M
Marybeloved
Guest
But all this sounds as if there is absolutely nothing wrong or even worthy of criticism with the Latin definition of transubstantiation! Could pretty much have been written by a Catholic!
- Status
I know.But all this sounds as if there is absolutely nothing wrong or even worthy of criticism with the Latin definition of transubstantiation! Could pretty much have been written by a Catholic!
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
This decree never contradicts the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. This decree reveals it is in agreement with transubstantiation long after the Catholic Church defined transubstantiation.
**I agree with the decree when it reveals the telling factor of the negative dispositions of persons who try and define transubstantiation as explaining or defining how the change occurs, when transubstantiation agrees with the decree when it defines the change here “there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread”.
Which is exactly what transubstantiation defines that the change took place, and never defines how the change takes place.**
I agree with Jon and Marybeloved it is silly to deny or try and refute the change described by transubstantiation or the faith thereof.
**What the decree announces is the disposition of those who are ignorant to the definition of transubstantiation by imagining that transubstantiation explains “how” the change occurs when it never does. **"Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety,
If one reads this decree with the correct understanding of transubstantiation it never contradicts nor refutes the Catholic position of transubstantiation.
If one reads this decree foolishly as refuting transubstantiation as imagining to explain how the change occurs is ignorant and is imagining things with impiety.
The decree itself defines transubstantiation when it teaches the change of bread and wine. If one reads this decree slowly. Like Marybeloved states; “Could pretty much have been written by a Catholic!”
I agree!
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I think the problem here is that you think if one does not use transubstantiation to explain the change, then one rejects it. Its not about accepting or rejecting transubstantiation as a philosophical concept on the change that occurs in the Eucharist. People have different ways of understanding and explaining. The East never used transubstantiation consistently (meaning I do not deny that some may have adopted it but not as a universal teaching) but still hold true to the faith. So don’t act like people cannot believe in the Real Presence without the use of transubstantiation to explain it. It has happened and is happening. Some people are just comfortable with letting things remain in mystery. Its how we spiritually experience a God whose fullness is beyond our comprehension. If you read John 6, Jesus never used transubstantiation to explain the Eucharist.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I think you miss the whole point of the discussion and the decree introduced here. My position is not what I think. My position is addressing those Orthodox posters and others who reject transubstantiation as trying to define the mystery of the Change from their imaginations that misunderstands the meaning of transubstantiation.
I believe if one does not accept transubstantiation need not reject or refute its definition as describing that a change has occured. Anything apart from this reality of transubstantiation comes from ones imagination with impiety.
I believe if one incorrectily applies a philosophical concept change to the Bread and the wine is another incorrect definition of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation reveals a real and substancial change to a substance while the accidents remain.
This is not a philosophical concept when applied to the Eucharist. This is where the imagination leaves the reality of those who try and redifine the change as philosophically explaining how the change occurs which is a false presumption. To think of it as a philosophical concept attacks the reality of the change of substance by our Catholic faith.
Those who reject transubstantiation do so under a false pretense to define something other than what transubstantiation reveals a change of substance.
The East used “change of being” which I cannot hold to, because I could never accept the bread as a being to change into another. The West uses “change of substance” = transubstantiation, which describes the change of the substance of bread and wine into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.
Some Eastern Church’s used trans-mutation, transformation which is easily defeated by secularism and science, because neither of these definitions used in the Eastern Church’s never reveal an outer change as they defiine. Transubstantiation removes all doubt here from all the different “changes” the Eastern Church’s tried to use to define a “substantial” change to the bread and wine.
I never doubt anyone’s faith in the Real Presence. I am only addressing those who refute my Catholic understanding of the Real Presence from a substantial change of the species of bread and wine, into the body and blood of Jesus Christ with an incorrect understanding and imagining something other than what transubstantiation defines.
.
Jesus revealed the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, yet Jesus never used the word “Trinity” to describe this reality.
