Problem with Transubstantiation

[SonCatcher]

PaulinePresbytr,

But, again, how do you integrate that with Luke 22?

VC

Good catch. The context in Luke clearly indicates a different cup.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt 26:29

This occurs after Christ tells the apostles to eat his body and drink his blood. This means, that unless you mean to imply that Christ’s blood was made of grapes, that the bread was still substantially bread. This does not mean that the bread did not take the substance of Christ, but it does mean that the substance of bread is still there.

No, the meaning of Transubstantiation has not changed. Christ may have been speaking metaphorically as is often done in the Scriptures. In other words, although it was His blood in the cup, it retained the appearances of wine, just as it does in Church after the Priest consecrates the wine and bread changing them into the blood and body of Our Lord.
So, when he refers to the contents of the cup as wine, he meant blood.

Or he may not have been thinking about the Sacrament just performed but but may just have been referring to their lives together in Heaven, when they would all be united once again. And since food and drink will not be needed there he may have meant " wine " as a symbol for the good things of Heaven which they would all enjoy together.

In any case, the words you cited do not have the meaning you implied, at least not for the Catholic Church.

The Douay Rhiems Catholic Bible, with Haydock footnotes gives a real good explanation of these words. Unfortunately the online version does not go into it that far.

Linus

 

[brb3]

Someone who is allergic to gluten will still experience wheat allergies after it becomes the Body of Christ. In the Mass, after the consecration, we say, “When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup…” It is a moot point to bring up Christ’s saying “fruit of the vine”.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” - St Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of the Apostle John), Epistle to Smyrnaeans, Ch 7

“…being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.” - St Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of the Apostle John), Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch 20

Note: St Ignatius of Antioch was ordained a bishop the year Sts Peter and Paul were martyred (AD 67). St Ignatius died a martyr about (c. AD 108) ten years after the Apostle John passed away.

Which, speaks of Consubstantiation …both physical & spiritual bread being received by the recipient. So, how are we to say/ understand that no physical bread remains ?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Which, speaks of Consubstantiation …both physical & spiritual bread being received by the recipient. So, how are we to say/ understand that no physical bread remains ?

All of the qualities of the bread remain, but they remain in what is actually the body of Christ. There are not two things there but one, and that one is the body of our lord.

 

[brb3]

All of the qualities of the bread remain, but they remain in what is actually the body of Christ. There are not two things there but one, and that one is the body of our lord.

So, they are encompassed by the invisible Real Presence of Christ ? Christ surrounds them, Christ infuses/infiltrates them ? Or otherwise?

 

[Rosinante]

"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt 26:29

This occurs after Christ tells the apostles to eat his body and drink his blood. This means, that unless you mean to imply that Christ’s blood was made of grapes, that the bread was still substantially bread. This does not mean that the bread did not take the substance of Christ, but it does mean that the substance of bread is still there.

Can you site any of the Church Fathers who interpretted that passage as the Calvinists do?

 

[Rosinante]

It is precisely this kind of misinterpretation that illustrates why we cannot depend on Scripture alone to understand our faith. It is Scripture together with Tradition handed down since the time of the Apostles and interpreted by the Holy Spirit speaking through the Magesterium (i.e. the successors of the Apostles).

Without all those elements, all kinds of errors are bound to creep in.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

So, they are encompassed by the invisible Real Presence of Christ ? Christ surrounds them, Christ infuses/infiltrates them ? Or otherwise?

I understand that it would be closer to say that Christ assumes them to himself for this instance. (Perhaps someone else here can explain the concept more clearly.)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I understand that it would be closer to say that Christ assumes them to himself for this instance. (Perhaps someone else here can explain the concept more clearly.)

Inego,

Actually, I’m under the impression that the teaching is more that the properties of the bread or wine inhere in nothing whatsoever. They don’t belong to Christ at all (since they aren’t his).

By analogy, perhaps, we could conceive of our sun being in an instant accelerated out of our solar system by some unknown force, and the planets continuing to orbit around where it once was for a bit until they “realized” there was no sun there to orbit around, i.e. the effects of gravity without a mass being the cause of the gravitational pull.

VC

 

[Nita]

The problem is not the wine taking on the substance of Christ, it is the wine losing the substance of wine

We don’t say the substance is lost or annihilated. Rather, the substance of the wine is converted into the substance of Our Lord’s blood.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
#1374 …, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a **substantial presence **by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present…

#1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion…
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM

 

[Aloysium]

i can understand why the host and wine retain their accidents
it would be unpalatable otherwise

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Inego,

Actually, I’m under the impression that the teaching is more that the properties of the bread or wine inhere in nothing whatsoever. They don’t belong to Christ at all (since they aren’t his).

