Transubstantiation and logic

[Mike_from_NJ]

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”.

Interesting. I wasn’t aware that they didn’t have access to Aristotle’s concepts or terminology at the time.

But, using a comparison I made earlier, kids can play Hot Lava without knowing Aristotle. It’s not a stretch to formulate an idea that the bread only looks like bread.

 

[Gorgias]

Very well explained, thank you, but lol, I’ll just believe it to be a metaphor/ symbol

Fair enough, but Jesus didn’t say “this is a metaphor of my body” or “this is a symbol of my body”. To say “this explanation of how this happens doesn’t resonate with me” is one thing; but to deny it’s what Jesus says it is, and what the Church has believed it is for 2000 years, is a whole 'nother thing…

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

Not in the first 1500 years of the Church’s history. Not in the Churches that have been present since the Pentecost.

Interesting. I wasn’t aware that they didn’t have access to Aristotle’s concepts or terminology at the time.

Not in the Latin-speaking West. (Well, the limited access that they did have were manuscripts that had been translated from Greek to Arabic, and then from Arabic into Latin. They were of poor quality, and therefore, Aristotle wasn’t really well understood until Aquinas’ day, when Latin translations directly from the Greek were becoming available.)

In the early days of the Church, they generally accepted it as a mystery, rather than attempting to explain how it happened.

 

[Neithan]

Aristotle’s metaphysics are the traditional way to explain the mystery here but definitely not the only way, as someone pointed out above, just saying that the appearance remains while the thing itself changes is enough. It’s just that this doesn’t give us the intellectual satisfaction we crave; but whether seeking intellectual satisfaction for such a mystery is good is something that Catholics and Orthodox disagree on.

Immanuel Kant is another philosopher, somewhat more recent, whose metaphysical semantics have been used for the Eucharist. We could say that while the phenomenon of bread and wine remain, the noumenon changes into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. As the noumenon is imperceptible and inaccessible to the senses, this accounts for why our bodies react to the phenomenon as if it were bread and wine (and distinguishes this from cannibalism, which is a different phenomenon). Since we are sensual beings, however, we cannot truly know the noumenon of anything.

 

[Frankenfurter]

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?

Logic only applies to simple things, like 1’s and 0’s. These are an abstraction. God’s creation is not made up of these simple logical units. Bread, and the body of Christ are NOT simple logical units.

YOU are the body of Christ. So are many other people who have eaten the Eucharist. God wishes to live in us - his creation whom he loves.

 

[JerryZ]

I see that the Eucharistic discussion has been well explored, now why don’t we look at the other side of your coin. Why cannot GOD do something illogical.

At the core of your question lays the foundation of who GOD is. What it means to be illogical.
If GOD would act illogically it would by definition mean that we humans could no longer hope to understand the Universe for example.
If GOD sets a law and then goes and breaks it… It no longer is a law!!
If a circle can be square it ceases to be a circle that does not take anything away from the omnipotence. And there is also a word that is very misunderstood.
Omnipotence does not necessarily means that GOD can do illogical things. The words needs to be split in its 2 parts “Omni” and “Potence”
Most people know that omni means “all”.
The issue is with the potence part. For that we have to understand basic philosophy and the concept of potentiality and actuality.
Where potentiality generally refers to any “possibility” that a thing can be said to have. This precludes an illogical thing.

 

[Thom18]

The substance is Jesus’ Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity- the accidents remain bread and wine.

The accidents of a thing are whatever we can observe scientifically- color, mass, taste, chemical makeup, etc. The substance, however, cannot be detected this way.

The funny thing is, whenever we refer to anything, we refer to its substance unless we explicitly state otherwise. If I point at a table and say, “This is a table” , I’m not referring to the color of the table, its temperature, weight, shape or anything else that makes it up- I’m referring to the table, or “tableness”.

So, when we refer to the Eucharist, we say that it has the substance and accidents of bread and wine prior to consecration, but the precise moment that they are consecrated, they lose their substance of bread and wine, and gain the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Yes, even though the accidents remain to be bread and wine, we can no longer refer to them as such because we refer to a thing according to its substance and not its accidents.

 

[mcq72]

Fair enough, but Jesus didn’t say “this is a metaphor of my body”

Nor did he say, “this is my transubstantiated body”, or “my consubstantiated body”, or my “literal body”

what the Church has believed it is for 2000 years, …Not in the first 1500 years of the Church’s history.

I don’t believe the Church has been wrong on this for 2000 years nor that she was only right about it after 1500 years.

In the early days of the Church, they generally accepted it as a mystery, rather than attempting to explain how it happened.

"A “mystery” in the New Testament is something that had at one time been hidden but is now revealed to God’s people. Jesus told His disciples, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted” (Matthew 13:11, NASB). "

What is the mystery of faith? | GotQuestions.org

A symbol of the spiritual reality is the only non mystery explanation of the eucharist, and that best suited the Jewish context, even the new covenant.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, even though the accidents remain to be bread and wine, we can no longer refer to them as such because we refer to a thing according to its substance and not its accidents.

