Transubstantiation as explanation

[Michaelangelo]

Does Aquinas say anything other than that bread and wine both differ from Christ’s soul and divinity? So, we don’t care if bread/wine have different or same essences from each other, only that each of them differs from the divinity of God which is present after consecration.

I merely used Aquinas as an example because his use of these terms are the most well known in church history. It is what the magisterium still teaches about the topic that is my focus. And you still use the term essences without explaining what you mean by it. What is the essence of bread?

The difference between bread and wine (and any matter) is that the protons, neutrons, and electrons that make them up are different in number and arrangement. Can we agree on this?

Yes. But neither protons or neutrons are fundamental particles. So if I look at the bread and wine at the fundametal level I still can’t tell bread from wine. At which level then is this elusive substance of bread and wine? Do I have to zoom in at an even more fundamental level?

So they don’t have a different “what they are made of” because they are made of the same stuff - protons, neutrons, electrons. They have different properties because their makeup and arrangement of subatomic particles differs.

This still doesn’t explain where this substance is to be found. On a fundamental level there is no difference in makeup or arrangement. I’m really not trying to be that guy and nitpick everything you say apart. I’m trying to get an answer. You have used the terms essence, being and substance without explaining what those are.

All we are trying to say is that they both differ from Christ’s soul and divinity…so when transubstantiation happens, although the so called “accidents” (perceivable properties) of the food remains the same, it is actually something else (the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ) In simple terms: looks, feels, smells, and tastes like bread/wine—but it’s actually Jesus’s body, blood, soul, divinity. That’s all we believe.

This still is no explanation for what substance is or how one verifies that the substance of bread no longer is there. Only that you believe it and uses those terms.

And besides, Aquinas’s attempted explanation is not an infallible Church dogma, so even if he’s wrong or right, it doesn’t matter, it’s one man’s curious attempt at understanding the nature of a miracle. We don’t know exactly how it happens, we only know that it does.

Correct. But church dogma does use the term substance. Hence my question: what is this substance?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Where’s the source for your misunderstanding? Attack that first.

1 Corinthians 11 has a clue.

Otherwise, do not feel like arguing today.

Saul does not explain what substance is. So I fail to see the meaning of that response to my question. If you don’t understand my question just say so and I’ll rephrase it.

 

[o_mlly]

To “explain” this miracle using a term like substance , one must start with explaining what substance is.

Substance is the inner reality of a thing. Substance is beyond sense perception.

I hear all kind of explanations about being and essence and other terms (which in turn aren’t explained).

As it relates to Eucharist, essence is synonymous with substance. Being is synonymous with existing.

But I still have not been presented with a straight answer to how one detects this substance so how is it even verified to exist to begin with.

Substances cannot be observed. From the observable accidents or effects, we intellect a thing’s substance or essence. The miracle in the Eucharist is that after the consecration, the accidents no longer determine the essence of the bread or the wine.

If it can’t be verified to exist, how can it be used as an explanation for something?

Transubstantiation should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ’s presence and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place. In contemporary Roman Catholic theology it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place.

 

[Gorgias]

But a rock, a car, a bird and a fish, are all made from the same components.

If that’s true, then please remind me to never ride in your car.

At the sub-atomic level? Sure. At the atomic level? Maybe. Beyond that level? Certainly not.

Michaelangelo:

But today we know that there is no difference between what components these examples are made from.

That’s kinda like saying that there’s no difference between a loaf of bread and a birthday cake because “there is no difference between their components.” At the level of physical characteristics, though, it’s obviously a flawed assertion.

Michaelangelo:

So, how do they differ in substance ?

A discussion of ‘substance’, in this context, is a philosophical discussion, not a science discussion. Attempting to use one discipline’s toolset to critique the other discipline is an approach that’s erroneous.

We don’t say that a rock, car, bird, or fish are different in substance.

Umm… yes, in fact we do!

christismylord:

we are taking about matter (bread/wine) turning into a different substance (body and blood, joined with the spirit/divinity of God.)

This doesn’t help. When you talk about ‘matter’, you’re talking about accidents. Mixing that with a discussion of substance confuses the situation.