By analogy, perhaps, we could conceive of our sun being in an instant accelerated out of our solar system by some unknown force, and the planets continuing to orbit around where it once was for a bit until they “realized” there was no sun there to orbit around, i.e. the effects of gravity without a mass being the cause of the gravitational pull.

VC

From my understanding of the definition of an accident i do not believe that what you describe is possible. Besides which the accidents are said to remain in the host, but if the host isn’t bread and is the Lord then they must exist in the Lord.

From Wikipedia(I don’t have my philosophy textbook handy)
Wikipedia on Properties(Philosophy):

The property may be considered a form of object in its own right, able to possess other properties. A property however differs from individual objects in that it may be instantiated, and often in more than one thing. It differs from the logical/mathematical concept of class by not having any concept of extensionality, and from the philosophical concept of class in that a property is considered to be distinct from the objects which possess it. Understanding how different individual entities (or particulars) can in some sense have some of the same properties is the basis of the problem of universals. The terms attribute and quality have similar meanings.

Wikipedia on Accidents(Philosophy):

Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood, metal, or plastic, but this is accidental relative to its being a chair. It is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.[2] To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.[3][4][5]
To take another example, all bachelors are unmarried: this is a necessary or essential property of what it means to be a bachelor. A particular bachelor may have brown hair, but this would be a property particular to that individual, and from the point of view of bachelorhood it would be an accidental property. And this distinction is independent of experimental verification: even if for some reason all the unmarried men with non-brown hair were killed, and every single existent bachelor had brown hair, the property of having brown hair would still be accidental, since it would still be logically possible for a bachelor to have hair of another color.
The nine kinds of accidents according to Aristotle are quantity, quality, relation, habitus, time, location, situation (or position), action, and passion (“being acted on”). Together with “substance”, these nine kinds of accidents constitute the ten fundamental categories of Aristotle’s ontology.[6]
Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of bread and wine into body and blood. According to this tradition, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but their substances change from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

As accidents are a species of properties they cannot exist on their own but only in something else. To be bread like is a property of both bread and the consecrated host, but is essential in the bread and merely accidental in the host.

Please someone correct me if i’m wrong, I won’t learn if you don’t.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Inego,

Actually, I’m under the impression that the teaching is more that the properties of the bread or wine inhere in nothing whatsoever. They don’t belong to Christ at all (since they aren’t his).

By analogy, perhaps, we could conceive of our sun being in an instant accelerated out of our solar system by some unknown force, and the planets continuing to orbit around where it once was for a bit until they “realized” there was no sun there to orbit around, i.e. the effects of gravity without a mass being the cause of the gravitational pull.

VC

From my understanding of the definition of an accident i do not believe that what you describe is possible. Besides which the accidents are said to remain in the host, but if the host isn’t bread and is the Lord then they must exist in the Lord.

From Wikipedia:
Wikipedia on Accidents(Philosophy):

Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood, metal, or plastic, but this is accidental relative to its being a chair. It is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.[2] To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.[3][4][5]
To take another example, all bachelors are unmarried: this is a necessary or essential property of what it means to be a bachelor. A particular bachelor may have brown hair, but this would be a property particular to that individual, and from the point of view of bachelorhood it would be an accidental property. And this distinction is independent of experimental verification: even if for some reason all the unmarried men with non-brown hair were killed, and every single existent bachelor had brown hair, the property of having brown hair would still be accidental, since it would still be logically possible for a bachelor to have hair of another color.
The nine kinds of accidents according to Aristotle are quantity, quality, relation, habitus, time, location, situation (or position), action, and passion (“being acted on”). Together with “substance”, these nine kinds of accidents constitute the ten fundamental categories of Aristotle’s ontology.[6]
Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of bread and wine into body and blood. According to this tradition, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but their substances change from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

As accidents are a species of properties they cannot exist on their own but only in something else. To be bread like is a property of both bread and the consecrated host, but is essential in the bread and merely accidental in the host.

Please someone correct me if i’m wrong, I won’t learn if you don’t.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

From my understanding of the definition of an accident i do not believe that what you describe is possible.