The Church defined “Trinity” to help the faithful grow and understand more the mysteries of our faith. The Church defined “Transubstantiation” to help the faithful grow and understand the mysteries of our faith in the Real Presence “if”? one doubts the change, transubstantiation helps the faithful “Discern” the Real Presence of Jesus body and blood.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Gabriel, you seem to misunderstand the relationship between substance and being. A change in substance is a change in the being of something: the two statements are equivalent, except that calling it a change in being just avoids all of the Greek and Scholastic philosophy which is meaningless to your average person today. For example, if one were to take a cat and dye its hair pink or declaw (not that anybody should ever do this to a cat) it, the cat, despite having a change in accidents, would not have a change in substance (that is a change in its actual being). The opposite would be true of transubstantiation, where the bread and wine retain the accidents of bread and wine but not the substance after the change. This is exactly equivalent to saying that a change in being has occurred without a change in the physical traits of the bread and wine.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I am no Greek scholar, but Meta-ousis is describing a “change of being” that would include the outer substance to change its whole being into a “ousis” person, which is not revealed in the confected species.
I am confused by your definition of transubstantiation as “bread and wine retain the accidents of bread and wine but not the substance after the change”.
This is never transubstantiation. Because the accidents of bread and wine remain “ONLY” to our senses but the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but your definition reveals bread and wine co-existing with the body and blood of Jesus when **you include the accidents of bread and wine are “RETAINED”? **Transubstantiation reveals the accidents remain only to our senses and that the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body and blood.
It’s amazing if one word is added or excluded changes the whole meaning of the definition of trransubstantiation.
I am sorry but I can never hold to a change in being has occurred “WITHOUT A CHANGE IN PHYSICAL TRAITS OF BREAD AND WINE”. Your definition would never meet our ECF’s teachings and could never meet the scrutiny of the Catholic Church, because you have the physical traits of bread and wine not changing.
When my Catholic faith expresses a whole change of the substance and the accidents remain only to our senses, but these have taken on the change.
Where your “change of being” leaves off, my Catholic faith expresses a far superior reality of the change that exceeds both your “change of being” and the “Change of substance”
Here; “After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power” (abridge Catholic definition John A. Hardon, S.J pg 439)
This “Change of being” I admit have only looked into it from the surface, may be describing something from a Greek mindset that defines as you reveal here. A source from you might be inorder for any inquiry. I do not refute Meta-ousis, because at the time it was probably the best definition of the time and I am limited to my understanding of the Greek mindset to the definition of “change of being” other than what you have expressed it to be.
I believe communication is the key to our misunderstandings without resistance
.Peace be with you
M
Marybeloved
Guest
@ Gabriel,
I do have to agree that I also cannot follow what you mean when you say that the bread is not a being and there’s no change in being and that transubstantiation is not change in substance but not accidents?..That’s exactly what it is!
And all things that exist (including bread) have being or they would not exist That’s what being is- it comes from the verb- to be- something that is real. The change of being must only refer to the reality of the Eucharist being not what it seems (bread and wine) but Christ himself. Transubstantiation says change of substance (the reality of the thing) while mysteriously retaining the accidents.
So I confess to being confused here about what you’re saying exactly.
I do have to agree that I also cannot follow what you mean when you say that the bread is not a being and there’s no change in being and that transubstantiation is not change in substance but not accidents?..That’s exactly what it is!
And all things that exist (including bread) have being or they would not exist
That’s what being is- it comes from the verb- to be- something that is real. The change of being must only refer to the reality of the Eucharist being not what it seems (bread and wine) but Christ himself. Transubstantiation says change of substance (the reality of the thing) while mysteriously retaining the accidents.So I confess to being confused here about what you’re saying exactly.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Because Meta-ousis is describing a “living being” which is correct as far as the Real Presence is concerned. But Meta-ousis for me falls short of defining or including the bread and wine as to be part of the “being”. If Greek philosophy describes “being” as substance then we have no disagreement. Yet “ousis” is describing a change which includes a “living being”, when bread and wine are not living beings, unless Greek philosophy translates bread and wine as containing “ousis” to mean substance.
Again, I am not making the claim to fully understanding this “meta-ousis” from a Greek philosophical mindset. If being is describing “something real” and not a living being which on the surface translates a “change of being”. Meta-ousis does not fully define the substantial change but that only a “change of being” exists.
And all things that exist (including bread) have being or they would not exist
Under your definition of “being” I agree with you. When I read “ousis” it translates a real living being to me and does not include the “substance” or your definition of being as bread and wine, this is where I think it falls short for me, because it is only describing “a change into a living being” when applied to the Eucharist.
