What exactly is the dogma of transubstantiation, and what is considered the explanation?

[DarkLight]

Please. The actual Catholic Church never dictated a view on tables and chairs and rocks. For general information, tables, chairs, and rocks are part of the material world because they do not have spiritual rational souls.

That’s kind of what I’m asking here. The way Trent is phrased, it seems like it would imply something, not only about the miracle of transubstantiation, but about the metaphysical nature of perfectly ordinary mundane bread. And since we know that bread is not a special category of matter, anything that would be implied about bread would also be implied about tables and chairs and rocks and any other material item.

 

[grannymh]

That’s kind of what I’m asking here. The way Trent is phrased, it seems like it would imply something, not only about the miracle of transubstantiation, but about the metaphysical nature of perfectly ordinary mundane bread. And since we know that bread is not a special category of matter, anything that would be implied about bread would also be implied about tables and chairs and rocks and any other material item.

Try starting with what you know about the spiritual world. I just posted the below observation on another thread. I try not to imply that one should believe in the spiritual world. Instead, I prefer that one understands the spiritual world if possible.
“Another dumb thought from a granny who is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.”

“It appears to me that the spiritual world, like Sacraments, etc., has been replaced by some of the prevalent ideas or standards found in the material world.”

 

[John_Martin]

There are many individual loafs of bread in the species of bread.
In the sacristy before Mass there are large packages of whole wheat bread in wafer dimensions.
At the consecration these pieces of the species of bread, individually in substance whole wheat bread, are no longer whole wheat bread come from the bakery. Now they are individually the body of Christ, individually and substantially the bread come down from heaven, still of the species of bread, although living bread unlike other individuals (substances) of the species of bread.

There is no metaphysical alteration of material - there is only a “new answer” to the question, “What is this that I am about to chew on?” and it is from the One who defines the matter in his hand as he takes, breaks, gives (the correct definition of understanding of an individual of a species is the creator, the maker, of that individual, of that substance.

Those who believe this definer take it from him and eat it with the understanding he gives. His Father looks about to see where to pour his being into his Son in the divine reciprocal Love, and pours it into those who have consumed this living bread from heaven as the Body of his Son. Substance is not sensible; it is intelligible. That is why Trent “declares” to us who are not the creators the “what-ness” of this individual piece of the species of bread.

 

[DarkLight]

There is no metaphysical alteration of material - there is only a “new answer” to the question, “What is this that I am about to chew on?”

To be fair, that pretty much is the definition of a metaphysical alteration of material, at least if you’re using the definition of metaphysics common in philosophy (which doesn’t always have a whole lot to do with the popular conception of it).

 

[John_Martin]

Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
There is no metaphysical alteration of material - there is only a “new answer” to the question, “What is this that I am about to chew on?”

To be fair, that pretty much is the definition of a metaphysical alteration of material, at least if you’re using the definition of metaphysics common in philosophy (which doesn’t always have a whole lot to do with the popular conception of it).

Not so, even from the beginning.
Jesus himself took bread and asserted the answer to the question “What is it that you are holding?” “This is my body that will be given up for you”.
St. Paul, himself understanding philosophers also answered the “What is it?” question: “The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” and again to others: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you’.”
He did not say, “this material is changing into my body”, but simply stated “what it is” that you now see in his hands to take and eat.

It is only an alteration of material to the mind that centers all being in matter, with soul, form, or spirit being aspects of matter, yet they are not. Rather, matter is passive to that which is not material as to its what-ness.

 

[DarkLight]

Not so, even from the beginning.
Jesus himself took bread and asserted the answer to the question “What is it that you are holding?” “This is my body that will be given up for you”.
St. Paul, himself understanding philosophers also answered the “What is it?” question: “The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” and again to others: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you’.”
He did not say, “this material is changing into my body”, but simply stated “what it is” that you now see in his hands to take and eat.

It is only an alteration of material to the mind that centers all being in matter, with soul, form, or spirit being aspects of matter, yet they are not. Rather, matter is passive to that which is not material as to its what-ness.

Ok I think I see what you’re saying now. It’s not an alteration of the material nature. It is a metaphysical alteration, because the reality of what is behind the material matter is what metaphysics is concerned with. An alteration of the material itself is what I would consider a physical or scientific alteration rather than a metaphysical one.

