Substance and transubstantiation

[itsjustdave1988]

…I am saying that human knowledge as a whole is limited to those things which can be experienced by a human being. …

If you include “reason” in your understanding of experience, I agree. We can reason from particular truths to more general or “universal” truths, for instance, “All observed crows are black. Therefore all crows are black.” Conclusions based upon reason are also part of the human experience. They are no less real than conclusion based upon direct sensory experience. Furthermore, conclusion drawn from the trustworthy testimony of others are just as “real” and “valid” as those I draw from my own personal experience or reason. For instance, I have never seen the dark side of the moon. I trust the testimony of others with regard to what is on the other side of the moon. They pass knowledge through testimony, such that I don’t have to experience or deduce everything for myself.

How does this relate to substance? Well, we have testimony from Jesus Christ, the son of God, given to the apostles directly, strengthened and clarified by the Holy Spirit. In other words, some of our knowledge is “revealed” to us by someone else. The action of receiving that knowledge is, broadly speaking, still human experience. However, the truth about God, man, and the universe can be revealed to us, not necessarily directly experienced.

That’s precisely why I believe that the Son is “eternally begotten of the Father.” Other than revealed testimony, I have no other human experience by which we know this about God. God reveals things to us through the things He created, but not everything he reveals is gathered through direct human experience in the narrow sense, but can only be “human experience” in the sense that some human received the truth given to them by God, and passed it on to us.

Given the above context as to how one comes to “know” something, we can now talk about “substance.”

We know that God’s revelation to man through Holy Scripture speaks of “substance.” (Gk hupostasis).

Heb 11:1, for instance, states: “Now faith is the substance (Gk hupostasis) of things hope for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Faith itself is understood in various ways. In one sense, it is the deposit of faith given to us by God through Christ and through His Church. In another sense, faith is also the response of man toward God’s revelation. In either sense, faith is a “human experience,” a source of knowledge about God, man, and the universe. This “human experience” called “faith” is indeed the “substance” (Gk hupostasis), that is, the substructure “sub” or “under” (Gk hupo) + “stand” or “foundation” (Gk stasis)]

This same Gk word hupostasis literally translated as “substance” is used in Scripture also describe a “real being, a person” (Heb 1:3), our “confidence” (Heb 3:14; 2 Cor 9:4;11:17).

Setting aside any detailed discussion of transubstantiation for the moment, I can’t see how one could believe in Christianity while simultaneously rejecting the reality of “substance.”

 

[jfoges]

If you include “reason” in your understanding of experience, I agree. We can reason from particular truths to more general or “universal” truths, for instance, “All observed crows are black. Therefore all crows are black.” Conclusions based upon reason are also part of the human experience. They are no less real than conclusion based upon direct sensory experience. Furthermore, conclusion drawn from the trustworthy testimony of others are just as “real” and “valid” as those I draw from my own personal experience or reason. For instance, I have never seen the dark side of the moon. I trust the testimony of others with regard to what is on the other side of the moon. They pass knowledge through testimony, such that I don’t have to experience or deduce everything for myself.

How does this relate to substance? Well, we have testimony from Jesus Christ, the son of God, given to the apostles directly, strengthened and clarified by the Holy Spirit. In other words, some of our knowledge is “revealed” to us by someone else. The action of receiving that knowledge is, broadly speaking, still human experience. However, the truth about God, man, and the universe can be revealed to us, not necessarily directly experienced.

That’s precisely why I believe that the Son is “eternally begotten of the Father.” Other than revealed testimony, I have no other human experience by which we know this about God. God reveals things to us through the things He created, but not everything he reveals is gathered through direct human experience in the narrow sense, but can only be “human experience” in the sense that some human received the truth given to them by God, and passed it on to us.

Given the above context as to how one comes to “know” something, we can now talk about “substance.”

We know that God’s revelation to man through Holy Scripture speaks of “substance.” (Gk hupostasis).

Heb 11:1, for instance, states: “Now faith is the substance (Gk hupostasis) of things hope for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Faith itself is understood in various ways. In one sense, it is the deposit of faith given to us by God through Christ and through His Church. In another sense, faith is also the response of man toward God’s revelation. In either sense, faith is a “human experience,” a source of knowledge about God, man, and the universe. This “human experience” called “faith” is indeed the “substance” (Gk hupostasis), that is, the substructure “sub” or “under” (Gk hupo) + “stand” or “foundation” (Gk stasis)]

This same Gk word hupostasis literally translated as “substance” is used in Scripture also describe a “real being, a person” (Heb 1:3), our “confidence” (Heb 3:14; 2 Cor 9:4;11:17).