Without causing any more confusion of transubstantiation the word the church uses to describe the change of accidents is “the accidents of bread and wine “remain” these only to our senses”. The accidents are never retained as bread and wine from their substance of bread and wine.
Transubstantiation is defining the accidents which remain “appear to our senses as bread and wine” but the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
This definition of transubstantiation clearly supports Jesus Words from John 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.*
The Church’s definition of transubstantiation reveals that to our “flesh” senses “is of no avail”, but to our eternal souls of being and eternal reality the bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Even though our senses may see and taste “what appears to be” bread and wine “by accidents”, to our flesh these are of no avail, because it is the spirit that gives them life.
Peace be with you
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I still think that you seem to be misunderstanding what the difference between substance and accidents is. Substance, from the Greek ousia is literally that which subsists in itself and has not its subsistence in another (according to St. John of Damascus, who was likely deriving this definition from Aristotle). In plain English, this would mean that a substance is a thing-in-itself, which is distinct from its accidents or properties. This thing-in-itself is a property-bearer (we would not properly say that being is a property of something) in that the accidents (properties) are, for lack of a better English word, attached on to this substance (if I recall, in proper Aristotelian terms, one would say that the accidents inhere in the substance, and the substance participates in the accidents).
As an example, let us use bread: the bread is bread because its substance is that of bread, while we perceive it as bread because it participates in the accidents which we associate with bread. In transubstantiation then, the accidents (properties) of the bread and wine remain, while the underlying substance—that which makes the bread be bread and the wine be wine—changes into the substance of Christ’s body and blood without any change in accidents: the accidents are very much still the accidents or properties of bread and wine, for if they weren’t, the consecrated bread and wine would no longer look and taste like bread and wine.
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
This is not what the Church teaches. In fact it is counter to what the Church teaches. The transfiguration of the bread and wine is not a spiritual one but a REAL one. It is flesh and blood that we consume…not some animated spiritual something that we cannot being to imagine.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Thank you for your attempt at explaining this but it is far from Catholic teaching because you appear to still have the accidents that make up the bread still retained in the Eucharist from the substance of bread and wine.
You are forcing an Aristotle scientific explanation from transubstantiation that is not defined from the Eucharistic standpoint, When the substance has taken on a change by transubstantiation, the Church uses the terminology of substance and accidents but defines them in spiritual terms describing spiritual realities. As I stated before the Catholic Church’s faith far supersedes any “change of being” or “Change of substance”, because our Catholic faith takes off where transubstantiation leaves off. Please allow me to clarify the difference here.
Aristotle language describes the world as composed by “substance” and “accident”.
Substance is that which identified a thing as what it was.
The materials that the substance was made from, color, the smell etc… Aristotle called “accidents”.
If you changed the accidents of the substance, color for example you enacted an “accidental” change but still retained the substance. But if you changed the “substance” so that it was no longer the substance, you have brought about a “substantial” change.
The Catholic Church uses the language of “substance” and "accidents" to reveal the Real Presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. She teaches the “accidents” remain the same, but the substance changed. And the following explanation the Church uses is what separates the sheep from the goats, "Thus, while the accidents of bread and wine remained e.g., it still looked like wine and tasted like wine- it was "NO LONGER WINE AT ALL. It was the blood of Christ.
I think you are trying to mix Aristotle’s scientific method with faith. When Aristotle’s scientific method describes two types of changes “substance change and accidental change”.
Our Catholic faith teaches that a substantial change has occurred in the Eucharist. In other words the bread and wine have been destroyed taken on a new change. Although the accidents which made up the bread and wine before remain because to our senses, they look and taste like bread and wine, they are no longer bread and wine because the whole substance as changed by transubstantiation into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
If you can explain to me that you understand that the “accidents” of bread and wine remain only these to our senses, they are no longer bread and wine “AT ALL” but have “substantially changed” (by transubstantiation) into the body, blood of Jesus Christ. Then we have a correct understanding of the Church’s teaching of transubstantiation.
If you believe that the Church’s teaching of transubstantiation still has the “accidents” of bread and wine still existing as bread and wine from their substance of bread and wine and the accidents which make up bread and wine have not taken on change into the body, blood of Jesus Christ. Then you have an incorrect understanding of transubstantiation used by the Church.
