I would have to disagree with your last sentence here. The Church teaches the Eucharist literally, objectively becomes Christ’s flesh, whether one believes or not, whether one is even Catholic or not. Something objective must be, and should be able to be, explained and demonstrated objectively, not subjectively (Catholic philosophy).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.
Usagi
If looking at things from a biological perspective, the sun releases energy through fission reaction and this energy is collected by plants during photosynthesis and stored by combining atoms together. The plants are consumed, and when the atoms are broken apart via digestion, this stored solar energy is released for the body’s cels to utilize. The lifespan of a living entity depends on this transfer of energy, but isn’t necessarily proportional to it.Here are two means that I describe transubstantiation, plus one physical evidence of transubstantiation:
- 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.
But the Eucharist itself doesn’t look like God, communicate any message, or do any physical actions. It appears to be bread and wine before, and appears to be bread and wine after. There are no objective changes, so the duck analogy doesn’t actually apply here.
- 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.
I haven’t needed to look into those claims, since the central focus of Mass is the Eucharistic ceremony in which Transubstantiation is purported to occur at every Mass, hundreds of thousands of times per day across the world. Whether or not there is any truth to those Eucharistic Miracles does not affect the topic of Transubstantiation at every Mass.
- Have you considered any of the Eucharistic Miracles, such as the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires?
Explaining my existence in a material, literal way is easy.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.
No, the accidents are not separated or absent – but they are present in a different way which Aquinas calls “concommitance”. I spoke of this in my previous Post #31. Here is a quote from that post: 3) But Jesus is present whole and entire in the consecrated host which means therefore that the accidents of His body must also be there since they inhere in it’s substance. They are obviously not present in the manner of physical species. Aquinas terms the manner in which they are present as “concommitance”. (Concommitance is also the manner in which Our Lord’s soul, divinity, and blood are also present in the consecrated bread.)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?
You know, there’s no way we can fully understand it.…Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ’s body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament…
newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article1
Okay, perhaps to better phrase my understanding, please consider the following: I observe that a natural human lifespan is dependent upon energy gained from other sources because once a human has absolutely zero energy, s/he will die (ie. starvation). Therefore, if I want to live forever, I must find a way to gain infinite energy. Since the only possible source of infinite energy is God, I consider is there a way to gain the energy of God, and fortunately for me, the Catholic Church shares the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is God!If looking at things from a biological perspective, the sun releases energy through fission reaction and this energy is collected by plants during photosynthesis and stored by combining atoms together. The plants are consumed, and when the atoms are broken apart via digestion, this stored solar energy is released for the body’s cels to utilize. The lifespan of a living entity depends on this transfer of energy, but isn’t necessarily proportional to it.
The Church in purposeful wisdom does not need to complicate the Truth with scientific explanation.Furthermore Catholic ideology doesn’t teach that eternal life is achieved through some sort of energy transfer, nor are any biological processes part of the afterlife as understood by the Church. So this explanation doesn’t seem in line with the Catholic perspective.
I encourage you to pay closer attention for here are some of the discoveries I notice:But the Eucharist itself doesn’t look like God, communicate any message, or do any physical actions. It appears to be bread and wine before, and appears to be bread and wine after. There are no objective changes, so the duck analogy doesn’t actually apply here.
Understandable.I haven’t needed to look into those claims, since the central focus of Mass is the Eucharistic ceremony in which Transubstantiation is purported to occur at every Mass, hundreds of thousands of times per day across the world. Whether or not there is any truth to those Eucharistic Miracles does not affect the topic of Transubstantiation at every Mass.
I’m not sure how that has anything to do with my last sentence. I’ll try to address it anyway, though.I would have to disagree with your last sentence here. The Church teaches the Eucharist literally, objectively becomes Christ’s flesh, whether one believes or not, whether one is even Catholic or not. Something objective must be, and should be able to be, explained and demonstrated objectively, not subjectively (Catholic philosophy).
