Modern understanding of Transubstantiation?

[Nita]

Let’s not confuse transformation with transubstantiation. They are two separate terms.

Transformation is the changing of the form of matter. It is something that can be measured, weighed, seen, etc. It is limited to the physical world.

Transubstantiation does not at all imply transformation - it is the changing of the substance of the matter, but not it’s form. Jesus comes to us “disguised” in the form of bread. It cannot be measured or weighed or seen by the human eye. Transubstantiation transcends the physical limitations of whatever form it takes (bread and wine).

God Bless,
CSJ

Thank you very much CSJ for challenging me and pointing out my error. I was wrong in calling the nutritional process transubstantiation. See my post #40 above.

As to “transformation” - I’ve been unable to find anything on that. I noticed that the Catechism paragraph I quoted earlier does use the word “transforms” in connection with what occurs at consecration.1375 … Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

… This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered
​

In regards to the use of “form” in philosophy, it seems to be used in quite a few instances.
In the text I have, it is applied to substance as well as accidents:
“Substantial form, the formal cause, is that which essentially determines a thing, makes it what it is. There is also **accidental form **which is simply the exterior contours of a thing, the way it is physically configured. There is of course a very close connection between substantial form and accidental form, …” (Metaphysics, p188, D.Q.McInerny)

You state that there is no change/conversion of form in transubstantiation. I recognize that the accidental form of bread remains unchanged, but could you provide some source for saying the substantial form of bread remains and is not changed/converted? Can the substantial form remain without the substance?

 

[JThomasAlden]

I don’t know how much you understand about Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Catholic theology, but you must understand that the Catholic Church has formally Defined its teaching on the Real Physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One accepts it on Faith because Christ taught. The terms the Church used to Define this Dogma are those of Thomas Aquinas, which are similar to but not restricted to those used by Aristotle. So, in a sense, the Church has " canonized " Thomas’ use of these terms in this Dogma.

Thomas spoke of first and second substance, as did Aristotle. First substance being the " thing " as you see it, second substance being the underlying subject in which first substance is lodged. Both are absolutely real. The difference is that the second substance cannot be " seen " or measured in any way. This is what you have called the " philosophical substance. " First substance is essentially all the accidents, including all the atoms, protons, electrons, hair, eyes, ears, size, weight, etc. which you can see and/or measure and which flow from and exist in second substance, the underlying reality.

The First Substance according to Aristotle is a specific individual physical entity. For example, a particular book, a specific rock, a specific piece of bread, a specific person. We understand this in modern times as a collection of specific atoms arranged in a specific way; that’s what makes up the First Substance. The Second Substance is an abstract association of a First Substance to a given group. Many First Substances can be in the Second Substance. For example, Aristotle is a First Substance. His Second Substance includes classifications from man to mammal to vertebrate to animal to organism. Second Substance is a grouping, a mental construct. An Accident is a property of a First Substance, for example Brown, 30 Grams, On The Table, 100 calories, etc. Physical accidents arise from the presence and arrangement of atoms in physical space.

So how is the Second Substance anything other than an abstract categorization? Can you give some other examples of Second Substance, outside of the Eucharist?

But in the act of transubstantion, the underlying second substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, the whole man, second and first substance, with all his accidents - limbs, hair, atoms, protons, etc. But by a miracle of God the accidents of the bread and wine remain, but in no substance, they just are and are in the real physical sense - but they no longer exist in a substance or subject. They act as a veil, covering the Real Presence. Yet they retain all their normal physical characteristics. This is the second miracle of the Eucharist, the first being that of Transubstantiation.

So the First Substance does not change, since the bread continues to be the same discrete arrangement of atoms. These particular atoms are not swapped out with other particular atoms of the exact same type and arranged in the exact same way. The accidents don’t change, since they still arise from the same arrangement of atoms. But the Second Substance does change? Since the Second Substance is just an abstract grouping, why is this a miracle?

And what exactly do you mean by a veil? I know what a physical veil is; a piece of cloth or other object which gets between the observer and the observed such that the veil object is seen (by light particles reflecting off the veil) instead of the observed. Does this veil affect the atoms and how they react with light and other atoms in some way?