According to your definition, you still have bread and wine existing by “accidents” from the substance of bread and wine. Which is Aristotle scientific explanation of matter taken on a change but still containing or retaining as you say the “Accidents” that make up the matter of the substance.
According to your misunderstanding the Church labels this heresy because you have the bread and wine by “accidents” retained from the substance of bread and wine Co-existing with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
You are mistaken, I do not have Aristotle’s science mixing with my Catholic faith. You appear to be mixing science with faith. After transubstantiation ends my Catholic faith goes further in faith which supersedes transubstantiation, because transubstantiation confirms a substance change. My faith believes although the “accidents” of bread and wine remain, they are no longer but the body and blood in the Eucharist of Jesus Christ.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Let us be clear here; I don’t know where you get “transfiguration” explaining the change of bread and wine, but that is not Catholic teaching. The Eucharist is both a real and substantial change of bread and wine into the Real presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity, and an eternal spiritual reality that is done “once and for all” eternally and made present in time in the “do this in rememberance of me”.
If you limit the Eucharist to just a Real one, it lends that the one sacrifice ends in that one Real One. The Eucharist is both a Real True presence and an eternal spiritual reality made present in every age in time until the end of time. To place the Eucharist as just a Real one is to limit Jesus to his “Flesh” and deny the resurrection which is the eternal spiritual reality. In other words we have both the “flesh” and the resurrection in the Eucharist. Our Catholic faith does not have one without the other. We have both the real presence of Jesus body, blood in the resurrected one which is eternally spirit, this is the incarnation realized in the fullness of Jesus Christ.
You should be informed that the Eucharist is summit of our Catholic faith and is revealed “Sacramentally”.
Do I believe that the Eucharist is the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ? I say “AMEN” every time I am in His presence.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I would like to clarify your direct statement; I stated the Church’s definition of transubstantiation “REVEALS”. "The Church’s definition of transubstantiation reveals that to our “flesh” senses “is of no avail”.
The Church never teaches that the “Spirit” is to ever be taken symbolically or metaphorically, which I think you might be misinterpreting my comments to the “Spirit” to mean. Spirit according to the Church is more real than you and I, because one example is you and I will return to dust, while the Spirit is eternal living.
If you think of “Spirit” as protestants interpret at times to mean “sybolically” or metaphorically" I assure you, this is not my belief and understanding of Spirit especially when applied to the Eucharist and Jesus Words to exactly mean “It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”.
I hope this helps explains our misunderstanding
Peace be with you
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The Catholic Church does not teach that the accidents change. If that happened, the bread would look and taste like flesh, and the wine would look and taste like blood. Substance describes the being of the consecrated gifts, while the accidents describe the appearance of them. I suspect that we are trying to say the same thing but that you are misunderstanding what I am saying.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
No because by transubstantiation they don’t take on the form of flesh and blood by carnal standards, only the accidents remain so that what we see and taste, the “accidents” looks and taste like bread and wine, but truly are the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
The accidents of bread and wine **remain only to our senses **nothing more be added to this definition of transubstantiation. " Thus while the accidents of bread and wine remained - it still looked like wine and tasted like wine - it was NO LONGER wine at all. It was the blood of Christ".
If you have the accidents of bread and wine remaining from the substance of bread and wine, you don’t have a transubstantial change to the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, you have a “consubstantial” change of the bread which is not a Catholic teaching of faith. Because you have the accidents retained as bread and wine co-existing with the body and blood of Jesus.
The Catholic Church does reveal a substantial change and an accidental change by transubstantiation. By transubstantiation the accidents of bread and wine remain these only to our senses, although the “accidents” of bread and wine remain these to our senses, they are no longer bread and wine, they are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church confirms that the substance of bread and wine have taken on a “substantial change” by transubstantiation because the “accidents” of bread and wine remain only to our senses, but truly are the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Thus the Catholic faith exceeds transubstantiation here.
What remains from the accidents upon transubstantiation is only by visible and taste to the senses to be from the accidents of bread and wine, but have transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
This same definition never contradicts nor conflicts with any of the Early Church Fathers attempts to explain this change. Because they all teach that a substantial Change occurs, although they **appear **to be bread and wine. Transubstantiation solves the definition the ECF’s were looking for.