Thanks for responding. The last paragraph was particularly helpful.No, the accidents are not separated or absent – but they are present in a different way which Aquinas calls “concommitance”. I spoke of this in my previous Post #31. Here is a quote from that post: 3) But Jesus is present whole and entire in the consecrated host which means therefore that the accidents of His body must also be there since they inhere in it’s substance. They are obviously not present in the manner of physical species. Aquinas terms the manner in which they are present as “concommitance”. (Concommitance is also the manner in which Our Lord’s soul, divinity, and blood are also present in the consecrated bread.)
Here is a quote from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and a link to it.
You know, there’s no way we can fully understand it.
Perhaps it would help to think of the accidents as present without manifesting themselves physically; ----- they are present with the capacity/capability (similar to “potency” as used by Aquinas elsewhere) of doing so, but God miraculously withholds them from being made physically manifest. His choosing to do this is a great gift to us. If the accidents were manifested in the ordinary way, we would not be able to receive Him right within us whole and entire - body, blood, soul and divinity - in Holy Communion.
So the claim is that the normal operations of the universe are altered and these alterations persist after the event, but this change cannot be perceived since the normal operations do not appear to be altered and cannot be detected in any way to have been altered. Correct? How is this objectively different from the case where no alteration has taken place?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.
Which therefore is, by definition, “subjective”.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.
You are going to have to define “real” and “objective” here, since we aren’t using “real” in the sense of “physically existent”, and you’ve already argued above for the position of “subjective” instead of “objective”.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.
Your example of a soul is not a problem for me, because we literally but spiritually have a soul, so of course theres no material proof of something that isnt material.I’m not sure how that has anything to do with my last sentence. I’ll try to address it anyway, though.
We also believe that humans objectively and literally have immaterial souls, and that Jesus is objectively and literally God. Neither of those things can be demonstrated empirically, either. Analyze me down to the atomic level and you won’t find a soul. Run all the tests you want on Jesus’ earthly body (well, okay, that’s mostly unavailable now, but imagine that you could) and you won’t detect God. I reject your premise that an objectively true thing must be objectively demonstrable. Certainly it lacks persuasive value if it’s not, but that was my whole point in saying that Transubstantiation is not evidence that points toward Catholicism but truth you accept after concluding that Catholicism is true.
Usagi
You keep insisting on this but it is not so. All it needs is for God to reveal it to us. All it needs is for God to say, “It is so” and it is. That is what the Eucharists is. God has said that it is his body and so it is. No other explanation is required.Something that is objective and physical, needs an objective and physical explanation, not an absract one.
I was hoping it would be a point of contact in what is Real - in the Truth that transcends, and melts away all explanations.Explaining my existence in a material, literal way is easy.
A material sperm fertilizes a material egg, forming a material being.
Thats all consistent and can be explained as easy as that.
But saying something is literal and material and then explaining it in abstract terms seems inconsistent.
Your last paragraph has the two kinds of substance reversed. Second Substance is the collection of visible and measureable parts and underlying ultimate particles organized into a specifice structure and having specific powers and habits. Second Substance inheres in First Substance. First Substance is a concept only as considered as the general idea the intellect has of a particular essence. It is instantiated in specific entities, but imperfectly, as individualized by the particular matter and particular form which are its principles or causes. It is real and not a concept when instantiated in a substance.The First Substance according to Aristotle is a specific individual physical entity. For example, a particular book…( space )…
So how is the Second Substance anything other than an abstract categorization?..?
You have the two substances reversed. And no, First Substance is not just abstract, as I explained above.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?
" Veil " is just a similie, a metaphore to describe what happens. Christ is where the accidents are, but he is not a part of them, nor they of him. They are merely a Sign of his presence.And what exactly do you mean by a veil? …( space )…?
It requires Faith in Christ’s own Word as interpreted by the Church who has been promised by Christ to be infallible in matters of Faith and Morals.So if a miracle…how does one reliably distinguish between a miracle and a falsehood?