A miracle, by definitiion, is an act that cannot be explained by man. Nor can it be proven true in any way, except on the word of God Himself. And the Church has never presented the case otherwise. You either believe it or you don’t. My point here is just to explain why
, in the eyes of science, nothing seems to have changed. That has never been a problem for Catholics who know their Faith as well as they should. It is only a problem for non-believers who do not grant the existence of miracles, or who may not believe, even, that God exists. Unfortunately, we can’t do anything about this lack of understanding except to present the teaching and trust to God to open eyes that remain closed.

So if a miracle cannot be explained, or reproduced, or be reliably detected, and doesn’t change anything in they physical world, and is only believed based on the word of someone else… how does one reliably distinguish between a miracle and a falsehood?

And just so we’re clear, everyone here does recognize that the physical world is made up of atoms arranged in particular ways, and that an object’s color, weight, appearance, taste, ability to be digested, etc. is all derived from how those atoms are physically interacted with and re-arranged by light or other atoms, right? That much is not in dispute. This is not a view of reality or an interpretation of it or a philosophy of reality; it is a description of what is actually happening. This doesn’t rule out additional things happening, but it does require that any philosophical view of the world is compatible and reconcilable with the physical existence we are in.

 

[Thorns]

I made an error in calling what happens in the process of nutrition an example of "transubstantiation".

Sorry to take so long to get back. CSJ’s post sent me on a hunt to see if I had made an error. Took me quite awhile to track down a definition of transubstantiation that touched on the particular area in question. (Thank goodness for the "Control f " find feature!)

Anyway when you eat something, and it is converted into your human flesh, it is not correct to call it transubstantiation because the conversion is not limited to only the substance. The accidents are also changed/converted when food is eaten.

From the online Catholic Encyclopedia, Section titled “Transubstantiation” (scroll slightly more than halfway down)
:
… Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same —
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

Nita,

Is there any particular method to tell whether something has undergone transubstantiation?

 

[Thorns]

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
But in the act of transubstantion, the underlying second substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, the whole man, second and first substance, with all his accidents - limbs, hair, atoms, protons, etc.* But by a miracle of God the accidents of the bread and wine remain, but in no substance, they just are and are in the real physical sense - but they no longer exist in a substance or subject. They act as a veil, covering the Real Presence.*** Yet they retain all their normal physical characteristics. This is the second miracle of the Eucharist, the first being that of Transubstantiation.

Is there a preferential reason why God would choose to perform a miracle and yet still choose to keep a veil on that miracle?

Since we’re speaking miracle-wise, wouldn’t it be more miraculous and “complete” if the Bread and Wine transformed into Flesh and Blood as opposed to merely being transubstantiated?

 

[Nita]

Nita,

Is there any particular method to tell whether something has undergone transubstantiation?

As far as I am aware, what happens in the consecration of the Eucharist is the ONLY time transubstantiation occurs. It is a unique, supernatural event and the only time that a substance is converted into another substance where there is no change whatever in its accidents.

When you ask about a particular method to determine whether transubstantiation has occurred, I’m presuming you mean some sort of physical testing/observation that could be carried out. No, there are no physical tests that would show transubstantiation had occurred - precisely because in transubstantiation all of the “accidents” remain exactly as before – and they are the only qualities of an existing thing that are subject to physical testing.

The only “method” of knowing that transfiguration has occurred is faith - faith in Jesus and the truth and power of His word. Altho it is the only method, it is absolutely the most certain method for those who believe in Our Lord.

 

[Nita]

But again, that would be based on Catholic philosophy.

Pizza being transubstantiated can be MY claim, based on my own philosophy, for example, and it appears you cant show me that its false, based on anything else but Catholic philosophy.

I hope from my latest posts you’ve gathered how pizza is not transubstantiated when it is converted in our body. (And I’m really sorry if my erroneous post early on is what initiated the idea.)

One proof that pizza is not “transubstantiated” is the fact that once its substance has been converted into your flesh (or a waste product), all the accidents of pizza would also have been converted/changed. ** After any substantial conversion of the pizza**, there would no longer be any accidents of pizza still existing (taste,color,dimension…). Transubstantiation would require all of those accidental qualities to still be present.
(I think that you’re pretty well aware that they are not still present once the pizza has been digested and converted to human flesh and human waste.)

