Transubstantiation

[Pete_1]

I was wondering if anyone knows how the church reconciles transubstantiation with the modern theory of matter?

especially this one:

The Accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance. (De fide.)

from:

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

Its not that I doubt I just don’t understand.

peace,

 

[Franciscan]

I was wondering if anyone knows how the church reconciles transubstantiation with the modern theory of matter?

especially this one:

The Accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance. (De fide.)

from:

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

Its not that I doubt I just don’t understand.

peace,

What do you mean by ‘modern theory of matter’?

 

[Pete_1]

What do you mean by ‘modern theory of matter’?

I was under the impression that theories of substance and accidents are no longer credible am I wrong?

 

[Franciscan]

I was under the impression that theories of substance and accidents are no longer credible am I wrong?

It sounds like you are starting out with a limited set of ‘enlightenment presuppositions’. A common error of modern people.According to this strict materialist view, if something ‘supernatural’ exists, it is by definition not supernatural.

Here’s a great quote to counter this thinking…

“ If we subject everything to reason, our religion will have nothing mysterious or supernatural in it. If we violate the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous." ”
— Blaise Pascal

 

[cpayne]

I was under the impression that theories of substance and accidents are no longer credible am I wrong?

If you don’t mind philosophical arguments that are sort of difficult, you might see if a local library has issue 63 (1999) of The Thomist. There’s an article in it called “From Schrodinger’s Cat to Thomistic Ontology” by Wolfgang Smith, in which Smith argues for a re-introduction of “substance” language to explain some features of contemporary quantum theory. Others have argued for something similar.

 

[Pete_1]

“ If we subject everything to reason, our religion will have nothing mysterious or supernatural in it. If we violate the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous." ”
— Blaise Pascal

Thanks, this makes alot of sense to me.

If you don’t mind philosophical arguments that are sort of difficult, you might see if a local library has issue 63 (1999) of The Thomist. There’s an article in it called “From Schrodinger’s Cat to Thomistic Ontology” by Wolfgang Smith, in which Smith argues for a re-introduction of “substance” language to explain some features of contemporary quantum theory. Others have argued for something similar.

I think that might be a little heavy for me, I have only read one very small book on Aquinas so far , but I will remember to look out for it some time in the future. However are you saying that these theories (of substance and accidents) are in fact still credible?

 

[cpayne]

Well, what Smith argues (in a paraphrase from haphazard memory ) is that some quantum particles seem to have capabilities, such as apparent bi-location, which can’t be explained or duplicated by corporeal entities above the quantum level (a pebble, for example, can’t be in two places apparently at once). So they might be thought of as “physical” properties but not “corporeal” properties. In other words, they might be described as having no apparent “substance” as of yet, although they do have a physical nature. Once these particles rise above the quantum level, however, they not only have a physical nature, but a corporeal nature–they take on “accidents” of corporeality. One possible way to describe this phenomenon is that they become (like a pebble, or a human) a “substance,” which they were not before. Once they are substances with corporeal accidents, they lose their quantum-level capabilities. (I don’t have the article here, so if Mr. Smith ever reads this, I apologize.)

 

[cpayne]

By the way, I personally accept the teachings on substance and accidents, but I’m not a scientist of any type.

 

[Franciscan]

Whether accidents and substance is credible(believable) or not depends on who you ask. If you’re asking a strict rationalist who has ruled out the possibility of the supernatural or the concept of mystery, then for him transubstantiation (where substance changes but not the accidents) is NOT credible.

That word ‘credible’ implies belief, and in this matter it is more than belief, it is faith.

To someone who has faith(and the Faith) it is entirely credible-so is the resurrection, the changing of water to wine at the wedding in Cana, the walking on water etc.

 

[cpayne]

Oh, yeah–I just re-read my posts, and I definitely did NOT want to come across as saying that the “substance” of anything is its physical properties, or that physical properties are all things have. All I was saying is that not all scientific discussions have ruled out the language of substance and accidents.

But as far as transubstantiation—that’s just a miracle, nothing else. Changing substance but retaining all accidents is otherwise unexplainable, as far as I can see.

 

[RWMorris]

Miracle is defined as an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published online as The Free Dictionary by Farlex. © 2005 by Farlex, Inc.

I believe that transubstantiation is a miracle.

 

[Ghosty]

Substance and accidents don’t even have anything directly to do with modern theories of matter. The modern materialist approach touches only on what would be called accidents (and only a few of those, such as quantity and place and physical motion), and doesn’t address substances at all, and there’s nothing about it that overides the traditional definitions and approach.

Peace and God bless!

 

[SFCatholicMHR]

I don’t try to reconcile it at all. Faith is quite separate from reason.
That is why I am always amused when scientists try to logically “prove” something that is really a matter of faith. I tell them that logic is only the beginning of knowledge, not the end of it.

 

[mathematician]

What do you mean by ‘modern theory of matter’?

The difficulty is that something is a hydrogen atom if and only if it consists of a single electron orbiting a nucleus consisting of a single proton, and perhaps a neutron. There is room room in there for, “Well it has got the accidents of hydrogen, but it 's essence is helium.”

