Transubstantiation

[Michael96]

The Catholic Church doesn’t attempt to explain the Eucharist. We can’t. The term transubstantiation only reveals a mystery. This is what we call a paradox.

I don’t understand why people have a problem with the term.

Al-Masih Qam!

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

Well, Thomas Aquinas certainly did try to explain it using the scientific knowledge of the day. He borrowed from Greek philosophy when they considered matter had an underlying form (the substance) that was separate from the outward appearance (the accident). These terms were used at that time to try to understand the nature of matter and how one material could appear to change to another (“alchemy” was a serious science for many centuries because they didn’t understand how matter changed outward forms). These days we know much more about matter and understand how atoms make up molecules and how molecules will then have certain observable chatacteristics. The scientific equivalent to “substance” would be atoms while the scientific equivalence to “accidents” would be molecules (or mixtures of molecules, or the same atoms/molecules in different “states”). The development of the science cannot be applied to the Eucharist (which Aquinas could not have forseen) so we are left with outmoded descriptions of matter still being applied to the Eucharist. It seems it would be better if we didn’t try to explain the Eucharist scientifically (which thankfully the Church has not tried to do since Aquinas, but perhaps it’s time to acknowledge Aquinas was working from a poor foundation of knowledge of materials).

 

[Michael96]

P.S. to my post above.

I certainly don’t want to imply Aquinas (or anyone else) was daft in decsribing matter in this substance/accident manner; this was actually remarkably insightful - they had deduced that matter can’t simply totally change, so something underlying must be unchanged. It was therefore perfectly reasonable for Aquinas to apply the principles to the Eucharist (though in reverse; usually the “accident” changed and it was assumed the “substance” did not; Aquinas postulated that in the Eucharist the opposite change was occuring).

But I would hold to “transubstantiation” or “substance being changed” as being a theory that is now anachronistic (at least in reference to how Aquinas was using those terms). For me “real presence” seems to encompass everything we read in the Gospels without trying to explain it in relation to the “material science of the day”.

 

[mercygate]

P.S. to my post above.

I certainly don’t want to imply Aquinas (or anyone else) was daft in decsribing matter in this substance/accident manner; this was actually remarkably insightful - they had deduced that matter can’t simply totally change, so something underlying must be unchanged. It was therefore perfectly reasonable for Aquinas to apply the principles to the Eucharist (though in reverse; usually the “accident” changed and it was assumed the “substance” did not; Aquinas postulated that in the Eucharist the opposite change was occuring).

But I would hold to “transubstantiation” or “substance being changed” as being a theory that is now anachronistic (at least in reference to how Aquinas was using those terms). For me “real presence” seems to encompass everything we read in the Gospels without trying to explain it in relation to the “material science of the day”.

Real Presence does it for me also. But in light of current science and our understanding that even the most dens “solid” matter is nearly all space, the transubstantiation theory makes even more sense now than it did 800 years ago. If God is all in all, and in His will choses to “stand through” the substance in the “space” of the sacramental species, it works for me.

But that’s not where the OP is coming from. She desires to behold the Face. No amount of theologizing can touch that desire. Only the grace of His presence will give her that.

 

[Harpazo]

Well, Thomas Aquinas certainly did try to explain it using the scientific knowledge of the day. He borrowed from Greek philosophy when they considered matter had an underlying form (the substance) that was separate from the outward appearance (the accident). These terms were used at that time to try to understand the nature of matter and how one material could appear to change to another (“alchemy” was a serious science for many centuries because they didn’t understand how matter changed outward forms). These days we know much more about matter and understand how atoms make up molecules and how molecules will then have certain observable chatacteristics. The scientific equivalent to “substance” would be atoms while the scientific equivalence to “accidents” would be molecules (or mixtures of molecules, or the same atoms/molecules in different “states”). The development of the science cannot be applied to the Eucharist (which Aquinas could not have forseen) so we are left with outmoded descriptions of matter still being applied to the Eucharist. It seems it would be better if we didn’t try to explain the Eucharist scientifically (which thankfully the Church has not tried to do since Aquinas, but perhaps it’s time to acknowledge Aquinas was working from a poor foundation of knowledge of materials).