Setting aside any detailed discussion of transubstantiation for the moment, I can’t see how one could believe in Christianity while simultaneously rejecting the reality of “substance.”

It seems like what you are saying here is that because the New Testament uses the greek word that is translated as substance, then that means substance must be real. I don’t think the use of the everyday term substance necessarily means one is taking the philosophical position that substance or matter exists.

 

[grannymh]

Well I hope I’m not leading you astray. But I’ve never heard anyone actually explain what a ‘substance’ is, other than “something more important than the accidents” of an object. In other words, no one knows what it is, at least that’s how I take it.

Pardon me.
But I believe that what you are saying is that you never had a course in metaphysics. And since the word transubstantiation has nearly disappeared from the common language, the odds are you have not heard that word a lot from the altar. Thank heavens for these forums. They are bringing back discussion on important, yet very hard to understand, concepts.

Thank heavens for love. In loving Jesus, we use faith to believe in the Real Presence knowing that complete understanding may not be possible for the time being. Sometimes, we have to wait until time turns into eternity where we are in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

Back to earth.
My American Heritage College Dictionary has a good definition of metaphysics. It is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions about the ultimate composition of reality, including the relationships between mind and matter, substance and attribute [or accidents or appearances] and fact and value. This dictionary’s definition of substance is too brief for me. It is definition 2a. Essential nature; essence.

There is a relationship or a union between substance and accidents or appearances. Together, they form the composition of the reality of something or someone. They answer the question: What or who is that? But they are not the same thing which is why the substance of validly consecrated bread changes independently from the accidents or appearances.

The key question for us ordinary mortals, the non-philosophy students, remains: Is it absolutely necessary to understand transubstantiation in order to believe in the Real Presence?

Of course not. What is absolutely necessary is to believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the bread and wine. We believe in the fact or you might say that we believe in the result.

For me personally, knowing about substance, etc., is a bonus that adds to my amazement of the power of God. This amazement of mine began when Jesus said that He is the Bread of Life. That announcement of Jesus, true God and true man, is what is necessary. Not knowing the how of the Real Presence does not diminish anyone’s amazement or love.

There already has been a lot of good discussion on this thread so I will end here – unless someone has comments.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It seems like what you are saying here is that because the New Testament uses the greek word that is translated as substance, then that means substance must be real. I don’t think the use of the everyday term substance necessarily means one is taking the philosophical position that substance or matter exists.

I believe instead that what Christian dogma (divinely revealed truth) affirms is true, no matter the “everyday” usage of or philosophical worldview of the term “substance” means.

In other words, we need not be Aristotelian to be Christian, but an understanding of the philosophical worldview prevalent in the 1st century will help to undertand the authorial intent of Christian dogma.

If one claims to be Christian while simultaneously denying Christian dogma, they have a proble. Because, they are making claims contradictory to saying “yes” when we mean yes, and “no” when we mean no.

In short, to deny Christian dogma while claiming to be Christian either lacks integrity or understanding. And so, this really isn’t about the very narrow discussion pertaining to “transubstantiation” but I think instead this has more to do with whether a Christian is really Christian if they cannot affirm belief in such things as demons and angels, and the reality of such things as “human nature.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Originally Posted by Neil_Anthony
Well I hope I’m not leading you astray. But I’ve never heard anyone actually explain what a ‘substance’ is, other than “something more important than the accidents” of an object. In other words, no one knows what it is, at least that’s how I take it.

But I believe that what you are saying is that you never had a course in metaphysics. And since the word transubstantiation has nearly disappeared from the common language, the odds are you have not heard that word a lot from the altar.

That’s not quite what I meant. True, I haven’t had a course in metaphysics, but I’ve taken other philosophy courses and I’ve read quite a bit about transubstantiation.

What I’m actually claiming is that while the church teaching on transubstantiation, and the philosophy behind it, have a lot of depth and room for thought, they essentially boil down to something very simple, which you express well in this quote:

There is a relationship or a union between substance and accidents or appearances. Together, they form the composition of the reality of something or someone. They answer the question: What or who is that? But they are not the same thing which is why the substance of validly consecrated bread changes independently from the accidents or appearances.

Exactly… the ‘substance’ is the “who or what” that an object is, apart from it’s accidents (properties). Which, in my way of thinking, means that the whole philosophy of substance/accidents is a fancy-schmancy way of saying “it has all the properties of bread, but in a sense that is more important than properties, it really IS the body and blood of Jesus”.



