Transubstantiation and logic

[ProdglArchitect]

However, just because something cannot be explained, does not make it “God” by default. All evidence must be considered on its own merit.

That is not what I’m claiming. I am wholly and completely against the God of the gaps type arguing. What I am talking about seeing people look at events that have no natural explanation, such as the miracle at Lanciano, and refusing to even consider the possibility of God by claiming that some unknown natural cause must exist. Kind of a reverse God of the gaps, “Science can’t excplain it, but obviously a scientific explanation exists that we don’t know about.”

All atheism is, is a rejection of one claim

I disagree. Atheism is a positive assertion that there is no external cause. But that topic has filled many threads on its own, so we best avoid that rabbit hole.

No, but inevitably, it must be based on SOMETHING. I found I only believed because someone told me. When I realized that wasn’t a good reason, I looked for more, but didn’t find what I needed.

I agree, it must be based on something. For me, that something is a mixture of a personal encounter I had, my study of philosophy, and my study of various other religions. I started out believing because it was my parent’s faith, but when that was no longer enough I studied and found myself believing because I see no other explanation as capable of cohesively and coherently explaining reality.

You can have the last word, I have hijacked the thread enough.

As always, it’s been fun.

 

[Neithan]

Which miracles are you referring to? I don’t think Catholics have a monopoly on the preternatural; but I bet you agree that science is a good tool to discern fact from fiction. Of course, if even St. Thomas, who knew Jesus personally, disbelieved in the miracle of his resurrection until he physically touched the risen Christ, then it’s not outrageous that you also don’t believe that what looks to all appearances like bread and wine, in fact, is that risen Christ.

 

[warrior18]

Here is a link with the stories of each reported Eucharistic miracle:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/emc_book_003.htm

 

[mcq72]

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!

Very well explained, thank you, but lol, I’ll just believe it to be a metaphor/ symbol…and at that still something awesomely deep yet simple to get your mind and heart around.

 

[Isearch]

You’re right, it could , but there’s no reason it must . Sure, we would parade it as evidence, but as with all evidence we put forward, people who don’t want to believe would find a way to dismiss it.

Surely, some atheists would find a way to dismiss daily Eucharistic miracles. Heck, some might even propose daily occuring Eucharistic miracles as examples of encounters with technologically-advanced alien civilizations. But it is also true that some atheists will come to believe because of these miracles.

However, just because something cannot be explained, does not make it “God” by default. All evidence must be considered on its own merit.

Let’s assume that supernatural miracles daily occur and are daily observed by scientists of various fields. Are we to assume, then, that eventually they will conclude that these are pieces of evidence of the supernatural?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’ll just believe it to be a metaphor/ symbo

Happy to help, but I’d like to ask why you treat it as a metaphor or symbol when Christ clearly didn’t.

He let people walk away rather than renege on the truth of it being His actual body and blood. The reaction of the Jews clearly shows they believed him to mean eating actual flesh and drinking blood. Later people writing against Catholicism accused followers of Christ of cannibalism.

 

[po18guy]

Christ possesses both human and divine natures. Is he thus rendered void? Looks like a man, but He is God. The Eucharist looks like bread but is Jesus Christ.

I see no dichotomy.

 

[mcq72]

Happy to help, but I’d like to ask why you treat it as a metaphor or symbol when Christ clearly didn’t.

He let people walk away rather than renege on the truth of it being His actual body and blood. The reaction of the Jews clearly shows they believed him to mean eating actual flesh and drinking blood. Later people writing against Catholicism accused followers of Christ of cannibalism.

Well it isn’t that clear. The things you mention are the things that others interpret quite differently.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well it isn’t that clear. The things you mention are the things that others interpret quite differently.

The existence of alternative interpretations does not make those interpretations reasonable or rational. Some people interpret the ascension as aliens, that doesn’t mean we should listen to them.

I have yet to hear an even remotely reasonable explanation of why Jesus’ disciples left him as a result of this command.

Care to share one with me?

 

[mcq72]

I have yet to hear an even remotely reasonable explanation of why Jesus’ disciples left him as a result of this command.

Care to share one with me?

Lol, perhaps I can copy a recent post on the subject…i have mostly been on non Catholic religions, and a few threads dealt with this.

Reasonable and logical are still, and were on these other threads, in the eye of the beholder.

More intuitive is not why these unbelievers left, but as you somewhat suggest also, why Jesus let them go, at this stage of “following”. And how and when were they unbelievers.

And as you also posted with the word clearly, Christ clearly says why.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Reasonable and logical are still, and were on these other threads, in the eye of the beholder.

I agree that reasonableness is generally in the eye of the beholder, but logic is not.

A person can believe something illogical is logical, but that doesn’t actually make is logical.

I welcome your response.