Somebody forgot to tell Jesus this, for after the Passover consecration of the cup of the new covenant, He calls the the same cup “fruit of the vine”.

Interestingly perhaps others forget this when documenting how to treat the consecrated element that have soiled vestments and linens etc., referring to them as wine stains.

But understand, and see that the elements are indeed treated with reverence, with much protocol .

 

[mcq72]

At the core of your question lays the foundation of who GOD is. What it means to be illogical.
If GOD would act illogically it would by definition mean that we humans could no longer hope to understand the Universe for example.
If GOD sets a law and then goes and breaks it… It no longer is a law!!

Thank for your post. Reminds me of a radio show that had an author being interviewed . Nancy Pearcey was saying that if God made transgender people or gay people, it would be like cruel joke, that He would not put a female person in a male body or vice versa. This was said to counter those who say , “God made me this way”. She said the fall made you that way. The decision, the battle of the will and mind, is to then realign with God’s will and mind. It is not the body’s fault, like you were born with the wrong body. It is our thinking that is wrong, our reaction that is wrong. One can still be what your body calls you to be, though having more tendencies of the other sex . Not everyone is a John Wayne or Brad Pitt, and not every women is an Angelina Jolie. What we are given can be used to His glory, but aligned with the body we are given.

She wrote a book called Love Thy Body. It definitely counters the stinking thinking of our cultures transgender movement, that our minds are right but the body is wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

Nor did he say, “this is my transubstantiated body”, or “my consubstantiated body”, or my “literal body”

‘Transubstantiation’ and ‘consubstantiation’ don’t answer the question “what?”, they answer the question “how?”. I agree with you that Jesus didn’t answer the question “how?”. However, you’re asserting that you can change the meaning to “what?”, even when it comes from Jesus’ own mouth. Not “this is my literal body”? Seriously… that’s the best interpretative comment you’ve got for what “this is my body” means?

Somebody forgot to tell Jesus this, for after the Passover consecration of the cup of the new covenant, He calls the the same cup “fruit of the vine”.

In Luke, Jesus makes this comment before the consecration. In Mark, it’s after. But, you’ll need to assert that He’s pointing to the cup He just consecrated, before you can make the claim that he’s calling the consecrated element “wine”. After all, for Jesus to say “I’m not going to drink wine until after my resurrection” would be a factually true statement, and not necessarily about the Eucharist.

 

[mcq72]

. Not “this is my literal body”? Seriously… that’s the best interpretative comment you’ve got for what “this is my body” means?

Well then you critique your own " this is (not) a metaphor of my body". It is simply tit for tat.

The figurative also answers the what and the how.

 

[KevinK]

God’s creation is not made up of these simple logical units.

Of course it is; otherwise logical would be incoherent.

 

[KevinK]

If GOD sets a law and then goes and breaks it… It no longer is a law!!

That is obviously false. Every “miracle” breaks a law of physics that God set. In your view then the laws of physics are no longer laws once God violates them.

 

[vz71]

Every “miracle” breaks a law of physics that God set.

Are you sure?
Perhaps God uses the laws in ways we are unaware can be done.
The very fact of a miracle makes it very difficult to claim knowledge of the process.

 

[Thom18]

Thom18:

Yes, even though the accidents remain to be bread and wine, we can no longer refer to them as such because we refer to a thing according to its substance and not its accidents.

Somebody forgot to tell Jesus this, for after the Passover consecration of the cup of the new covenant, He calls the the same cup “fruit of the vine”.

Interestingly perhaps others forget this when documenting how to treat the consecrated element that have soiled vestments and linens etc., referring to them as wine stains.

But understand, and see that the elements are indeed treated with reverence, with much protocol .

Is it the same cup, though? You’ve heard of the Seder meal, haven’t you? At which there are multiple cups?

 

[Gorgias]

Well then you critique your own " this is (not) a metaphor of my body". It is simply tit for tat.

Well, the problem is that your interpretative tit ain’t all tat.

The figurative also answers the what and the how.

No – in order to support the non-normative figurative interpretation, additional eisegesis is necessary in order to assert what the ‘what’ is, and even further novel interpretation is necessary in order to establish a ‘how’.

 

[mcq72]

Is it the same cup, though? You’ve heard of the Seder meal, haven’t you? At which there are multiple cups?

well we are told He said the same thing at the Passover and at the Supper (last cup), 2 of the four cups. He clearly said it after He attached the symbolism of new covenant to said cup.

Again, it is a remembrance, not just of Calvary , but of His coming again, when we will drink anew with Him. The symbolism of His blood and His coming again follows that covenant cup, fruit of the vine.

 

[halogirl]

One of my priests explained that just as light is a particle and a wave so is the Eucharist. Physics is very Godly

 

[mcq72]

Well, the problem is that your interpretative tit ain’t all tat.

lol

No – in order to support the non-normative figurative interpretation, additional eisegesis is necessary in order to assert what the ‘what’ is, and even further novel interpretation is necessary in order to establish a ‘how’.

Yes but much less eisegesis than transubstantiation.

 

[BartholomewB]

Physics is very Godly

I wonder whether Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle strengthens or weakens that statement.