The substance of bread and wine is replaced by the substance of the body and blood of Christ, sacramentally present. The “accidents” remain, but they are no longer the accidents of bread and wine.

Is there any support for this claim about the fish and the bird being more than their components, outside the realm of philosophy?

Umm… it’s a philosophical claim. Where, additionally, would you expect to find it?

The trouble is that in our present-day world these terms are now used only in connection with the Eucharist.

Hmm… I’m not sure I agree. We still talk about “substantial forms” with respect to soul/body/person, don’t we?

My question remains the same: do you have ANY support for the existence of something that is the essence, being or substance of for example bread and wine?

It’s a philosophical argument. So… no. Don’t expect to find it anywhere in scientific literature.

Michaelangelo:

But the aroma is not part of the bread.

Ahh, but it was. The fact that it is now present in your body makes it no less ‘bread’, just as when you take a bite, it doesn’t cease being ‘bread’ in your mouth!

Michaelangelo:

I can recreate the aroma without any bread at all.

Except that all you’re doing there is bringing molecules together in such a way as to simulate “aroma of bread.” If I showed you a red ball, and then you showed me red paint in the same shade, would you claim that you’d just shown me the ball? At best, you might say “here’s something that has the same property as that ball you’re holding.”

 

[christismylord]

At which level then is this elusive substance of bread and wine? Do I have to zoom in at an even more fundamental level?

Because they are both heterogeneous mixtures, you would have to look at an amount of them that contains all molecules that make up the overall mixture to observe the total properties of the complete mixture. So you would have to look at an amount of wine that contains the correct proportions of anthocyanins, tannins, flavonols, resveratrol, etc…

“Substance” as used by the Church is simply to describe “thing” without the “accidents,” which are it’s properties.

 

[BartholomewB]

Hmm… I’m not sure I agree. We still talk about “substantial forms” with respect to soul/body/person, don’t we?

@Gorgias, when was the last time you used the contrasting terms “substance” and “accidents” to explain something in the physical, material world? Something having no connection with the Eucharist or with the Catholic faith?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Substance is the inner reality of a thing. Substance is beyond sense perception.

Sounds awfully lot like “we haven’t a single clue but we toss in another vague concept like inner reality to make it sound better”. Unless you can explain what the inner reality of bread is? Because if you can’t then how can you tell the inner reality of bread from the inner reality of wine?

As it relates to Eucharist, essence is synonymous with substance. Being is synonymous with existing.

A straight answer. Thank you!

Substances cannot be observed. From the observable accidents or effects, we intellect a thing’s substance or essence. The miracle in the Eucharist is that after the consecration, the accidents no longer determine the essence of the bread or the wine.

Then you have, in other words, no actual verification for the existence of this substance. You think it is there because Aristotle said so.

Transubstantiation should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ’s presence and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place. In contemporary Roman Catholic theology it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place.

Still, the magisterium uses a term, substance, in dogma, for which there is no verification of its existence. If the existence thereof can’t be verified, how can it be verified that the substance of bread is suddnely no longer there?

 

[Vico]

…
Excuse me? I might be a bit slow here. But I fail to see anything resembling those categories with your example with the electron.

category example:

• essence: an electron
• quantity: one particle
• time: time of observation
• location: spatial location of observation

 

[JimG]

Substance, in the philosophical sense, can never be directly observed. Accidents are perceptible to the senses. Substance is not. All of phyisics and chemistry deals with accidents–precisely because those are the properties which are subject to sense perception, or sense perception as modified by instrumentation.

We can never directly perceive anything except by sense perception. You may be standing in front of me but I can’t physically get you into my brain. I only know you’re there by the sense perceptions I receive, Those are your accidents.

 

[Gorgias]

Something having no connection with the Eucharist or with the Catholic faith?

Ahh… now you’ve changed your argument. It used to be “just Eucharist.”

Here’s the thing: when Aquinas took this tack, it was already philosophy / theology, and not “science.” We’re looking at an argument that was provided in order to explain theological concepts grounded in philosophical terms. Why do we now find it reasonable to object “but these aren’t science !!!”…?

 

[Bithynian]

when was the last time you used the contrasting terms “substance” and “accidents” to explain something in the physical, material world? Something having no connection with the Eucharist or with the Catholic faith?

