantiation to us … if there is any, IYO]. [Bring Trent’s teaching on the difference into your ans.]
Point out to us where Luther taught error, … either in physical or metaphysical ways…

2.) :nope: Lanciano was declared miraculous for 700 years, before it was studied by scientists with microscopes & lab techniques. Lanciano was deemed miraculous long before scientists said it was so.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It’s time to move on…

I agree. I think the doctrine has been explained sufficiently and that if someone comes across this thread at a later date there isn’t much danger of them succumbing to the same misunderstanding as brb3 (that a normal Eucharist entails, or even could entail, an observable change).

Thanks to all who participated in the discussion! May we continue to learn more about the Real Presence of Christ in order to love Him more.

VC

 

[Philthy]

1.) Differentiate the ‘physical’ difference between Transubstantiation & Consubstantiation to us … if there is any, IYO]. [Bring Trent’s teaching on the difference into your ans.]
Point out to us where Luther taught error, … either in physical or metaphysical ways…

Quote for me Luther’s teaching - that is, actual words from him, not your own - that you would like addressed.

2.) :nope: Lanciano was declared miraculous for 700 years, before it was studied by scientists with microscopes & lab techniques. Lanciano was deemed miraculous long before scientists said it was so.

It was declared miraculous because the observable physical properties (ie accidents) of the consecrated host changed. That is the miracle, and it is miraculous because the observable physical properties - whether by the naked eye or any other means - changed. Microscopy confirmed this and added a level of specificity to the observation but changed nothing with respect to why it was miraculous. Your point that it was so declared prior to microscopy does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental difference between Luciano and every day Mass. That difference is that at Luciano the physical property (atoms/molecules) of the host changed whereas normally those properties do not change. It has nothing to do with whether or not a microscope or any other advanced scientific technique is used.

 

[Philthy]

As further food for thought, how is it that the consecrated host of Luciano was allowed to be subjected to scientific study? If, as you suggested, the Church felt that it was putting God “to the test” , then the Church would never have allowed such testing. But it did, and that strongly suggests - some would say it proves it - that your position on “putting God to the test” is simply wrong. It further suggests that if the Church believed a change in the atomic structure of a consecrated host occurs at every Mass that they would be OK with controlled scientific study to confirm this. But they don’t engage in such testing. And why would that be?
It’s simple: They don’t because the Church does not believe that there is a scientifically verifiable change in the atomic structure of a consecrated host, and hence there is no reason for them to investigate it.