Again, my apologies if my earlier post caused any confusion for you.

 

[Thorns]

I hope from my responses you’ve gathered how pizza is not transubstantiated when it is converted in our body. (And I’m really sorry if my erroneous post early on is what initiated the idea.)

One proof that pizza is not “transubstantiated” is the fact that once its substance has been converted into your flesh, all of the accidents of pizza have also been converted/changed to something else. After any substantial conversion of the pizza, there would no longer be any accidents of pizza still existing (taste,color,dimension…). Transubstantiation would require all of those accidental qualities to still be present.
(I think that you’re pretty well aware that they are not still present once the pizza has been digested and converted to human flesh and human waste.)

Again, my apologies if my earlier post caused any confusion for you.

No, it was not your post that sparked my comment and I’m not talking about eating the pizza either.

I’m giving an example of me hypothetically recreating transubstantiation of the Eucharist, only I’m doing it with a slice of pizza (in other words, me consecrating it to become flesh). My question would be, how would you determine if the pizza truly underwent transubstantiation or not? I can say that it did and that the accidents remain, and that is that.

It seems from other poster’s responses as well as your previous one, is that the way to determine if something underwent transubstantiation, is through Catholic philosophy and doctrine.

However, we’re speaking of a literal, objective change (which is what we believe is taking place, it isn’t spiritual, but literal and physical too, except the Flesh and Blood are under the veil of Bread and Wine, or in my example, pizza), so one would seem to need a literal method of determination to identify a literal change, not a philosophical one (because we aren’t speaking abstractly or philosophically about it changing because once again, we believe that it literally becomes Jesus Christ).

 

[Usagi]

Is there a preferential reason why God would choose to perform a miracle and yet still choose to keep a veil on that miracle?

Since we’re speaking miracle-wise, wouldn’t it be more miraculous and “complete” if the Bread and Wine transformed into Flesh and Blood as opposed to merely being transubstantiated?

Strictly speaking, the Church does not define Transubstantiation as a miracle for that very reason. A miracle, of the sort credited to folks up for canonization, has to be a noticeable setting aside of the normal laws of reality, something that can be investigated to determine whether there is a natural explanation.

Transubstantiation is an act of God in which we firmly believe, but it’s not something we’d ever put forth as evidence of Catholic claims because it has no measurable effect. Aquinas himself pointed out in a famous hymn that the only human sense that can be convinced of Transubstantiation is hearing, in that we can hear and believe the words of Jesus and the teaching of the Church that it does occur.

Your pizza example also reminds me to emphasize that the consecrated bread does not become “flesh” in the sense that each host is some identifiable piece of Jesus’ physical body that can be broken apart or chewed up. The Eucharist becomes the whole Jesus, which includes His glorified body, but not in a way that would divide Jesus up or permit us to disrupt His physical integrity in the act of eating. Jesus’ entire body (and blood, and soul, and divinity) is present in the tiniest identifiable particle of consecrated bread or drop of consecrated wine.

Usagi

 

[Thorns]

Strictly speaking, the Church does not define Transubstantiation as a miracle for that very reason. A miracle, of the sort credited to folks up for canonization, has to be a noticeable setting aside of the normal laws of reality, something that can be investigated to determine whether there is a natural explanation.

So would you therefore disagree with Linus, as he states that it occurs by miracle?

Transubstantiation is an act of God in which we firmly believe, but it’s not something we’d ever put forth as evidence of Catholic claims because it has no measurable effect. Aquinas himself pointed out in a famous hymn that the only human sense that can be convinced of Transubstantiation is hearing, in that we can hear and believe the words of Jesus and the teaching of the Church that it does occur.

It seems that the Church knows that it occurs based on faith and its philosophy, but cannot demonstrate a literal explanation for a literal change?

Your pizza example also reminds me to emphasize that the consecrated bread does not become “flesh” in the sense that each host is some identifiable piece of Jesus’ physical body that can be broken apart or chewed up. The Eucharist becomes the whole Jesus, which includes His glorified body, but not in a way that would divide Jesus up or permit us to disrupt His physical integrity in the act of eating. Jesus’ entire body (and blood, and soul, and divinity) is present in the tiniest identifiable particle of consecrated bread or drop of consecrated wine.