 

[mcq72]

Well, i would have to google Webster to see the difference between reasonable and logical…to me they seem like synonyms.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The first post mentioned the impossibility of a square circle, so let me make this analogy to transubstantiation:

1. I possess a square.
2. Let’s say that all shapes have two characteristics, appearance and hypershape.
3. For nearly all shapes the appearance and hypershape are the same.
4. Through a process that is a mystery (called transhapiation) my square now has the hypershape of a circle, but retains the appearance of a square.
5. There is no way to distinguish this square from other squares because we can only gauge its appearance, not its hypershape.
6. You simply have to take it on my word that my square is really a circle in the shape of a square. You can’t disprove this.

This avenue of “thing X only has the appearance of not X” allows for all sorts of seemingly conflicting concepts. Medicine can have the appearance (including molecular structure) of poison. Darkness can have the appearance of light. A Kardashian can have the appearance of someone with talent. The list is endless.

 

[ioannes_pius]

sigh

Three words: substance and accidents.

I would suggest reading the Summa Theologiae on this matter.

 

[Wesrock]

The first post mentioned the impossibility of a square circle, so let me make this analogy to transubstantiation:

1. I possess a square.
2. Let’s say that all shapes have two characteristics, appearance and hypershape.
3. For nearly all shapes the appearance and hypershape are the same.
4. Through a process that is a mystery (called transhapiation) my square now has the hypershape of a circle, but retains the appearance of a square.
5. There is no way to distinguish this square from other squares because we can only gauge its appearance, not its hypershape.
6. You simply have to take it on my word that my square is really a circle in the shape of a square. You can’t disprove this.

This avenue of “thing X only has the appearance of not X” allows for all sorts of seemingly conflicting concepts. Medicine can have the appearance (including molecular structure) of poison. Darkness can have the appearance of light. A Kardashian can have the appearance of someone with talent. The list is endless.

I already anticipated this and spoke to this directly in post# 3.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Wesrock, thank you for pointing me to your earlier post. You mentioned in that post:

I’m not 100% sure, at the moment, but this wouldn’t be a square-circle as if it was both at once…

So if we take a circle that has the appearance of a square, if it’s not both a circle and a square then which is it? It is, at bare minimum its accidents. If I have a square tile I can install it in my bathroom, even if it has the substance (hypershape) of a circle.

If we take the Eucharist, it is a wafer. Under a microscope it has the physical makeup of bread. It can potentially cause problems if consumed by someone with Celiac disease. By all measures it is bread. It doesn’t affect us physically the way it would if we were to eat raw human flesh.

So if someone wants to claim it’s both, that’s one thing. If that person wants to claim it’s just the body of Christ, then it shouldn’t interact with us the way bread does. It’s like when as a kid you played Hot Lava. Either the floor is both a floor and hot lava or it’s just a floor. You can’t say it’s only hot lava since it works like a floor.

You also talked about how the Eucharist is a special case of a substance and accidents of something being different. That doesn’t change the concept that it is both body and bread. There’s no way to say that something isn’t (at least in part) its accidents.

And really this is the same thinking where someone practicing witchcraft puts a few things together and claims they’ve made a potion – where an object is created that allegedly interacts with us in a way outside of what those components should interact with us. As I pointed out in my analogy in my previous post, it’s very easy to make claims that something isn’t what it appears to be. Demonstrating that is much harder.

 

[BartholomewB]

1. Through a process that is a mystery (called transhapiation) my square now has the hypershape of a circle, but retains the appearance of a square.

Given that your square retains the appearance of a square, how do you know that it now has the hypershape of a circle? How did you acquire this knowledge?

 

[BartholomewB]

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

Aside from the Eucharist, is there any instance in everyday life of a phenomenon that can only be explained by using the terms “substance” and “accidents”?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Given that your square retains the appearance of a square, how do you know that it now has the hypershape of a circle? How did you acquire this knowledge?

I can use the reasoning behind the Eucharist or a witch’s potion: Faith. I can used the crazed reasoning of someone like the Time Cube guy and obfuscate the logic behind my circle that looks like a square in the same way he was certain that each day was four simultaneous 24-hour periods.

Like many pet theories my fanciful one about hypershapes is neither provable nor falsifiable. The same goes for transubstantiation. I suspect when the Church councils debated Jesus’ meaning regarding “This is my body” that they incorporated Aristotle’s teachings to try and have it make sense.

 

[BartholomewB]

I suspect when the Church councils debated Jesus’ meaning regarding “This is my body” that they incorporated Aristotle’s teachings to try and have it make sense.

Unless I’m mistaken, I believe the earliest attempts to explain it – for instance, those of Ambrose and Augustine – were made at a time when Aristotle was unknown in the West. But of course, Ambrose and Augustine didn’t use the terms “substance” and “accidents”.