Transubstantiation is justified by the fact that materials are
accidental properties of a particular thing. The
substance is the body and blood of Christ, the materials and the form of bread and wine are *accidental *properties. This is why we use the word “host”, because the accidental form of bread and wine is the percieved form which the substantial presence inhabits.
John, just to pick a topic, because as you correctly noted, it is no simple task to take on the full gambit of beliefs with precision in this kind of setting. OK… transubstantiation:
- If one is justified in believing something on faith, does that mean you can accept concepts which are non-sensical? If the answer to this question is, in your mind, “yes” then I can go no further because my arguments are all based on the precept that “things must make sense in order to be believed”.
No, we cannot accept things that are non-sensical. That is, if they contradict logic, because God does not contradict Himself.
- If, therefore you agree that “things must make sense to be believed” then you must agree that even if some authority (your favorite and most learned college professor, for example) said that a square is really a circle, or,any other set of contradictory pairings, then you would have to be intellectually honest enough to say that the statement makes no sense–ie it is, in fact, nonsense.
Again, we agree. They must not contradict logic. They can contradict every-day experience, but not logic.
- So what is bread? Is it not a combination of types of atoms? Is it not so that the atomic composition of bread differs from that of human flesh? If you continue to agree with me, then if we call bread “Atomic composition X” and we call human flesh “Atomic composition Y”, then can we really (I mean really, John) say that X equals Y? Well, I guess we can say it, but, it doesn’t make any more sense than saying that squareness is roundness. There is another problem too with transubstantiation and that is you claim that any “Atomic combination X” equals the same identical “Atomic composition Y” belonging to one specific human, namely Jesus Christ. Hence you say that not only can one generic thing be the same thing as another generic thing, but that the one generic combination of atoms can be, not only entirely different atoms, but, also the specfic atoms which comprised the DNA of a specific person.
This is where we disagree. A substance is not identical with its matter. Perfect example: a person is not identical with his matter, otherwise you would have to say that when you are 55, you are literally a completely different person than when you were 2 years old, since our matter is literally replaced a few times throughout our lives. By your logic, if you were “atomic combination X” at 2 years old and “atomic combination y” at 55, then can we really (and I mean really, Jack
) claim that X equals Y?
By your logic, the answer is no. But you know the answer is yes. You were WmJackP when you were 5, and you will be WmJackP when you are 85. Otherwise, by your logic, you could not say “When I was two, I learned to talk”. You could only say “When this person in the picture was two, he learned to talk,” because the atomic composition of yourself was completely different from your current one. You would also conclude absurd things, like that at this point you are about 50% of who you were when you were an infant. *This *is the truly and patently absurd position. What makes you a single person throughout your life is your substance, which is not identical with atomic composition.
- I hope you continue to agree with me, John when I say that is quite a string of words; and, what I want to know is does that even make sense?
This is more than just a problem with faith. Much more than a problem with accepting a proposition on the word of another because one lacks sufficient information of his own to make a judgment; this is a problem will the willingness to entertain Orwellian doublethink and to accept it as truth.
Nope. It’s not illogical. Atomism is much more absurd, as can be seen by the conclusions you must draw from it. Moreover, your position is quite honestly not ground-breaking or new. It is ‘in essentia’ the same position as good ol’ Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius. While atomism is a good way to explain certain things in science, it by no means provides a comprehensive or complete picture.
- Your comments on “accidents”, John, I am afraid, is simply dated. I am familiar with Thomistic philosophy and, I’m OK with the contributions Plato and other Greek philosophers made to the formation of an interesting dialog, later picked up by Thomas, and turned into a perplexing weltanschaluung. All of this was excellent assistance in developing thought and analytical reasoning—but, John, that was several centuries ago. It was before Leeuwenhook, Mendeleev, before the quantum and the systematic study of matter. I would hate to think that in the 21st century, you were defending transubstantiation on no firmer basis than 12th century analysis.
Substance theory is just as valid today as ever. Your position is really no different than ancient atomism, which was quite available in Aristotle’s day (and many years before him). In fact, he criticizes it in his books. You haven’t provided any new arguments. If anything, your position is the one that is simply dated. Many Quantum physicists like the great Heisenberg or Niels Bohr would say you are completely wrong, and would come to conclusions more similar to ours, in terms of substance theory that is (see Heisenberg’s “Physics and Philosophy”). Best regards.