The Church’s teaching in the matter requires Faith, I don’t dispute that. The Church merely uses Aristotelian philosophy, as interpreted by Thomas Aquinas to describe what is happening in this one instance. I would argue however that Aristotle would argue validly that all the accidents and their powers and properties are sourced in the matter and form of the First Substance. In other words the way ultimate particles behave is determined by the form of the first substance from which they are derived. In other words, whatever happens in second substance is determined by the first substance.And just so we’re clear…( space )…
Hello thorns,Your example of a soul is not a problem for me, because we literally but spiritually have a soul, so of course theres no material proof of something that isnt material.
The Eucharist is not just spiritually literal, but physically and materially and objectively material. This is where the difficulty is.
Something that is objective and physical, needs an objective and physical explanation, not an absract one.
Hello Linus,Your last paragraph has the two kinds of substance reversed. Second Substance is the collection of visible and measureable parts and underlying ultimate particles organized into a specifice structure and having specific powers and habits. Second Substance inheres in First Substance. First Substance is a concept only as considered as the general idea the intellect has of a particular essence. It is instantiated in specific entities, but imperfectly, as individualized by the particular matter and particular form which are its principles or causes. It is real and not a concept when instantiated in a substance.
You have to keep in mind that the entire second substance is one large collection of accidents. You can say the entire second substance is an accident. The underlying form and matter could have any number of accidents, as expressed in second substance. Or, the second substance by comprised of quite a wide variety accidents. Of course that is to be understood as variety within defined limits, which do not pass beyond the possibilities of a given form.
Everything which exists has a First and Second Substance, except God, considered in His Essence.
The examples of first and second substance are as varied and numerous as things which acutally exist ( every substance must actually exist, have an act of existence. ). Of course it is undestood that ultimate particles would be open to dispute, even among scientists. But the essential point is our concern.It is the real underlying form of any first substance that determines the accidents and variety accidents comprising second substance. Each man has the form, man, but as limited by the matter which recieves it. But each form has generic, specific, and differentia as determined by God and other factors ( inherited genes, etc. ).
When the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, the entire substnace of Christ, the first substance and the second substance, comprising the totality of his accidents becomes present. But only the accidents of the bread and wine remain, but they have no first substance in which they exist ( this is a miracle). So Christ is physically present in his totality, but he is not a part of the accidents of bread and wine, nor are they part of him. One can say he accompanies the bread and wine wherever they are, they provide a vehicle for his presence. They serve as a Sign of his presence. And when the accidents are dissolved or are absorbed by the body through digestion, Christ is no longer physically present.
Your point about the accidents of the bread and wine being real substances is correct, but remember that they are second substances, a collection of organized accidents. But in this instance they are present by a miracle. Because in nature accidents always exist in an underlying first substance, they never exist alone. They look like bread and wine, and pass all the criteria for real things. But, in this case only, they are simply accidents.
Now this is not an argument between science and the Church. I have no problem and the Church has no problem with science calling the bread and wine, after the Consecration, real substances in the proper sense. But the Church would say, in this one instance science is wong. But to see that one must have Faith. As long as science doesn’t stray into the province of Faith and say the Church is wrong and make a big deal of the difference and use that as an excuse to ridicule the Church, I have no problem with what science teaches. In fact it should not come up in any scientific discussion. It is really only Catholic scientists or purely Aristotelian philosophers who might raise the issue - and of course atheists and agnostics and others who might be looking for an excuse to make a fuss. But gentlemen allow room for Faith.
Deep stuff, hey! Thank you for your interest.