 

[jimkhong]

I’m asking specifically because of the substance/accident language that Trent uses. At the time the Council of Trent was held, Aristotelean substance theory was pretty much the accepted view of matter, although there were some variations within the theory. Nowadays the idea of “substances”, while not unheard of, isn’t a dominant philosophical view and is one that’s seen as having a lot of problems. It would seem somewhat odd if Trent dictated the substance/accident view, especially since that would have a lot of philosophical implications for ordinary bread and by extension other ordinary things like tables and rocks and cell phones (which really aren’t the purview of a Council). But Trent does clearly use the substance/accident distinction.

DarkLight, I am not exactly sure what your question is since there is no question mark in your post. Maybe that’s why there are so many answers missing the point. It seems to me that you are not asking about the doctrine itself but why was it worded the way it was.

I suspect the answer lies in the many eucharistic heresies that emerged in the Middle Ages. I am still in the midst of reading about it and maybe you should join in. Most conciliar pronouncements do not emerge in a vacuum and so one needs to understand the background to its emergence.

I started from the very beginning with Radbertus and Ratramnus, which was probably more a controversy than a heresy. Its all interesting stuff and will be happy to share if any light is thrown on your question.

 

[MPat]

I was speaking here primarily of the philosophical community (both Christian and non-Christian) rather than of the populace at large - those that are generally interested in the study of metaphysics for its own sake. There really isn’t a lot of politics involved in those sorts of arguments; there’s just not enough that’s relevant within the discipline of metaphysics as considered by philosophy (which is often different from the popular conception). Religion sometimes, but largely from the Christian side, and even then generally largely unconcerned with the nature of inanimate objects from a religious standpoint.

I see.

And yet, even among philosophers, are you sure many know enough to have an informed opinion? Looking at edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html I wouldn’t be surprised if many didn’t know enough…

I can hardly go into years of philosophy arguments on this message board, sadly.

I think you are overestimating how hard that is.

Look: plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/substance/ - and I have already done so.

If nothing else, it seems odd that a Church council would dictate a view on tables and chairs and rocks. And it seems at least plausible that the council used the language they did because that was the assumed theory at the time of how you talked about matter, rather than out of any intent to dictate a philosophical theory (and from my research the language was formulated to be neutral between the philosophical theories that were popular at the time).

First, we do have teachings about “tables and chairs and rocks”. For example, when we say that God has created the Universe, we do understand that the Universe is the one with all those objects.

Second, take this exercise: try to reword the dogma while assuming that “Bundle theory” (or some other alternative, if you have one in mind) is correct.

 

[Wesrock]

DarkLight, I am not exactly sure what your question is since there is no question mark in your post. Maybe that’s why there are so many answers missing the point. It seems to me that you are not asking about the doctrine itself but why was it worded the way it was.

He’s just asking if the defined dogma of transubstantiation also defines Aristotlean-Thomist metaphysics as dogma.

 

[jimkhong]

He’s just asking if the defined dogma of transubstantiation also defines Aristotlean-Thomist metaphysics as dogma.

Ah, that’s well beyond my areas of understanding or interest. But will still like to hear what people have to say.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The dogma of transubstantiation was infallibly defined by the Council of Trent:

“Certainly, the most holy Eucharist has this in common with the other Sacraments: it is the Symbol of a sacred thing, and the visible form of an invisible grace. Yet truly, there is found in it something excellent and singular. For the rest of the Sacraments first have the power of sanctifying at the time when one uses them, whereas, in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author of sanctity Himself.”

"And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, there exists the true Body of our Lord and His true Blood, under the species of bread and wine, together with His soul and Divinity.

“But certainly, the body is under the species of bread, and the blood is under the species of wine, by the force of the words. Then the body itself is under the species of wine, and the blood is under the species of bread, and the soul is under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy by which the parts of Christ our Lord – who is now resurrected from the dead to die no more – are united to one another, and also to the Divinity because of that admirable hypostatic union with His body and soul. For this reason, it is most true that as much as is contained under either species, is [contained] under both. For Christ, whole and entire, is under the species of bread, and under any part whatever of that species; again, the whole exists under the species of wine, and under its parts.”

Take note of the specifics of this infallible teaching. The substance of the bread only changes into the substance of the Body of Christ. His blood and soul, that is to say, the rest of His human nature, become present (in the same instant and in the same act) by the “natural connection and concomitancy” that all the parts of His human nature have with one another. And the Divine Nature (in the same instant and in the same act) becomes present by the “hypostatic union” that the Divine Nature has with the human nature of Christ. For the two natures are united as one Person. The same is true for the consecration of the wine, except that the substance of wine changes into the substance of Christ’s Blood, then the rest of the human nature and the Divine Nature become present in the same way as for the consecration of the bread.

