Transubstantiation and logic

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

KevinK

Guest
I have often read it argued that God’s omnipotence means He can do anything logically possible but cannot do anything not logically possible such as create a square circle or a married bachelor. However transubstantiation requires that something is two distinct things simultaneously (bread and a physical body) which seems to violate the law of non-contradiction. If it argued that God cannot make a square circle, how is that any different than Him making a bread body?
 
So, get ready for a very basic crash course in philosophy, because it’s necessary to understand Transubstantiation. This is super basic, but here goes:

First off, we do not believe that the bread is simultaneously bread and physical body. That is, I think it’s called, consubstantiation, which is what Lutherans and some other Protestant sects believe. After the Transubstantiation, there is no more bread, it is 100% Body of Christ.

Now on to the philosophy bit.

In order to understand Transubstantiation, you have to understand the concepts of substance and accidents.

The substance of a thing is what it is. A square is a shape made up of four equal sides. A triangle is a shape made up of three sides. A great example for this discussion is a chair, which is a surface with some number of legs, used for sitting.

The accidents of a thing are how a substance is expressed. A square can be many different sizes or colors. A triangle can be equilateral, obtuse, having many different sizes, etc. Both of those things, no matter how they are expressed, are their respective substance. Think about chairs. You’ve probably seen hundreds of different expressions of chair in your life. From where I’m sitting I count five different forms, all of which are chairs.

With all that in mind, this is how Catholics understand the Eucharist. During the consecration, the substance of bread in the host is replaced with the substance of Christ’s body, while retaining the accidents of bread. As such, while we visually perceive it as bread, and our body understands it as bread for the purposes of consumption, the substance, or actuality, of what we’re consuming is the body of Christ.

I know it’s a hard thing to accept. I believe it and I still can’t really wrap my head around it, but we also have evidence in the form of Eucharistic Miracles to provide some evidence. There have been tons of them, and in them, the accidents of the body or blood are actually replaced with the accidents of actual flesh and blood. There are many cases where they’ve been blind-tested and found to be real flesh and blood. It’s really fascinating and amazing ^^.

I hope this helps. God bless!
 
Last edited:
Just a quick note, it’s not bread and a physical body, it is changed from bread to the body and blood of Jesus while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine.

I had some thoughts about writing about the accidents remaining but not belonging to the substance or species, but I’m not sure that is correct, so I guess I get my mention in this paragraph while still hedging, eh?

I suppose the question is, “could God change a particular circle into a square while keeping the appearances of a circle?” I’m not 100% sure, at the moment, but this wouldn’t be a square-circle as if it was both at once. but more importantly, it must be recalled that what is the natural order isn’t the same as what is in the realm of all logical possibility. We don’t proclaim that the Eucharist fits within the natural order or occurs naturally. The only reason we accept this bending/suspension of the natural order in the Eucharist is in faith that what Jesus told us is true, and that it is supernaturally effected. We don’t believe God bends the natural order on a whim all the time such that we must be skeptics of our surroundings, so I don’t need to question whether what appears to be a circle is actually a square. We take the Eucharist as being different (not contradictory, but supernatural instead of natural) simply because it’s what Jesus told us.

Just some musings. I wrote more than I meant. I hope someone else can say better.
 
Last edited:
Also, the Church does not specifically affirm Thomist substance/accident metaphysics as dogma, though it has defended transubstantiation along those lines. I typically see the terms species and accidents, which may sound as gobbledygook as substance and accidents to the uninitiated, but it’s not in the technical language or metaphysics of Thomism and can be read… more broadly. What is dogma is that what is bread and wine becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. Simply stated article of faith. No one specifc metaphysical system required.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
Also, the Church does not specifically affirm Thomist substance/accident metaphysics as dogma, though it has defended transubstantiation along those lines. I typically see the terms species and accidents, which may sound as gobbledygook as substance and accidents to the uninitiated, but it’s not in the technical language or metaphysics of Thomism and can be read… more broadly. What is dogma is that what is bread and wine becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. Simply stated article of faith. No one metaphysical specifically system required.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it was meant to be a very basic crash course into the understanding. A lifetime of study would barley scratch the surface of the full truth. >_>
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
There are many cases where they’ve been blind-tested and found to be real flesh and blood. It’s really fascinating and amazing ^^.
Click to expand...
I wonder if a DNA analysis could be done on the purported flesh and blood of Jesus.
 
KevinK said:
I wonder if a DNA analysis could be done on the purported flesh and blood of Jesus.
Click to expand...
It actually has been. I remember hearing about one report from a study that found the tissue was that of a heart muscle in extreme distress. They’ve also done blood typing, which has been consistent across all the instances I’ve heard of, and matches the shroud of Turin. I don’t remember the blood type, but it was the universal donor type. (I looked it up, it’s type AB)

Keep in mind, these are blind studies. The examiners do not know where the sample is coming from.
 
Last edited:
You just previously posted we would have to have DNA. If it is Jesus, why do you now way we do not have it?
 
KevinK said:
I have often read it argued that God’s omnipotence means He can do anything logically possible but cannot do anything not logically possible such as create a square circle or a married bachelor. However transubstantiation requires that something is two distinct things simultaneously (bread and a physical body) which seems to violate the law of non-contradiction. If it argued that God cannot make a square circle, how is that any different than Him making a bread body?
Click to expand...
It is only one thing, but miraculously appears to be something else.
 
KevinK said:
I wonder if a DNA analysis could be done on the purported flesh and blood of Jesus.
Click to expand...
If we claimed that Jesus’ body was present in physical mode, then yes, that would be a good experiment. However, that’s not the claim being made. The claim is that He is present in sacramental mode, under the accidents of bread and wine. So, any chemical analysis would pick up the accidents present, not the (metaphysical) substance present.
laylow said:
If it was real human flesh, there would have to be DNA, yes.
Click to expand...
Right. And we’re not claiming that we’re cannibals, eating physical flesh.
ProdglArchitect said:
It actually has been. I remember hearing about one report from a study that found the tissue was that of a heart muscle in extreme distress.
Click to expand...
That was on a “Eucharistic miracle”, right? We’re talking about the Eucharist as it normatively exists.
 
laylow said:
Link to study?
Click to expand...
Here is a summation of the study in English:
THE EUCHARISTIC RELICS OF LANCIANO IN BIOLOGIC RESEARCH

The study itself is apparently in Italian, so I’m having trouble tracking it down…

On further looking, it was published in The Sclavo Notebooks in Diagnostics (Collection #3, 1971), which I cannot find a copy of online.

This was followed up by a secondary report from the WHO, published Dec. 1976, but I likewise cannot find a transcript of it online.

Sorry I can’t be more help, but I’m limited by the fact that these records only seem to exist physically.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
40.png
KevinK:
I wonder if a DNA analysis could be done on the purported flesh and blood of Jesus.
Click to expand...
If we claimed that Jesus’ body was present in physical mode, then yes, that would be a good experiment. However, that’s not the claim being made. The claim is that He is present in sacramental mode, under the accidents of bread and wine. So, any chemical analysis would pick up the accidents present, not the (metaphysical) substance present.
Click to expand...
Right. The part that KevinK quoted from ProdglArchitect’s post was about Eucharistic Miracles (the type where a host is found bleeding, or with heart tissue, or something along those lines), not the “ordinary” sacrament.
 
Gorgias said:
That was on a “Eucharistic miracle”, right? We’re talking about the Eucharist as it normatively exists.
Click to expand...
That response was specifically in regards to the OP’s question about physical DNA from Eucharistic miracles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top