Questions I can't accept (hypostatic union and transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kronk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kronk

Guest
Hey, so I’ve been looking into the subject of transubstantiation mainly but hypostatic union came up recently and I have also realised that I don’t fully understand either, and thus as someone in baptismal preparations, I don’t want to get to the altar without being solid in these more basic parts of the catholic faith.

So! I’ve been told the obvious response to saying “i dont understand these” in “substance changes, accidents stay” and “100% both God and human”

I’ll take on the first one, since I understand why I dont find ability to accept that. I come from a cult-like religion, lots of idolatry, false deities, pretty awful stuff. one of the beliefs in such a thing is that objects exist only because of our labels, a chair is only a chair and not a random assortment of wood because we identify it as a chair, take it apart and it changes from a chair to just wood. likewise, I have found it consistently hard to accept that this is wrong. I find no ability to see that there is something within the object that can be changed, only the accidents, substances of objects are just an impossibility to me. substances in anything, let alone the bread of the Eucharist, I find I’m unable to see the existence of, and thus cannot believe in them.

I do well with examples, but there isnt really an example for either problem I have, and I just can’t see how they exist without some kind of aid I can visualize.

So, next one, hypostatic union, I suppose I just don’t understand what people mean by “human nature” or “divine nature.” All I could really think of is just a divine soul of sorts in a human body, I don’t really understand what it means to have two natures, since I don’t really understand natures in the first place.

I do hope some good comes of this, my ASD and OCD have been ramming my head daily with doubts stemming off these, so best to just try and go for the roots.
 
You might want to do a little exploration on the topic of Eucharistic miracles.
 
The thing is, once you’ve had a realization of emptiness, even if that has happened in a destructive cult within Buddhism (unfortunately, I can think of a couple that are quite harmful), and even if it is purely intellectual, you cannot unrealize it. The idea that objects have an inner self/identity that makes them what they are, is simply mistaken.

But I am not sure whether you have to adopt this particular kind of Greek philosophy to be a Catholic. The CC doesn’t claim to be infallible in matters of philosophy, but in faith and morals? Accidents and substances are philosophical categories of Aristotelian philosophy, and do not stem from Jesus or his apostles, so I don’t see how they can be considered infallible teachings of the Catholic faith. Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, sure. But HOW that happens?

I guess experts on theology would know more about this than I do. EDIT: I can easily imagine how to reconcile the Eucharist with emptiness, but whether such a reconciliation would be theologically acceptable to a Catholic, i cannot say.
 
Last edited:
On transubstantiation you may care to take a look at this recent thread, and in particular several posts by @Phillip_Rolfes.
40.png
Transubstantiation in the East? Eastern Catholicism
Do Eastern Catholic (Oriental and Byzantine) Philosophy and Theology talk about transubstantiation? I have understood that it is a Latin concept. I have always thought that Aristotle was Greek and that the Byzantine was Greek. One would think that Aristotle could have influence the Greek East but not so it seems. Is Aristotle not used in the East? The Byzantine Orthodox don’t seem to like Aristotle. They just wanna call everything a mystery and refuse to use their minds which souns like they are…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
For transubstantiation, can you drop the technical terms and accept the following: "we accept on faith that, through a divine mystery, the host and contents of the chalice change such that they are the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. "
 
Last edited:
As for the hypostatic union, let’s again drop the technical terms.

The essential truth of Christianity is that Jesus is what God is and that Jesus is what we are. However, Jesus is not a new type of thing (a demigod, a mix, a hybrid). He is both God and man at the same time, without being a blend of the two.

Therefore, as God, Jesus is the divine, incomprehensible, vast Spirit.

And, as a man, Jesus also has a human body and a human soul and a human mind. Let me reiterate this point, he’s not God controlling a human body like a machine. Jesus has a human soul and mind.

Jesus is one person who is both God and a man.