This reminds me of accounts of Eucharistic miracles, where the host becomes a visible and literal piece of flesh. I’m assuming that the only difference in this miraculous instance, is that the veil was simply removed and the people present could see the Eucharist for what it really is: Christ’s flesh. Do you disagree with these accounts?

 

[Richca]

No, it was not your post that sparked my comment and I’m not talking about eating the pizza either.

I’m giving an example of me hypothetically recreating transubstantiation of the Eucharist, only I’m doing it with a slice of pizza (in other words, me consecrating it to become flesh). My question would be, how would you determine if the pizza truly underwent transubstantiation or not? I can say that it did and that the accidents remain, and that is that.

It seems from other poster’s responses as well as your previous one, is that the way to determine if something underwent transubstantiation, is through Catholic philosophy and doctrine.

However, we’re speaking of a literal change (which is what we believe is taking place, it isn’t spiritual, but literal and physical too, except the Flesh and Blood are under the veil of Bread and Wine, or in my example, pizza), so one would seem to need a literal method of determination to identify a literal change, not a philosophical one (because we aren’t speaking abstractly or philosophically about it changing because once again, we believe that it literally becomes Jesus Christ).

Transubstantiation involves a material change which I think is the literal change you are seeking here. The bread and wine as well as the body and blood of Christ are material substances composed of matter and form in aristotalian/Thomistic terms. The matter and form of the bread and wine are changed or converted into the matter and form of Christ’s body and blood. The accidents of the bread and wine remain without matter after the consecration. For the only matter underlying the accidents of the bread and wine after the consecration is the matter of Christ’s body and blood. Thus, we truly do partake of the very body and blood of Christ.

 

[Thorns]

Transubstantiation involves a material change which I think is the literal change you are seeking here. The bread and wine as well as the body and blood of Christ are material substances composed of matter and form in aristotalian/Thomistic terms. The matter and form of the bread and wine are changed or converted into the matter and form of Christ’s body and blood. The accidents of the bread and wine remain without matter after the consecration. For the only matter underlying the accidents of the bread and wine after the consecration is the matter of Christ’s body and blood. Thus, we truly do partake of the very body and blood of Christ.

Seems to make sense to me abstractly, but how do you determine the matter and form changing literally? It seems you would need to demonstrate this literally too.

Can you give me another example of this occuring elsewhere in any field, where the matter is converted into something else while retaining the accidents?

 

[Richca]

Seems to make sense to me abstractly, but how do you determine the matter and form changing literally? It seems you would need to demonstrate this literally too.

Can you give me another example of this occuring elsewhere in any field, where the matter is converted into something else while retaining the accidents?

hello thorns.

There is no other example of transubstantiation besides the eucharist, it is one of a kind, a divine miracle. If transubstantiation could be demonstrated by scientific experiment, what need would there be of faith? But the scripture says that it is impossible to please God without faith, for he/she who would approach Him, must believe that He exists. We take it on the word of Jesus that transubstantiation does really take place.

 

[jochoa]

Has the church ever undertaken a more modern description of what transubstantiaion is?

Not to my knowledge.

…has anyone come up with a description that doesn’t rely on a 2300+ year old understanding of the physical world?

Here are two means that I describe transubstantiation, plus one physical evidence of transubstantiation:

1. From simple biological science, I observe that a natural human lifespan is directly proportionate to the amount of energy consumed from others’ lives. Therefore, if I want to live forever, I must eat the life of one with an infinite amount of energy. Only God’s life has an infinite amount of energy, and the only way to consume the body of God is through the Eucharist.
2. From honest logic: if something looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. The Eucharist looks like God, shares the same message as God shares, and does what God does, therefore the Eucharist must be God. Prior to consecration, the bread and wine are not doing what God does, nor sharing God’s message.
3. Have you considered any of the Eucharistic Miracles, such as the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires?

Thanks for sharing such good food for thought! I look forward to further discussion!