 

[DarkLight]

The dogma of transubstantiation was infallibly defined by the Council of Trent:

“Certainly, the most holy Eucharist has this in common with the other Sacraments: it is the Symbol of a sacred thing, and the visible form of an invisible grace. Yet truly, there is found in it something excellent and singular. For the rest of the Sacraments first have the power of sanctifying at the time when one uses them, whereas, in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author of sanctity Himself.”

"And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, there exists the true Body of our Lord and His true Blood, under the species of bread and wine, together with His soul and Divinity.

“But certainly, the body is under the species of bread, and the blood is under the species of wine, by the force of the words. Then the body itself is under the species of wine, and the blood is under the species of bread, and the soul is under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy by which the parts of Christ our Lord – who is now resurrected from the dead to die no more – are united to one another, and also to the Divinity because of that admirable hypostatic union with His body and soul. For this reason, it is most true that as much as is contained under either species, is [contained] under both. For Christ, whole and entire, is under the species of bread, and under any part whatever of that species; again, the whole exists under the species of wine, and under its parts.”

Take note of the specifics of this infallible teaching. The substance of the bread only changes into the substance of the Body of Christ. His blood and soul, that is to say, the rest of His human nature, become present (in the same instant and in the same act) by the “natural connection and concomitancy” that all the parts of His human nature have with one another. And the Divine Nature (in the same instant and in the same act) becomes present by the “hypostatic union” that the Divine Nature has with the human nature of Christ. For the two natures are united as one Person. The same is true for the consecration of the wine, except that the substance of wine changes into the substance of Christ’s Blood, then the rest of the human nature and the Divine Nature become present in the same way as for the consecration of the bread.

Given that this is a question about the proper interpretation of Trent, simply quoting it really doesn’t answer anything. The question here is whether Trent’s use of “substance” binds a Catholic to the Aristotelean theory of matter.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Given that this is a question about the proper interpretation of Trent, simply quoting it really doesn’t answer anything. The question here is whether Trent’s use of “substance” binds a Catholic to the Aristotelean theory of matter.

“Re: What exactly is the dogma of transubstantiation, and what is considered the explanation?”

My first post above answers the question as to what the dogma is, and what is its explanation. As for the question on Aristotle’s theory of matter:

The division of created things – matter, energy, souls – into substance and accidents is a division into that which is essential to the nature of the thing, and its non-essential qualities. Change the non-essentials, and the nature does not change. Change the essentials, the substance, and the thing becomes a different kind of thing.

It is not a theory, but an accurate way of describing reality. It is obvious to reason that some qualities of a thing can be changed, as the shape or color of bread, without changing its nature. Yet a change in the essentials of the thing changes its nature, as when bread is dissolved in the stomach.

After the consecration, the substance and accidents of Christ’s human nature and the substance of His Divine Nature are present, under the accidents of bread and wine. Transubstantiation, though, only changes the substance of bread into the substance of Christ’s body, and the substance of wine into the substance of Christ’s blood, while the rest of Christ, in the same instant, becomes present by concomitancy and the hypostatic union, as Trent explains.

Christ’s human nature, then, takes on the accidents of bread and wine, including being physically present in a particular location (on the altar, in the tabernacle, in one’s mouth and stomach).

 

[MPat]

Given that this is a question about the proper interpretation of Trent, simply quoting it really doesn’t answer anything. The question here is whether Trent’s use of “substance” binds a Catholic to the Aristotelean theory of matter.

That depends on what exactly counts as “Aristotelean theory of matter”, doesn’t it?

Basically, the dogma says that before consecration we have a substance (bread) that has some accidents (density, temperature, colour etc.), while after the consecration we have the same accidents and another substance.

You can change names (let’s say, “substance” to “object” and “accident” to “property”). Will that count as “non-Aristotelean theory of matter”?

On the other hand, if we take the “Bundle theory” (which is clearly “non-Aristotelean theory of matter”), it tells us that “bread” is just a name for that “bundle” of accidents. I’m afraid that in that case trying to reformulate the dogma will result in saying that after consecration the “bundle” stays the same but the name for it changes - and that seems to make no sense, if there is nothing other than the “bundle”…

Thus “Bundle theory” is not compatible with that dogma.