From what I’ve heard from my parish priest (Maronite) Aquinas rejected the term “transubstantiation” and didn’t buy it at all, but it was thrust upon him. I’ll have to ask him about it next time I see him.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[toaslan]

Well, Thomas Aquinas certainly did try to explain it using the scientific knowledge of the day. He borrowed from Greek philosophy when they considered matter had an underlying form (the substance) that was separate from the outward appearance (the accident). …These days we know much more about matter and understand how atoms make up molecules and how molecules will then have certain observable chatacteristics. The scientific equivalent to “substance” would be atoms while the scientific equivalence to “accidents” would be molecules (or mixtures of molecules, or the same atoms/molecules in different “states”).

Michael, no offense, but you’re just wrong here. The Church to this day relies on the Aristotelian and Thomistic definitions of substance and accident when She speaks philosophically about the Eucharist.

Substance is the the underlying “whatness” of the natural thing. It is its essence. It is the thing’s “being” in the most fundamental sense. Substance is not a thing’s matter in any sense. Substance is the definition, form, act, nature and essence of the thing.

Accident is each and every empirically observable or measurable aspect of the natural thing.

With these definitions, all the appearances of the atom that you see in the microscope–its shape, its size, its attachment to other atoms, etc–all its measurable qualities are accidents. ALL. The matter of a thing is what is potential to its form.

The atom itself is a composite of matter and form. The accidents take the shape they do because of the form “atom” shaping them in their matter.

Applying this to the Eucharist, all empirically observable accidents of bread remain, but the bread’s underlying substance, “wheatness” drops away. Underlying the accidents of wheatbread there is no substance of wheatbread—a thing unheard of in nature.

Instead, at the Consecration, the “whatness” of Christ Himself underlies the accidents of bread.

The substance of Christ has taken the place of the substance of bread.

(The accidents of the bread “exist after the mode of substance.” Substance is that which stands alone and is said of nothing–all qualities are predicated of it.)

The development of the science cannot be applied to the Eucharist

yes, as I have explained, it can, if the definitions of these things are rightly understood.

perhaps it’s time to acknowledge Aquinas was working from a poor foundation of knowledge of materials.

contrariwise. He was working with Aristotle, known to this day as the Father of Philosophy. They were understanding the principles of motion, rest, matter, movement, being and becoming. They laid the groundwork at the level of principle–and those principles, being true, apply down through time to the atoms of today.

True, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach philosophy–She teaches Faith and Morals; She teaches theology. But theology rests upon philosophy. It’s impossible to do theology without philosophy. And the language of substance and accident as defined by Aristotle and used by Thomas is the language the Church uses when she speaks philosophically about the theological change of “transubstantiation.”

Sorry I can’t follow up with this, and it would drag the thread off topic anyway. But I wanted to offer this view, hoping it will be food for thought.

 

[Michael96]

Michael, no offense, but you’re just wrong here. The Church to this day relies on the Aristotelian and Thomistic definitions of substance and accident when She speaks philosophically about the Eucharist.

Substance is the the underlying “whatness” of the natural thing. It is its essence. It is the thing’s “being” in the most fundamental sense. Substance is not a thing’s matter in any sense. Substance is the definition, form, act, nature and essence of the thing.

Accident is each and every empirically observable or measurable aspect of the natural thing.

Absolutely - I agree 100% with that is how matter was understood in Aquanis’s timed, based on Greek philosophy. I’m just saying we have to acknowledge that how Aquinas understood matter is no longer the case; you can hold on to some things if you like but your understanding will not be how Aquinas understood accident and substance. Our understanding has moved on hugely since Aquinas’s time and I doubt very much of he were alive today he would be thinking of the Eucharist in the context of accediental and substantial forms.

Essentially I’m happy to stick with the Gospels; I’m beginning to think it’s time the Church had a clear-out of Greek philosophy and returned to a more biblical standpoint on these matters.

 

[mercygate]

If I were the OP, I would have cashed in my chips and left the building well up-thread. And I am as much a de-railer of the intent of the thread as the next guy.

If you’re still there, thetags3, I hope you’ll find your way clear of this very soon.

He’s there! If you are truly born again, the truth of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist will be in undeniable and inseparable part of your experience of our Lord. You may not feel it, but in the conversion of your will to the Person of Jesus Christ, you will be unable to deny it.

