In the explanation above, please exchange First and Second Substance, wherever mentioned. Sorry for the confusion, I always get them mixed up because I consider the Form of a Substance to be more important, since it is the most primary thing about any individual . Socrates is nothing if he is not a man.
The Catechism defines it as such:
You have done an excellent job. So has Nita. Glad to see someone digging into Thomas.
You are correct. I do not think CSJ meant to imply that the substantial form of the accidents remains, because that is clearly contrary to the article he linked. The " form " mentioned by CSJ is the accidental form of the accidents. The entire Second Substance ( that which is composed of the underlying matter and substantial formi has been changed into the Whole Christ ( the underlying Second Substance and the " individualizing " First Substance ( that which is comprised of all the accidents of the bread and the wine, including the accidental forms of each. ).
I would like to add that there is no such thing as an overarching form called an " accidental form. " There is only a collection of accidental forms, size, shape, weight, color, nutrients, ultimate atomic particles, etc, which constitute what Aristotle and Thomas called First Substance. And when Aristotle spoke of " form " in that context, he was speaking of the " shape " of a thing, round, square, oblong, etc.
Sorry, I have to retract that. There is one very missleading sentence in the article which can cause great harm. See my comments above to Nita.
Actually, I believe my definitions of First Substance and Second Substance are correct.
‘Of the secondary substances the species is more a substance than the genus, since it is nearer to the primary substance. For if one is to say of the primary substance what it is, it will be more apt to give the species than the genus.’ (2 b8–11)It is my understanding that Accidents are properties of an entitiy which do not define what it is, and Essense is one or more properties that do define what it is. Essense would define what is required for an entity to be considered part of a Second Substance.
In later works outside of “Categories”, where the terms of First and Second (or Primary and Secondary) substance are established, Aristotle does break Substance down further into Form and Matter. Again from plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#AriAccSub :
This defintion seems to be playing really fast and loose with Aristotle’s concepts, so much so that it appears to be completely separate from his philosophy. You claim that Christ, First Substance (an individual entity), Second Substance (containing the properties which define the entity as Christ), and all physical properties, become physically present (existent in our physical universe of space, time, and matter). But none of this can be detected in the physical universe of space, time, and matter.
At this point, I’m not even really arguing from a position of science vs. philosphy. I don’t see how Aristole’s original philosopy even maps to the claims of the Eucharist.
But setting the similie aside, the original process appears to lack both understanding and process. You have a number of disparate claims which must be met, and an attempt at a mental framework to unite them, but upon closer examination the mental framework is not logically consistent nor based on anything. It exists in and of itself, completely separate from other philosophies, because it is designed to explain a single concept and not be applicable or logically self-consistent outside of that very narrow problem space.
Which ultimately makes it very subjective. You have to believe it for it to be true, and it is unverifyable.
On this I would largely agree, exempting the terms “powers” and “ultimate particles” as we have not established their meanings yet in this conversation.
Replace the word “happens in” with “exists in” and I’ll agree here as well.
Agreed. I appreciate your engagement in this discussion, as well as that of others in this thread. It continues to be enlightening.
Hello JThomas,This defintion seems to be playing really fast and loose with Aristotle’s concepts, so much so that it appears to be completely separate from his philosophy. You claim that Christ, First Substance (an individual entity), Second Substance (containing the properties which define the entity as Christ), and all physical properties, become physically present (existent in our physical universe of space, time, and matter). But none of this can be detected in the physical universe of space, time, and matter.
The Bread, which has a First Substance (an entity exhibiting the properties of wheat grain pressed into a disk), and a Second Substance of “bread” (that which is made of wheat flour) is now no longer existant in the physical universe of space, time, and matter, but is replaced by the above different object? And the properties of the Bread, which arise from the Form and Material which make up its First Substance, are transfered to the above object, even though the Form doesn’t change and the Material doesn’t appear to change, because the properties don’t really become part of the above object because it contains its own properties which are present, physically, but not really because they don’t affect the physical universe? Is there any example outside of religion where a property of substance doesn’t actually manifest, but is still considered to derive from that substance?