Similarly something is a piece of flesh if and only if it consists of the proteins which constitute a piece of flesh. If it consists of the protiens which consitute a bit of wood, then it is a piece of wood, and not a piece of flesh.

What for Aristotle was a natural way, or at least plausible way, of looking at the matter, can today only be maintained with the aid of an obscurantist, “Rome has spoken.”

 

[Franciscan]

The difficulty is that something is a hydrogen atom if and only if it consists of a single electron orbiting a nucleus consisting of a single proton, and perhaps a neutron. There is room room in there for, “Well it has got the accidents of hydrogen, but it 's essence is helium.”

Similarly something is a piece of flesh if and only if it consists of the proteins which constitute a piece of flesh. If it consists of the protiens which consitute a bit of wood, then it is a piece of wood, and not a piece of flesh.

What for Aristotle was a natural way, or at least plausible way, of looking at the matter, can today only be maintained with the aid of an obscurantist, “Rome has spoken.”

huh

 

[Ghosty]

The difficulty is that something is a hydrogen atom if and only if it consists of a single electron orbiting a nucleus consisting of a single proton, and perhaps a neutron. There is room room in there for, “Well it has got the accidents of hydrogen, but it 's essence is helium.”

Similarly something is a piece of flesh if and only if it consists of the proteins which constitute a piece of flesh. If it consists of the protiens which consitute a bit of wood, then it is a piece of wood, and not a piece of flesh.

I don’t see how either of these examples deal specifically with the question of substances. I don’t see how a hydrogen atom could be “helium in essence”, and the second example deals only with accidents.

Peace and God bless!

 

[brockmac]

One must be very careful about language when discussing the MYSTERY of Transubstantiation. The term commonly used by the Church is “Real Presence”, not “Physical Presence”.

My thought is that part of the reason for this is in their physical form, the sacred species maintain all of the properties of bread and wine. However, I believe absolutely and without reservation, that despite the physical properties, they have become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord. This is not something that can be understood or explained in terms of physical science. Therefore, the more philosophical language of the ancient Greeks is much more appropriate for the discussion. Truth be told, in 10 years of teaching CCE, I have not found a better explanation than the accident/substance one.

 

[mathematician]

I don’t see how a hydrogen atom could be “helium in essence”

Neither do I, but unless you want transubstantiation to be something which can be falsifiede by an analytical chemist (this wafer does not have the chemical composition of flesh) that, or something like it, is what you have got to try and maintain.

The problem you face is that transubstantiation is supposed to be a theory about what physically happens to a wafer. That said wafer is composed of molecules, atoms and, ultimately, subatomic particles. That is all there is to the physical constitution of a wafer.

Tell me something, if the molecules of which a wafer is composed are only it’s “accidents” in what is it’s “!essence” supposed to consist?

 

[Ghosty]

The problem you face is that transubstantiation is supposed to be a theory about what physically happens to a wafer. That said wafer is composed of molecules, atoms and, ultimately, subatomic particles. That is all there is to the physical constitution of a wafer.

No, transubstantiation very specifically says that absolutely no physical change occurs. That is why the accidents (physical properties) of bread and wine are said to remain. What’s more, transubstantiation goes even further and says that the physical properties remain without being directly connected to ANY substance; Christ’s flesh and blood do not take on the properties of bread and wine which remain.

The physical constitution of a wafer doesn’t touch on the essence of “wafer”, except indirectly in the case of “essential accidents” which I’ll explain below.

Tell me something, if the molecules of which a wafer is composed are only it’s “accidents” in what is it’s “!essence” supposed to consist?

Essence is an intellectual property; a real property, but one that is not material. So when we know something, it is the essence we are dealing with. There are accidents that are proper to essences, such as flesh and blood for humans (so you can’t have a human essence without these accidents), but the essence doesn’t consist of these elements.

So, to put it simply, the essence of a wafer is “wafer”. The fact that you can communicate “wafer” to me as a real, existing thing without telling me anything about its actual properties illustrates the difference between those properties and the essence. In the case of the idea of “wafer”, flatness could be said to be an “essential accident”, since it’s an accident that is attached to the essential idea by definition, but “flatness” isn’t the essence of a wafer. This is the same as when we know the accident of “red-blooded” when we understand the essence of “human”; it remains an accident, but an accident that follows necessarily from the essence in question.

So one very important thing to understand is that we never deal with essences other than with our intellect; you never physically touch an essence directly, for example. The intellect is the proper “location” of essences, aside from their own individual manifestations, such as this or that rock for the essence of “stone”. So the essence of “stone” would exist either in our mind, or “under the accidents” of this particular rock, but the essence is never measured physically, only analyzed intellectually (so I know what “stone” means, even though the idea of “stone” in my mind doesn’t have any physical properties, but is rather an essence known).

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[cpayne]

Hi, Ghosty. I had a question about your last paragraph. Did you mean that an essence can exist either “in our mind” or else could be perceived “by our mind”? If so, I understand the distinction, but does this mean an essence can have two different ways of existing? I understand how an essence could be perceived by our mind, but how would an essence exist “in” our mind? Thank you.