We use technical terms like hypostatic union not because it explains how. It’s not as if we’re looking at blueprints that show how the “God part” physically connects to the “human part.” We use technical language because, in the past, some people proposed things contrary to the teachings received by the apostles, so we came up with language to better define and defend what we mean (and what we don’t mean).
 
Last edited:
Kronk said:
I find no ability to see that there is something within the object that can be changed, only the accidents, substances of objects are just an impossibility to me.
Click to expand...
Substances are a difficulty, particularly in the way they are talked about. They what stand stance beneath sub the masks personae in ancient dramas. The language is reaching for the reality that is more than what we see on stage.

Substances are what is loved, so it is very important in understanding a God who loves us. If there is no substance, there is nothing to love. God created, out of nothing, things, each a substance that exists. God’s love embraces each of those things, allowing them to exist.

Our love is not usually as broad. I do not love chairs or sidewalk curbs or bread. (Oprah loves bread) I do love my wife. She is more than what I see of her, though I have looked at her for many years. She makes choices on her own, though sometimes she tells me about choosing in excruciating detail. She is not just the choosing and the other actions I see. There is something more that I can and do love. I can accept that other people and other things also exist, capable of being loved whether I love them or not.

Bread exists. With the Eucharist, some bread becomes the Body of Christ. The more I cannot see is no longer bread but is Christ. What I see does not change but what I cannot see does. There is a paradox here, a mystery. I may not have loved the bread, but I do love Christ who now is present. It is ridiculous in almost any way of looking at it.
 
Kronk said:
I do hope some good comes of this
Click to expand...
I think it might. Different replies offer different understandings, and I think it’s all good. I’ll contribute yet another, and if it doesn’t make sense, hopefully someone else’s reply will help better to strengthen your faith.

I look and see bread and wine, but I believe (or want to believe) that Jesus spoke the truth and has the power to do what he says.

In John 6, he didn’t say “eat my bread and drink my wine.” He said “eat my flesh and drink my blood.” Why would that be necessary in order to have eternal life? I don’t know. Later in John’s Gospel, Jesus says a lot about us being one with him, being in him, and him in us. Maybe in Holy Communion we make a real physical connection to his resurrected body, so that our bodies will be resurrected.

At the Last Supper, Jesus didn’t say “This bread and wine are like by body and blood.” He said “This is my body,” and later “This is… my blood.” His word makes it happen.

How does Jesus have the power to do that, either at the Last Supper or at Mass today? It’s because he is the Lord and master of all creation. He is master of not only the spiritual world, but the material world as well. At his word, the sick were healed, a few loaves and fishes fed the multitude, and he defeated death. Similarly, when he says “This is my body,” the bread is his body.
 
Last edited:
In reply to the question, “How, exactly, does it happen?”, the CCC quotes St. John Damascene’s book, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Some people, including myself, find this frank admission that there is no mechanical explanation of what happens at the altar more helpful than the later attempts to adopt (and adapt) Aristotle’s terminology involving “substance” and “accidents”.

You ask how the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine … the Blood of Christ. I shall tell you: the Holy Spirit comes upon them and accomplishes what surpasses every word and thought. … Let it be enough for you to understand that it is by the Holy Spirit, just as it was of the Holy Virgin and by the Holy Spirit that the Lord, through and in himself, took flesh.

See #1106 in the linked page:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2X.HTM
 
Focus on the two replies @Wesrock gave. Both are very good answers, very good.
 
The greatest of all Eucharistic miracles is the Holy Eucharist. Therefore, my counsel is to find when the parish you attend offers adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

Simply go and sit before Him. Never mind that the Holy Eucharist looks exactly like bread - that was intended by Christ. However, there is a change of substance. Focus on that word substance. As you are there, just sit in silent peace, read scripture, offer prayer, or perhaps best for you: tell our Lord of your difficulties, your serious questions, your lack of understanding, your doubts.