Even lacking physical evidence, the above doesn’t make sense logically unless you throw out Aristotle’s work and start with your own philosophy cut from whole cloth and devoid of any ties to the physical world. At that point you can make up anything, claim anything, and not be proven wrong because you own the problem space, definition, and interpretation of the philosophy. Just don’t try to claim that it is based on Aristotle’s work or that it can be explained within Aristotle’s framework.
At this point, I’m not even really arguing from a position of science vs. philosphy. I don’t see how Aristole’s original philosopy even maps to the claims of the Eucharist.
But setting the similie aside, the original process appears to lack both understanding and process. You have a number of disparate claims which must be met, and an attempt at a mental framework to unite them, but upon closer examination the mental framework is not logically consistent nor based on anything. It exists in and of itself, completely separate from other philosophies, because it is designed to explain a single concept and not be applicable or logically self-consistent outside of that very narrow problem space.
Which ultimately makes it very subjective. You have to believe it for it to be true, and it is unverifyable.
On this I would largely agree, exempting the terms “powers” and “ultimate particles” as we have not established their meanings yet in this conversation.
Replace the word “happens in” with “exists in” and I’ll agree here as well.
Agreed. I appreciate your engagement in this discussion, as well as that of others in this thread. It continues to be enlightening.
JT
Yes. But a miracle, by definition, violates all rules of nature - and of philosophy too.
Not quite sure what you art saying here. Let me explain it again. Every created being has a nature or essence formed of what Aristotle and Thomas call signed or signate matter and a substantial form. This composit is called Second Substance and from it flow all the properties, powers, physicalities, identifying marks. etc. of the object they both call First Substance. First Substance, considered in itself, has no form other than the numerous accidental forms, the properties, powers, etc. just mentioned. First Substance, or we should say, the assortment accidental forms of this being inheres in the Second Substance but primarily in the Substantial Form. There is no overarching " thing " called First Substance. Aristotle and Thomas both used it and, after them, many of those who followed. It is simply a way to corral all those accidental forms just mentioned. Actually, there is no such thing as First Substance. It is a tool used for convenience. This man, Socrates, is a Substance, but you do not see the Substance, you see the collection of accidental forms of the accidents. Nor do you see his Substantial Form, his soul, you see its manifestations.
We don’t claim that Transubstantiation reflects Aristotle’s work, only that we have used his terms to explain what is happening, not how it happens. We do not claim it ** proves** anything, we never have. A miracle cannot be proven, it is something beyond any proof. The proof is that God, who created and guides the universe has done something that cannot be proven or adequately explained. It happens because God decided to do it.
I could argue a little with this statment but the Church simply searched for a way to explain what happens, not how it happens. And you are correct, there is no other exact example. Although, if you examine all the miracles worked by Christ and the Apostles and some of the other Dogmas of the Church, you will find many things which excape natural and/or scientific explanation. And miracles have been happening even until this moment. Again, I remind you that God, who created the universe, including man, and guides it to its proper end is perfectly able to act beyond the powers of nature.
Unverifiable, not subjective. God is the epitome of objectivity. It is subjective only from our human perspective.
Yes it is supernatural but we also believe that the bread literally AND physically changes. I can see your explanation sufficing for the soul, for example, because the soul is immaterial and strictly spiritual. You do realize that Catholicism teaches the bread and wine physically and literally change, not just spiritually? If something undergoes a physical change, it should by definition, be able to be explained physically as well. Not that I doubt the word of God, but anyone can claim anything in any philosophy and there has to be a reasonable way, objectively, to separate truth from falsehood.
That seems inconsistent. The accidents as far as appearance, feel, taste, weight may remain, but calorically, if it is literally not bread and wine, then that nutritional information should change while remaining under the illusion of bread and wine. We are saying it is literally Christs flesh, not figuratively or simply spiritually.
You can’t just have a container of “calories”. Calories do not exist on their own; they exist in something. Thus they are “accidents” that subsist in a “substance” (per your example, the Communion bread that contained 5 calories).
St. John Chrysostom from Antioch is absolutely right !
Actually, they transform ordinary bread into living flesh – into our Living Lord Jesus.- His living body, blood, soul and divinity.