 

[cornbread_r2]

If the accidents of the consecrated bread and wine were somehow removed, what would be seen? The body of Jesus? Nothing?

 

[Nita]

If the accidents of the consecrated bread and wine were somehow removed, what would be seen? The body of Jesus? Nothing?

Nothing.
It is only through their accidents that we can ever tell something is material there.

 

[TimothyH]

Seems to make sense to me abstractly, but how do you determine the matter and form changing literally? It seems you would need to demonstrate this literally too.

Can you give me another example of this occuring elsewhere in any field, where the matter is converted into something else while retaining the accidents?

It has been revealed to us by God.

-Tim-

 

[Usagi]

So would you therefore disagree with Linus, as he states that it occurs by miracle?

Not entirely. It occurs by a special act of God that alters the normal operations of the universe, so in that sense it is a miracle. But it’s not the “sign” type of miracle that we can show to other people as evidence of divine intervention. There’s a reason why we use “Eucharistic miracle” to describe the rare occasions in which something visible occurs and not to describe every consecration.

It seems that the Church knows that it occurs based on faith and its philosophy, but cannot demonstrate a literal explanation for a literal change?

Transubstantiation (change of substance without change of accidents) is the Church’s best attempt to explain the manner of Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist. If you mean that we cannot demonstrate the event empirically, that’s true and we have never claimed otherwise. Transubstantiation is something you believe in because you are already persuaded that Catholicism is the truth, not one of the pieces of evidence that leads you there.

This reminds me of accounts of Eucharistic miracles, where the host becomes a visible and literal piece of flesh. I’m assuming that the only difference in this miraculous instance, is that the veil was simply removed and the people present could see the Eucharist for what it really is: Christ’s flesh. Do you disagree with these accounts?

I would like to believe that at least some of the claimed Eucharistic miracles are just that. Even then, though, what happens in a Eucharistic miracle should not be conflated with the more typical occurrence at Mass. If there’s an actual slice of Jesus’ endocardium in Lanciano, that’s kind of cool, but ordinarily the consecrated species don’t become specific parts of Jesus. They become all of Him. Neither the consecration itself nor the subsequent division and consumption divides Jesus in any way. A Catholic so ill that he can receive the Lord only under the form of a single drop of wine receives Jesus, not a drop of His blood separated from the rest of Him.

In Transubstantiation, a real and objective change occurs (contra the OP’s assertion that because we use philosophical language to describe it the change must be only in our thinking and perceptions), and it’s not a merely spiritual change because Jesus’ real (albeit glorified) body is involved, but it’s not just a crude physical change either. Catholics going up for communion don’t hope for a “drumstick” or call dibs on a piece of the Sacred Heart.

Usagi

 

[Aloysium]

Seems to make sense to me abstractly, but how do you determine the matter and form changing literally? It seems you would need to demonstrate this literally too.

Can you give me another example of this occuring elsewhere in any field, where the matter is converted into something else while retaining the accidents?

Quite the struggle, it appears.
Trying to fit things into their proper slots.
“Abstract” and/or “literal”, “matter and form”, “demonstrations”.
It is hard to pin down mysteries.

BTW, I would be interested in how you would explain your very existence.
Is it a literal fact, an abstract concept? How does one demonstrate one’s unique individual existence. Were it not for love, this most real of realities for oneself, would be never more than an imaginary possibility to the other - a projection that personal being is something (or whatever) experienced (or is doing the experiencing) also by/in the other.

At any rate, the Eucharist is the body of Christ because it is.
It is a mystery like our very own existence.
Whatever and however it makes sense to the person, I suppose, but truth, it is.

Intellectually, you may have to throw everything upside-down.
Truth, as it is to be found in Jesus Himself, is completely and totally simple.
Lots of times, trying to understand it can leave one’s mind in knots.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Nothing.
It is only through their accidents that we can ever tell something is material there.

At consecration then, the accidents of Jesus’s body (glorified or otherwise) are separated from his substance?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Nothing.
It is only through their accidents that we can ever tell something is material there.

At consecration then, the accidents of Jesus’s body (glorified or otherwise) are separated from his substance? If the accidents are separated, then how can the “body, blood, soul and divinity” be received in the consecrated host?