So if you believe that, (and surely every catholic has heard it put that way), then you believe in transubstantiation!

 

[jfoges]

I’m more concerned with discussing philosophy then worrying about where the wall is that divides chrsitian from non-christian. I think only a person who has a substandard intellect or is a charlatan would take it upon themself to try to create such walls when they have no ecclesial authority whatsoever.

I believe instead that what Christian dogma (divinely revealed truth) affirms is true, no matter the “everyday” usage of or philosophical worldview of the term “substance” means.

In other words, we need not be Aristotelian to be Christian, but an understanding of the philosophical worldview prevalent in the 1st century will help to undertand the authorial intent of Christian dogma.

If one claims to be Christian while simultaneously denying Christian dogma, they have a proble. Because, they are making claims contradictory to saying “yes” when we mean yes, and “no” when we mean no.

In short, to deny Christian dogma while claiming to be Christian either lacks integrity or understanding. And so, this really isn’t about the very narrow discussion pertaining to “transubstantiation” but I think instead this has more to do with whether a Christian is really Christian if they cannot affirm belief in such things as demons and angels, and the reality of such things as “human nature.”

 

[grannymh]

I’m more concerned with discussing philosophy then worrying about where the wall is that divides chrsitian from non-christian. I think only a person who has a substandard intellect or is a charlatan would take it upon themself to try to create such walls when they have no ecclesial authority whatsoever.

I’m trying to catch up with you all in your discussions.
I lean toward discussing philosophy, especially the metaphysics part.

Going back in this thread, there seems different ways to define substance and the use of the word substance.

May I add that my dictionary has seven interpretations of substance, including the metaphysical one, and my Thesaurus a lot more.
Also, we should consider that Catholic teaching often uses the words substantial and substantially in explaining the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Am not sure what I can contribute to this discussion…

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’m more concerned with discussing philosophy then worrying about where the wall is that divides chrsitian from non-christian.

In your original post, you seemed to seeking how one might reconcile a specific philosophical viewpoint with Christian doctine. So, are you saying that is no longer your concern? Am I mistaken? Wasn’t it you that brought up dogma when you said, “where does that leave me… I cannot believe in transubstantiation if I don’t believe in substance?”

Perhaps you can restate your purpose more clearly.

I think only a person who has a substandard intellect or is a charlatan would take it upon themself to try to create such walls when they have no ecclesial authority whatsoever.

I don’t even understand your last sentence.

Dogmas of Christianity are not “walls.” At least that’s not how the NT Christians understood dogma. Instead they accepted the dogmata of the Church with joy, as a consolation (Gk paraclesis). You don’t need to be vested with “ecclesial authority” to understand and accept the dogmas of Christianity.

Nonetheless, if you are not concerned with what Christianity teaches as was implied by your original post, or how it compares to one’s philosophical worldview, then I suppose you can adopt any of the “isms” of philosophy which have existed for thousands of years, whether it be realism, conceptualism, nominalism, or any other “-ism”, and it wouldn’t matter one way or the other.

 

[grannymh]

Ive been thinking lately about whether substance exists. I am leaning towards believing that it doesn’t. If all I can experience through sensory perception are the properties of a thing, why should i assume that there is a substance which posseses these properties. Substance is really just an imaginary philosophical construct which was created to explain why properties are bound together. Substance and matter are no more real then ether. That being said, where does that leave me in regards to the real presence. I still believe in the real presence, but I cannot believe in transubstantiation if I don’t believe in substance.

Dear jfoges,

My Irish mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.” There is another approach to your last three sentences which I would like to throw into the ring. But first, I’d like agreement on a presupposition. It follows:

“It is absolutely necessary for Catholics to believe that Jesus Christ is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine. This does not mean that one has to completely understand the mystery of how this occurs.”

The operative words are “believe” which is different than “completely understand the mystery of how this occurs” to the point that they cannot be used interchangeably.

This presupposition is based on the fact that the Real Presence
was believed from day one. Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread… See Catechism #1376.

The central fact of our Faith is that we believe in the Mystery of Jesus Christ, truly human and truly divine. It’s easy to be lulled into thinking that all mysteries are to be solved by human reason. This is a common error. The greatest mystery of all is the one which goes beyond the physical world to reach the ultimate reality of God.

One of my favorite sayings is: Faith enfolds, Reason upholds, Understanding beholds.

Is it possible to agree on the above presupposition?

Blessings,
grannymh