The next part will be the most difficult and the most rewarding: be as patient with our Lord as He has been with you. As, as Fr. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. (RIP) teaches us:
“When you are aware that He is there, you will be changed.”
Click to expand...
When the Holy Spirit grants you the consolation of knowing Christ’s Presence, it may just take your breath away.
 
Last edited:
Kronk said:
Hey, so I’ve been looking into the subject of transubstantiation mainly but hypostatic union came up recently and I have also realised that I don’t fully understand either, and thus as someone in baptismal preparations, I don’t want to get to the altar without being solid in these more basic parts of the catholic faith.

So! I’ve been told the obvious response to saying “i dont understand these” in “substance changes, accidents stay” and “100% both God and human”

I’ll take on the first one, since I understand why I dont find ability to accept that. I come from a cult-like religion, lots of idolatry, false deities, pretty awful stuff. one of the beliefs in such a thing is that objects exist only because of our labels, a chair is only a chair and not a random assortment of wood because we identify it as a chair, take it apart and it changes from a chair to just wood. likewise, I have found it consistently hard to accept that this is wrong. I find no ability to see that there is something within the object that can be changed, only the accidents, substances of objects are just an impossibility to me. substances in anything, let alone the bread of the Eucharist, I find I’m unable to see the existence of, and thus cannot believe in them.

I do well with examples, but there isnt really an example for either problem I have, and I just can’t see how they exist without some kind of aid I can visualize.

So, next one, hypostatic union, I suppose I just don’t understand what people mean by “human nature” or “divine nature.” All I could really think of is just a divine soul of sorts in a human body, I don’t really understand what it means to have two natures, since I don’t really understand natures in the first place.

I do hope some good comes of this, my ASD and OCD have been ramming my head daily with doubts stemming off these, so best to just try and go for the roots.
Click to expand...
Just a few thoughts

Why do we believe what we do in the first place?

Paul gets right to the answer short and sweet.

“vain” in that passage, from the Greek study bible, κενὸν = worthless, empty, foolish,

And we know because of Jesus resurrection, our faith is NOT vain but true.

So in short, we believe what the Catholic Church, the only Church Jesus established, teaches … all doctrines and dogmas… Because NO ONE else has that pedigree we have.

that’s my 2 cents 🙂
 
Last edited:
I am somewhat understanding the Eucharist, I don’t think I can really say I understand transubstantiation, or if I do, its only limited to what you’ve said, that somehow it becomes the body and blood under the guise of bread and wine. “Substance,” “accidents,” etc. are just too confusing, I’ll just go with the more stripped bare version, at least until I can fully accept it. I think it’s just going to have to mainly just be something I cannot explain, and that will be… kinda all I can do. 🤷‍♂️

The hypostatic union is still a bit fuzzy though for me, it sounds as though we are painting Christ with two souls, something like that. I’m confident that’s not what you mean. I envision a kind of ying-yang symbol, the divine and human parts, connected but not mixed. I suppose this is what people mean by “two natures” but I don’t understand natures well at all either so it’s like the equivalent to an explanation in french 😂

Could you elaborate a bit more on what we mean, I suppose what the two natures mean, what actually is the divine part, and what is the human part that is connected-but-not-mixed and whirring within Christ?
 
You and I both have human natures. We are the same type of being, even if we are individuals. Likewise, all human persons have human natures. This is something we all share with true men and women back to Adam and Eve. We can say that it’s in human nature to seek goodness, beauty, and truth. It’s ultimately in human nature to seek God himself.

We don’t say Jesus is part God and part man. We say he is God and man.

To say Jesus has a human nature is to say he is what we are. To say he has a divine nature is to say he is what God is. He is what we are, and he is what God is (in fact he’s God himself).

I’m going to move away from the term nature for a minute. This next analogy isn’t about natures, so it’s not a perfect fit, but it may still help. An apple can be both red and round at the same time. It’s redness doesn’t mix or affect its roundness, or vice versa. It is fully both red and fully round.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top