 

[thetags3]

Thank you to everyone for all your replies, prayers and recommendations. God Bless…

 

[mercygate]

Thank you to everyone for all your replies, prayers and recommendations. God Bless…

Said a little prayer for you at Mass this morning – the glorious Feast of the Ascenscion.

God love you, Dear Heart.

 

[thetags3]

There is no “but” – there is no conflict between Catholid faith and being born again!

What is the decision you are contemplating?

I am contemplating attending these non-denominational services (without receiving communion there) in addition to my Catholic Mass… I’ve spoken to 2 priests and 1 monk who said so long as I do not receive communion there and that I now the differences between their beliefs and my Catholic beliefs, that there is nothin wrong with wanting to worship God more and spend more time being in union with Him.

Thanks for you prayers yesterday morning… And your empathy and kindness…

In His Name

 

[mercygate]

mercygate;3604193:

There is no “but” – there is no conflict between Catholid faith and being born again!

What is the decision you are contemplating?

I am contemplating attending these non-denominational services (without receiving communion there) in addition to my Catholic Mass… I’ve spoken to 2 priests and 1 monk who said so long as I do not receive communion there and that I now the differences between their beliefs and my Catholic beliefs, that there is nothin wrong with wanting to worship God more and spend more time being in union with Him.

Thanks for you prayers yesterday morning… And your empathy and kindness…

In His Name

:bible1: . Thank YOU. :hug3:

I hope you can find some quiet time for just being with Our Lord in Scripture: just listening to Him.

And do see if your public library can get you a copy of The Lamb’s Supper.

 

[fjonc]

I know I made mistake but at the time I was not aware that it was a mistake. I went to a Methodist church with some people I knew. Since I did not go to Catholic mass that sunday I went up for their communion.
From this I realized, that there was no substance to going to communion there as compared to receiving Communion in the Catholic Church. I feel a real definate presence of Jesus when I receive communion but have not else where. Yes before I knew better, I had communion also in a Baptist church. For the past year or more, I have not been able to receive communion due to issues that I am going through. There is a sense of missing something durring mass but I know that He is still there with me as I can feel His presence.

 

[inthecloud]

I do not know why the CChruch do not use the ECFs when teaching the Eucharist more and why John 6 is literal.

Here the Didache:

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever…

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:
We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

Is hard to believe that is if was just memorial bread the first Christians would have believe that at all before taking it. It was not a symbol for them.
And this:

Quote:
Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day. But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

See, they thought of the Eucharist as a sacrifice and was important to then to go to confession of sins, in public before taking part in the Eucharist.

I continue:

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I am struggling. I am a born-again, but I still practice my Catholic Faith

Are Catholic born again?

learn your faith.

 

[inthecloud]

Ignatius of Antioch:

Chapter VII.—Let us stand aloof from such heretics.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,10161016 Theodoret, in quoting this passage, reads προσφοράς, “offering.” because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death 10171017 Literally, “die disputing.” in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,10181018 Literally, “to love.” Some think there is a reference to the agapæ, or love-feasts. that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of10191019 The reading is περί in the one case, and μετά in the other, though the latter meaning seems preferable. Most of the mss. of the longer recension read περί, as in the shorter. them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.10201020 Literally, “perfected.” But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection. They are the offspring of that spirit who is the author of all evil, who led Adam,10211021 Literally, “drove Adam out of.” by means of his wife, to transgress the commandment, who slew Abel by the hands of Cain, who fought against Job, who was the accuser of Joshua10221022 Zech. iii. 1. the son of Josedech, who sought to “sift the faith”10231023 Luke xxii. 31. of the apostles, who stirred up the multitude of the Jews against the Lord, who also now “worketh in the children of disobedience;10241024 Eph. ii. 2. from whom the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail,10251025 Luke xxii. 32. not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk with10261026 The reading is περί in the one case, and μετά in the other, though the latter meaning seems preferable. Most of the mss. of the longer recension read περί, as in the shorter. them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.

More to come:

 

[inthecloud]

Justin Martyr:

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
CHAPTER LXVII – WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRIS- TIANS. And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

I wonder why fundagelicals say that I should take Genesis 1 to 11 literally but not John 6. In both cases against evidence.