I have no misunderstanding if you have any bread and wine co-existing with the body and blood is never Catholic teaching. IF you have the accidents of bread and wine remaining only to our senses, and are no longer bread and wine but truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ then we have an understanding of transubstantiation and the Catholic Teaching of the Real presence in the Eucharist.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The accidents remaining is not consubstantiation. Consubstantiation would be the substance of the bread and wine remaining after the consecration. Accidents do not denote the existence of the bread but only the physical properties of the bread remaining.
The Catholic encyclopedia for example says this on transubstantiation:
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3
Furthermore, the council of constance condemns as heresy Wycliffe’s teaching, “Accidentia panis non manent sine subjecto,” (the accidents of the bread do not remain without a subject). Trent similarly in canon II of session 13 states:
m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.vi.html
The fact that the Council of Constance condemns the teaching, “accidentia panis non manent sine subjecto,” as being heretical and that Trent states that transubstantiation occurs with, “manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini,” (the species only of the bread and wine remaining), should naturally lead one to the conclusion that the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter is that the accidents of the bread and wine do remain and that they do not inhere in any subject (that is, to state succinctly a negation of Wycliffe’s formula, accidentia panis et vini manent sine subjecta, the accidents of the bread and wine remain without a subject).
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
I think we are following Gabriel down one of those awkward Rabbit Holes…
Best to let this go.
M.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
IF you have the accidents of bread and wine still remaining bread and wine you have consubstantiation?. If the accidents of bread and wine contain the body, blood of Jesus Christ you have Transubstantiation which reveals only the body,blood of Jesus real presence, while only the accidents of bread and wine remain to our senses.
You are not refuting my commentary here because what I have commented never contradicts nor conflicts with the CCC, Catholic Encyclopedia, nor the council of Trent.
What you appear to have a problem with is “Transubstantiation” not my understanding of transubstantiation as defined by the Catholic Church relating to the Eucharist.
You have not proven that the accidents of bread and wine have transubstantiated, but remain as accidents of bread and wine from the substance of bread and wine.
You are forcing the accidents of bread and wine to remain as they are without transubstantiation. Which has only the “accidents” of bread and wine “BY APPEARANCE” not by bread and wine in themselves, because these are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
"It has been the constant, infallible teaching of the Church that in the Eucharist the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ are truly present, contained under the “appearances of bread and wine”. Rev. Gerard Weber and Rev. James Killgallon CCC for adults.
The council of Trent was totally innocent of physics, but had in mind a conversion process. The “susbstance” or nature of bread and wine is converted into the real presence of Christ’s body and blood. John R. Klopke, C.PP.S Peoples Catechism par. 253
What you are failing to understand about transubstantiation is that Christ body and blood are truly present in these species which we are calling “accidents”. CCC 1373 states "He is present… most especially in the Eucharistic “species”.
CCC 1374 states “…therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained”
It appears that you are forcing physics into this mystery from your own understanding of transubstantiation, because St. Ambrose defeats your analysis here; "Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed". St. Ambrose goes on…"Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature."
The CCC takes it home here in paragraph 1377…“Christ is present whole and entire in each of the “species” and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ”.
CCC 1378…“we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine”…
The consecrated species is what is left in the accidents of bread and wine, but are truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ. “Every part, particle, drop, odor of the Eucharist contains the true and real presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ”.
The “acccidents” only appear to be bread and wine to our senses, but they contain substantially the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
The species that remain after the consecration are real and truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The species of bread and wine after the consecration have transubstantiated into the body,blood of Jesus Christ, but the “accidents” of bread and wine in these “elements” or “species” remain bread and wine only to our senses, because the whole “species” says the CCC have transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, says Trent; (DS1640, 1651)
I believe the more we hammer away at this the more clearer it becomes. That is why I believe many theologians from Orthodoxy who have taken this road with Catholic theologians eventually came to accepting transubstantiation and or found that their is no need to refute transubstantiation after coming to the correct understanding of transubstantiation by the Catholic Church.
IF you have the accidents containing bread and wine, then you have no trasubstantiation and therefore you have no change to the bread and wine which results in no confected species that contain the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
I yeild for your response, if more clarification is needed
- Status