Not that there is any difficulty in that: after all, there is no good reason to believe “Bundle theory”. It is certainly contrary to what people normally believe, and it seems to be mainly supported by refusal to believe in existence of something that cannot be imagined or seen pure, isolated. Nor does it have any useful applications that would be endangered by its rejection (it sure looks hard to live as if it was true).

Or do you have some other alternative in mind?

 

[Richca]

I’m asking specifically because of the substance/accident language that Trent uses. At the time the Council of Trent was held, Aristotelean substance theory was pretty much the accepted view of matter, although there were some variations within the theory. Nowadays the idea of “substances”, while not unheard of, isn’t a dominant philosophical view and is one that’s seen as having a lot of problems. It would seem somewhat odd if Trent dictated the substance/accident view, especially since that would have a lot of philosophical implications for ordinary bread and by extension other ordinary things like tables and rocks and cell phones (which really aren’t the purview of a Council). But Trent does clearly use the substance/accident distinction.

Actually, Trent is not as specific as you are referring to it here. Though Trent uses the word ‘substance’, it does not use the word ‘accident’ but the word ‘species’ which is usually translated appearances for what remains of the bread and wine after the consecration. The word ‘species’ (appearance/s) is what is normally or always employed in referring to what remains of the bread and wine after the consecration in official magisterial teaching. What is the reason the fathers of the Council of Trent chose to use ‘species’ instead of ‘accidents’? There are probably a couple of reasons. Firstly, the term ‘species’ referring to what remains of the bread and wine after the consecration became part of the official terminology of the teaching Church long before the Council of Trent. For example, it is used in the Creed Firmiter of the IV Lateran Council (1215); the Council of Florence (1439-1445); and a number of popes since the IV Lateran Council in their teaching capacity in letters, pronouncements, etc. Secondly, the term probably has a more ancient history in regards to the eucharist even among the fathers of the Church (I’m not looking this up at the present moment) then ‘accident’ since the Aristotlelian substance/accident terminology didn’t really come into vogue among the Church’s theologians until the scholastic period. Thirdly, I don’t think the fathers of the Council of Trent wanted to tie themselves to any philosophical theory or system as if the faith of the Church in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist depended on such and not rather on the word of Christ. Consequently, Trent and the official teaching of the Church in general stops short of tying explicitly substance with accident which is Aristotlelian however true or common sensical such concepts may be. On this point, I found an interesting reply from Catholic Answers to the following question someone proposed:

Question: Why does the Church insist on binding its eucharistic doctrine to the technical Aristotelian categories of “substance” and “accidents”? Why must the magisterium insist on a specific philosophical theory of matter?

Answer: Actually, the magisterium’s language isn’t that specific. Although the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents has been used by Catholic theologians, the Council of Trent opted for a broader distinction of substance and species, which does not necessarily imply any particular theory about the nature of the relationship (whether “accidental” or otherwise) between what a thing is and its sensible attributes. All this necessarily pins down is that the eucharistic elements continue to manifest all the physical properties of bread and wine, but what they are has been completely changed.

I also came upon this interesting post on praytellblog.com by a professor of theology at Loyola University Maryland and a permanent deacon:
Just to put an old canard found in the blog post to rest one more time: historically speaking, “transubstantiation” has little, if anything, to do with Aristotelian Physics. The term was coined at a point when Aristotle’s Physics were unknown in the West. All that is required, philosophically, to affirm transubstantiation is to accept that there is a distinction to be made between the identity of something and it’s appearance. This doesn’t require any Aristotle but only the sense of object permanence that most of us acquire by age two.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

On the same point, the following from the the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei (1965) of Pope Paul VI is instructive:

1. And so the rule of language which the Church has established through the long labor of centuries, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and which she has confirmed with the authority of the Councils, and which has more than once been the watchword and banner of orthodox faith, is to be religiously preserved, and no one may presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new knowledge. Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by the ecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation be judged as no longer appropriate for men of our times, and let others be rashly substituted for them? In the same way, it cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority take something away from the formulas which were used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Mystery for our belief. These formulas—like the others that the Church used to propose the dogmas of faith—express concepts that are not tied to a certain specific form of human culture, or to a certain level of scientific progress, or to one or another theological school. Instead they set forth what the human mind grasps of reality through necessary and universal experience and what it expresses in apt and exact words, whether it be in ordinary or more refined language. For this reason, these formulas are adapted to all men of all times and all places.
   Greater Clarity of Expression Always Possible
2. They can, it is true, be made clearer and more obvious; and doing this is of great benefit. But it must always be done in such a way that they retain the meaning in which they have been used, so that with the advance of an understanding of the faith, the truth of faith will remain unchanged. For it is the teaching of the First Vatican Council that “the meaning that Holy Mother the Church has once declared, is to be retained forever, and no pretext of deeper understanding ever justifies any deviation from that meaning.” (11)