Inego,

Yes, exactly, it isn’t how we normally see accidents. It isn’t intrinsically impossible though. What must be going on is a miraculous suspension of the natural order.
Inego de Loyola:

Besides which the accidents are said to remain in the host, but if the host isn’t bread and is the Lord then they must exist in the Lord.

That is exactly what is to be avoided. The properties of bread and wine are incompatible with Christ as subject.
Inego de Loyola:

As accidents are a species of properties they cannot exist on their own but only in something else.

You are right, if you amend it to “normally” do not exist on their own. Here we have one of the miracles of the Eucharistic change.

Here is the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any

There is probably a bunch more that can be explored on this topic, and I am happy to continue a conversation on it. Should we start a new thread?

Any thoughts on the above?
Thanks,
VC

 

[brb3]

Inego,

Yes, exactly, it isn’t how we normally see accidents. It isn’t intrinsically impossible though. What must be going on is a miraculous suspension of the natural order.

That is exactly what is to be avoided. The properties of bread and wine are incompatible with Christ as subject.

You are right, if you amend it to “normally” do not exist on their own. Here we have one of the miracles of the Eucharistic change.

Here is the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

There is probably a bunch more that can be explored on this topic, and I am happy to continue a conversation on it. Should we start a new thread?

Any thoughts on the above?
Thanks,
VC

Perhaps …but, the ‘problem’ of Transubstantiation isn’t with Christ assuming/becoming the ESSENCE of bread & wine, …its that our Modern-day explanations are unable to express.
I’m more comfortable with those of the Early Fathers …than with those of Trent or since.

Maybe I haven’t seen them all, but the ‘accidents’ explanations I’m seeing always leave more ?'s. I think modernity, has not improved upon the words of Christ, & earliest thoughts of Martyr & Irenaeus !

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Perhaps …but, the ‘problem’ of Transubstantiation isn’t with Christ assuming/becoming the ESSENCE of bread & wine,

I’m not sure what you mean exactly. Are you referring to something I wrote regarding a “problem”?

VC

 

[Nita]

From my understanding of the definition of an accident i do not believe that what you describe is possible. Besides which the accidents are said to remain in the host, but if the host isn’t bread and is the Lord then they must exist in the Lord.

From Wikipedia:

As accidents are a species of properties they cannot exist on their own but only in something else. To be bread like is a property of both bread and the consecrated host, but is essential in the bread and merely accidental in the host.

Please someone correct me if i’m wrong, I won’t learn if you don’t.

That is true for the normal natural states/events – but the consecrated Eucharist is miraculous, a supernatural state/event.

Summa Theologica:
Pt. III, Q. 76, Art. 5 newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article5
Reply to Obj 2. The place in which Christ’s body is, is not empty; … but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance.

Pt. III Q. 77 Art. 1 newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm#article1
On the contrary,…Therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does not remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.
…Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ’s body and blood, because the substance of the humnan body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ’s glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.
…
Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject. This can be done by Divine power…

 

[Nita]

Summa Theologica:
Pt. III, Q. 76, Art. 5 newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article5
Reply to Obj 2. The place in which Christ’s body is, is not empty; … but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance. …

Whoops; gave the wrong link. Should be:
newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article5

 

[brb3]

I’m not sure what you mean exactly. Are you referring to something I wrote regarding a “problem”?

VC

No,…

Just that the ‘accidents’ explanations seem to generate more ?'s than answers.

 

[fred_conty]

"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt 26:29

This occurs after Christ tells the apostles to eat his body and drink his blood. This means, that unless you mean to imply that Christ’s blood was made of grapes, that the bread was still substantially bread. This does not mean that the bread did not take the substance of Christ, but it does mean that the substance of bread is still there.

“…I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine…”

Consider the sequence of event at the Last Supper, the Passover Meal.

He took the food in his hands
Gave thanks to his Father
Said “this is my body” and “this is my blood”
Gave THEM to eat of his body and blood
Then he said “…I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine…”

Notice, he did not eat his own body and drink his own blood. What would be the purpose?
But rather he said, “…I will not drink AGAIN of this fruit of the vine…”
Notice the word “again”. He didn’t drink his own blood with them as he passed it out for them to drink. So this refers to the Passover wine they shared before during the meal.

This is the last time in his EARTHLY body he will drink with them.
For when he rises from the dead, he has a glorified body of the new kingdom.
He didn’t say “I will drink it with you” but rather “I will drink it NEW with you”.
Meaning that he will be new in his risen body. His body will be different.

Just some thoughts.