Last I recall, two people arguing in the street over a car accident, with one person loudly proclaiming that the substance of the other person’s argument was rubbish (but in more colourful words!).

But yes, it is a good point. It’s uncommon even within modern discourse on Greek philosophy for substance and accident to have any predominating importance.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

But a rock, a car, a bird and a fish, are all made from the same components.

If that’s true, then please remind me to never ride in your car.

At the sub-atomic level? Sure. At the atomic level? Maybe. Beyond that level? Certainly not.

Does the subatomic level cease to exist in your car?

That’s kinda like saying that there’s no difference between a loaf of bread and a birthday cake because “there is no difference between their components.” At the level of physical characteristics, though, it’s obviously a flawed assertion.

Exactly! On a fundamental level there is no difference between a rock, a car, a fish and a bird. So on what level does this elusive substance reside?

A discussion of ‘substance’, in this context, is a philosophical discussion, not a science discussion. Attempting to use one discipline’s toolset to critique the other discipline is an approach that’s erroneous.

How can it be erroneous to ask for verification of a claim that is part of dogma?

The substance of bread and wine is replaced by the substance of the body and blood of Christ, sacramentally present. The “accidents” remain, but they are no longer the accidents of bread and wine.

A bold claim if this substance is nowhere to be found to start with.

Umm… it’s a philosophical claim. Where, additionally, would you expect to find it?

Somewhere where to existence of this substance can be verified would be a good place to start.

It’s a philosophical argument. So… no. Don’t expect to find it anywhere in scientific literature.

How convenient. Just make a dogmatic claim and then brush of any questions about it with “its there bacuse it is”.

Michaelangelo:

But the aroma is not part of the bread.

Ahh, but it was. The fact that it is now present in your body makes it no less ‘bread’, just as when you take a bite, it doesn’t cease being ‘bread’ in your mouth!

Is that so? So at what time does for example 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline created through the Maillard reaction during the baking of the dough cease to be a “part” of the bread and simply be 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline? Is there a difference between a molecule of 2-Acetyl-1-pyrroline synthesized in the dough or in my lab? If so, how do you tell the difference?

Except that all you’re doing there is bringing molecules together in such a way as to simulate “aroma of bread.”

It is the same 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline in both cases. You can’t tell them a part.

If I showed you a red ball, and then you showed me red paint in the same shade, would you claim that you’d just shown me the ball? At best, you might say “here’s something that has the same property as that ball you’re holding.”

But the paint is never a property of the ball. Neither is the color.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Substance, in the philosophical sense, can never be directly observed. Accidents are perceptible to the senses. Substance is not. All of phyisics and chemistry deals with accidents–precisely because those are the properties which are subject to sense perception, or sense perception as modified by instrumentation.

Someone interested in being received into the church and thus studies the dogma of transubstantiation, finds that the substance claim therein can’t be verifed. That person should just accept, page after page of fancy philosophical word constructs, for which there are no objective verification?

 

[JimG]

Well, first, no one needs to know the philosophy of transubstantiation in ordr to be Catholic. One needs only to accept Jesus’ words of institution. The real presence would be real even if the philosophy were never developed.

As for substance, it seems more mysterious than accidents or appearances just because it is not perceptible to the senses. On the other hand my accidents / appearances have been constantly changing since my conception and birth, from newborn to old age. Yet, it’s still me in there. I’m the same substance despite remarkable changes in appearance.

 

[christismylord]

Ok so I did my research!

CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” 206

Thirteenth Session if the Council of Trent: CANON II. “If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.”