Linus2nd
Ok, so let’s say I can get past the hurdle of the accidents remaining while all of the substance is converted into Christ’s flesh.How is this so? As Aristotle says, the first accident of a material substance is quantity or extension, i.e, quantity extends a material substance into parts and three dimensional space. Now quantity is an accidental form and what underlies quantity is matter which is a constituent part of a substance. So after the consecration, the quantity and the other material accidents which are founded upon quantity remain by divine power of the bread and wine which is obvious to our senses but they remain without matter to inhere in because the matter of the bread and wine has been converted to the body and blood of Christ. The entire quantity of Christ’s body and blood exist in the eucharist but by divine power it is unextended in three dimensional space. Aquinas teaches that the power of the sacrament of the eucharist terminates at the substance of Christ’s body and blood which includes his entire body and all its parts and blood but it is unextended in three dimensional space. For as I have said, quantity or extension is the first accident of a material substance. By divine power, the entire quantity of Christ’s body exist after the manner of substance which is to be unextended and to be whole in the whole and whole in every part.
Those 5 calories are the “accidents” of that piece of bread. The accidents of that bread remain.…So if a piece of Communion bread had 5 calories before the consecration, right after the priest converts it, it loses those 5 calories because it’s not longer bread (even though it just looks like bread)?
In Part III, Q. 77, Art. 6, Aquinas answers in the affirmative that the sacramental species, i.e, the accidents of the bread and wine which remain after the consecration can nourish for one can presumably live off eating and drinking the eucharist. Though it is proper for matter to nourish, Aquinas says that God miraculouly bestows on the quantity of the bread and wine to take the place of matter and substance and thus the accidents of the bread and wine can be converted to human flesh, substance and matter.Ok, so let’s say I can get past the hurdle of the accidents remaining while all of the substance is converted into Christ’s flesh.
Before the priest consecrates the Bread and Wine, these things are simply Bread and Wine. Bread and Wine contain calories. The minute the priest consecrates these things and they are no longer Bread and Wine (it seems to be everyone is arguing that these things are almost as if an illusion and not Bread and Wine at this point - that’s just what we’re seeing) and becomes Christ’s flesh in an objective, literal, physical way. Would that therefore mean that the Bread and Wine that have been transubstantiated, lose all of their nutritional and caloric values and change into the values that are Christ’s flesh?
So if a piece of Communion bread had 5 calories before the consecration, right after the priest converts it, it loses those 5 calories because it’s not longer bread (even though it just looks like bread)?
You are correct, I always get them mixed up because it is the Second Substance which is logically most basic ( therefore, my mind always says 1st.)The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a short, clear definition of first and second substance. …The fact is, the individual substance (first substance) of our sense experience–this book, this table, this house–has certain individuating qualities (its particular size, shape, colour, etc.) which distinguish it from others of its species and which alone are perceived by the senses. But in the same substance, there is underlying the individuating qualities, its general nature (whereby it is a book, a table, a house); this is the second substance, the Essence, the Universal, the Intelligible. …
newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm
An example from another website:
" Socrates (= first substance) is a human (= second substance)."
metafysica.nl/subenac.html
Yes, Nita has already corrected me. I always get them confused because, in my mind I consider the underlying form, " man, " to be more important, logically. So my mind always says the underlying Substance, should be 1st and not 2nd.Hello Linus,
I do not believe your distinction between first and second substance is accurate. Aquinas, following Aristotle, says that substance is twofold. In one sense, it means the quiddity, essence or nature of a thing, signified by its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the substance of a thing (cf. ST Pt.1, Q.29, Art. 2). This is second substance which corresponds to the essences or natures of things and to which belongs the universals such as humanity, dogs, cats, etc. Now what does not belong to the essence or nature of a thing is an accident. So second substance does not comprise the totality of accidents of a thing but is actually distinct from the accidents. For Socrates and Plato are both human beings which is their essence but one may be 5 feet tall and the other 6 feet tall.
In another sense, substance means a subject or suppositum or individual substance which subsists in the genus of substance. Individual men, dogs or cats are first substances. Taken in this sense, substance substands or underlies the accidents or as it underlies some common nature, it is called a thing of nature, or as it exists in itself and not in another it is called subsistence.
In either sense, substance is distinct from the accidents.