Fourthly, I don’t think the fathers of the Council of Trent were primarily interested in dictating a philosophy of nature or of metaphysics or something of the sort or of formally approving some philosophical theory or school of doctrine. The concern here is about the eucharist and the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist and the Church’s ancient faith in this belief all of which is founded on the word of Jesus himself and faith in his word. The doctrine of transubstantiation also excludes errors or heresies that have or do crop up here and there that are contrary to the Church’s ancient belief in the real presence and the words of Jesus. The doctrine of transubstantiation is nothing more or means nothing more than what the faith of the Church has always held since apostolic times concerning Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist, indeed, the whole Christ in the eucharist.

Transubstantiation affirms that a real substantial change occurs in the being, reality, or existence of the bread and wine at the consecration at Mass into the body and blood of Christ. The change or conversion occurs at the level of substance in the bread and wine because the species or sensible appearances (accidents in Aristotlelian terminology) of the bread and wine remain after the miraculous conversion of the substances of the bread and wine into the substances of Christ’s body and blood and neither do the sensible appearances or accidents of Christ’s body or blood appear after the consecration. The English word substance come from the latin verbs substare and subsistere: the first means ‘to stand under’ and the second ‘to stand by itself.’ The english word accident comes from the latin verb accidere which means ‘to fall on top of.’ The doctrine of transubstantion also excludes some errors or heresies regarding Christ’s real presence such as: (1) the bread and wine are purely symbolic of Christ’s body and blood with the consequence that the bread and wine remains substantially bread and wine after the consecration; (2) a purely spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine with the consequence again that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after the consecration; (3) impanation; (4) companation or consubstantiation.

In regards to the Aristotlelian substance/accident terminology, it is no secret that not a few catholic theologians, of course, have used these concepts in their explanation of transubstantiation including the universal doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas. The Catechism of the Council of Trent in its explanation of transubstantiation uses species and accidents interchangeably, at least in the translation I have of it. This catechism essentially follows the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas in its explanation of transubstantiation. So even though Trent uses substance/species, this can be readily adapted to Aristotlelian substance/accidents and the resultant explanation such as Aquinas’ and the Catechism of the Council of Trent is valid and in conformity with Trent and the faith of the Church regarding the real and true body and blood of Christ in the eucharist. In fact, I don’t believe the Church possesses a better explanation than that offered by Aquinas in so far as human reasoning can describe more or less a great mystery and miracle of the faith. All the same, Trent is much more reserved as it were in its dogmatic formulation of the miracle of transubstantiation, a point I noted in the beginnings of this post, than the more explicit Aristotlelianism of Aquinas which Aristotlelianism Aquinas had to reformulate in some respects before this great mystery of the eucharist and before which the human intellect can only go so far and surrender the rest to God.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Richca:

I also came upon this interesting post on praytellblog.com by a professor of theology at Loyola University Maryland and a permanent deacon:
Just to put an old canard found in the blog post to rest one more time: historically speaking, “transubstantiation” has little, if anything, to do with Aristotelian Physics. The term was coined at a point when Aristotle’s Physics were unknown in the West. All that is required, philosophically, to affirm transubstantiation is to accept that there is a distinction to be made between the identity of something and it’s appearance. This doesn’t require any Aristotle but only the sense of object permanence that most of us acquire by age two.

Thanks for excellent posts! I hope this helps people understand that Transubstantiation is NOT bound up with Aristotelian Philosophy, although there is a certain affinity. But rather, just like in the Apostolic Age, and the Age of the Church Fathers, the important point was the distinction between what a thing IS and what it APPEARS to be. That is what constitutes the De Fide Dogma even today in simplistic terms. The rest of the intricacies of Transubstantiation are more concerned with rectifying the errors of various Eucharistic heresies.

 

[Wesrock]

Excellent posts, Richca.