(Notice they “fittingly and properly” and “most aptly call it.” But there’s more )

The term “transubstantiation” was used at least by the 11th century and was in widespread use by the 12th century. It was used at the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. With the acceptance in Western Europe of Aristotelian metaphysics, the Eucharistic change was interpreted in terms of Aristotelian substance and accidents. This was used in the sixteenth-century Reformation as a reason for rejecting the teaching. The Council of Trent did not impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents or the term “transubstantiation” in its philosophical meaning, but stated that the term is a fitting and proper term for the change that takes place by consecration of the bread and wine. The term, which for that Council had no essential dependence on scholastic ideas, is commonly used in the Catholic Church to affirm the fact of Christ’s presence and the mysterious and radical change which takes place, but not to explain how the change takes place, occurring as it does "in a way surpassing understanding.” And besides, the Catholic Church was around for 12 centuries before Aristotle’s writings were available in the West. So, their beliefs did not change, they simply used his wording. The Eucharist always has been and always will be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

THEY DON’T EVEN MAKE YOU BELIEVE IN ARISTOTLE’S THEORIES! THEY DON’T TIE THE WORDS “SUBSTANCE” & “TRANSUBSTANTIATION” TO ARISTOTLE’S OR AQUINAS’S UNDERSTANDING

 

[christismylord]

To further prove this, the notes from the Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine 1971 state: “The word transubstantiation is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in the eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements. The term should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ’s presence and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place. In contemporary Roman Catholic theology it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place.” (Emphasis on words already added on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...hrstuni_doc_1971_eucharistic-doctrine_en.html )

They simply called it that because it was a preexisting phrase, and accepted in Western Europe. But they don’t tie the phrase directly to Aristotle’s use of it or even Aquinas’s understanding of it. They believe it simply to mean that the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ while retaining the properties of the original food.

 

[Gorgias]

Does the subatomic level cease to exist in your car?

Certainly not. Yet, when we’re talking about ‘accidents’, we’re not talking about physical properties of electrons.

So on what level does this elusive substance reside?

As others have pointed out to you: substance isn’t about ‘physical properties’ (that’s what accidents are about).

How can it be erroneous to ask for verification of a claim that is part of dogma?

You’re asking for a scientific verification of a theological assertion. It’s like using a yardstick to weigh something.

How convenient. Just make a dogmatic claim and then brush of any questions about it with “ its there bacuse it is ”.

How convenient. Take a philosophical claim and then brush off its truth based on a bad-faith demand of empirical evidence for it.

Is there a difference between a molecule of 2-Acetyl-1-pyrroline synthesized in the dough or in my lab? If so, how do you tell the difference?

The difference is simple, in metaphysical terms: the former is an accident of ‘bread’; the latter, an accident of your chemical concoction. That they share physical properties do not make them the same thing.

It is the same 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline in both cases. You can’t tell them a part.

Perhaps, but that doesn’t help your case. One is “of bread” and the other “of a science experiment.” They are two distinct things.

finds that the substance claim therein can’t be verifed.

Again: what kind of verification would be acceptable to you?

 

[tweedlealice]

Blessings,
That was very deep. Accidents. Electrons. Our material Earth doesn’t change unless God is performing a Eucharistic Miracle. The Spirit of the Earthly components change. It’s essence. One could ask, do inanimate objects have a Spirit? Good question! Never asked before. Trees, plants are living w an Essence/Spirit. A piece of flour & water. HMMM I, venture to say NO. THEN, that’s what the Holy Spirit does. He enters the host & lives in the Host! still hurts to think that deep.
IT IS! IT HAPPENS! ITS A MIRACLE. A Resurrected body has no substance. We can’t get samples of the visiting Spirits. The actualality, can’t be proven.
LOVING MIRACLE!
Feel cherished during Communion.

In Christianity, a Eucharistic miracle is any miracle involving the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the fact that Christ … Wikipedia

 

[o_mlly]

Sounds awfully lot like “we haven’t a single clue …

Precisely. That is why we call it a mystery.

If the existence thereof can’t be verified, how can it be verified that the substance of bread is suddnely [sic] no longer there?

In De Trinitate 3.5.11, St. Augustine gives an explanation of the miracle at Cana as the acceleration of a natural process of water becoming wine. From the temporal perspective, one observes a sequential process of water, to vine, to grape, to wine. From the eternal perspective, water is already wine. A similar analogy can be made for the Eucharist. The Eucharist makes present an historical event.

And thus an underlying difference between the rock, the car, the fish and the bird. Which is to say that there is a difference in substance between them?

Yes. When you can metabolize that rock or that car and make it into yourself then we can reject the Eucharist as irrational. Miracles are by definition beyond reason but not irrational.