What is wrong with transubstantiation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter corvidae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

corvidae

Guest
I just wonder what is wrong with transubstantiation, or with the word transubstantiation. I mean, why are people opposed to that word.

For example, transubstantiation means this and only this, there is a different substance there, but it still looks, tastes, feels like what was originally there.

It does not state how it happens.

How can anyone who claims belief in the real presence deny that it still looks, taste, and feels like bread and wine?

A lone Raven
 
The deniers of the Real Presense seize upon the word because then they can, by straw-man fallacy, claim it is of “late invention”, via the Latern IV council of 1215.
 
Lion is right, but there’s more.

The other half of the objections come from the people who object to trying to explain what should be left as a mystery (so they argue), especially because it is just another instance of the ever-pervasive and sinister Latin drive to explain what should be left unexplained. (At least that’s the objection I’ve seen on the one hand from some Lutherans and some Orthodox.)

-Rob
 
But it is not an explanation. It says nothing on how things happen it is just a word to say, it still looks the same but is not.

I am just wondering if it is a misunderstanding of the word that is opposed.

A lone Raven
 
You might want to post this question in the “Eastern Christianity” forum. I’m sure you will receive a proper response.😃
 
Ahimsa said:
You might want to post this question in the “Eastern Christianity” forum. I’m sure you will receive a proper response.😃
Click to expand...
Considering that it is not only Eastern Christians that don’t like the term but many Protestants, as well, I think it is should stay here. :tiphat:

My answer to the objections is that the Catholic Church has had the onus of defending the teachings of the Church against all and sundry. It is the Catholic Church that has fought off heresies from day one. That is it’s duty, which is why it feels the need to define things that other Christian do not (but who actually benefit from the Catholic Church’s efforts, acknowledged or not 😉 ).
 
I think a similar objection is to the Church’s importation of Greek philosophical concepts into the doctrine, such as the transformed wine and bread having just the “accidents” (look, feel, taste, etc.) of wine and bread. Since none of this is in Scripture or Christ’s words at the last supper, it seems to non-Catholics (even those who believe in the Real Presence) that this is an unnecessary imposition of Greek philosophical structures on a Holy Mystery. Of course, it wouldn’t be the only example.
 
rr1213 said:
I think a similar objection is to the Church’s importation of Greek philosophical concepts into the doctrine, such as the transformed wine and bread having just the “accidents” (look, feel, taste, etc.) of wine and bread. Since none of this is in Scripture or Christ’s words at the last supper, it seems to non-Catholics (even those who believe in the Real Presence) that this is an unnecessary imposition of Greek philosophical structures on a Holy Mystery. Of course, it wouldn’t be the only example.
Click to expand...
Of course, the implication is there is something wrong with using Greek philosophical terms to attempt to define what happens to the bread and wine at the consecration. I can’t see why it should be a problem–it’s only an explanation, not the thing itself.

The Real Presence is a total mystery, something the Church has never denied and agrees with completely. But, skeptics must have their answer and transubstantiation comes about as close to explaining the physicality of the mystery as any explanation out there. If someone comes up with a better one, I’m sure the Church would be happy to teach it. 🙂
 
Della said:
Of course, the implication is there is something wrong with using Greek philosophical terms to attempt to define what happens to the bread and wine at the consecration. I can’t see why it should be a problem–it’s only an explanation, not the thing itself.

The Real Presence is a total mystery, something the Church has never denied and agrees with completely. But, skeptics must have their answer and transubstantiation comes about as close to explaining the physicality of the mystery as any explanation out there. If someone comes up with a better one, I’m sure the Church would be happy to teach it. 🙂
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, what is wrong with the Orthodox understanding of the elements?

Or the Lutheran understanding (putting aside for a moment the Catholic objection to Lutheran orders)…“in, with and under” the bread and wine?
 
I would venture to guess that the problem with “in, with and under” is that there is still bread there, the bread has not changed at all. Why would Jesus be more present there than anywhere else if the bread had not changed.

Just a thought.

A lone Raven
 
corvidae said:
I just wonder what is wrong with transubstantiation, or with the word transubstantiation. I mean, why are people opposed to that word.

For example, transubstantiation means this and only this, there is a different substance there, but it still looks, tastes, feels like what was originally there.

It does not state how it happens.

How can anyone who claims belief in the real presence deny that it still looks, taste, and feels like bread and wine?

A lone Raven
Click to expand...
My main objection to it is that modern people (including even the most traditional Catholics, except perhaps a few specialists in medieval philosophy) do not think in terms of substance and accidents. Therefore, the term has to be heavily explained if it’s not to be misunderstood. I’m not even convinced that most Catholics who use the term mean the same thing by it that St. Thomas did. On the whole I think it’s come to mean something *more *literal than what St. Thomas meant, and I have problems with that. Often traditional Catholics seem to think that the appearance of bread and wine is some kind of fake or optical illusion. You get these claims about Eucharistic miracles that imply that the flesh really is the natural flesh of Jesus in terms of DNA, chemical composition, etc. That would make no sense in terms of transubstantiation as St. Thomas defines it–such claims demonstrate that the people speaking this way don’t have a clue what substance meant in medieval philosophy. Arguably these more literal views were common even in St. Thomas’s day and transubstantiation was always a rather elitist conception–which is a further strike against it.

In short, I could conceivably accept transubstantiation as Aquinas defines it, but I’m not convinced that most Catholics understand what he meant by it or mean anything remotely like the same thing. “Substance” to most of us means quantitative physical stuff that can be subjected to chemical analysis, etc. To maintain “transubstantiation” together with that definition of substance is to turn the Blessed Sacrament into a cheap magic trick in which God simply fools our senses into thinking we are eating bread and wine so we won’t gag. (And that is, I hasten to add, not what the Council of Trent says–it doesn’t define things as closely as Aquinas but it appears to be working with basically the same definition of substance.)

Those of us who believe firmly in the Real Presence but are wary of the term “transubstantiation” are not being vague or unreasonable. We are dubious about the term because we can’t see what useful purpose it serves.

The best argument for it, it seems to me, is that modern physics are simply inadequate to describe the Real Presence, and that however confusing the language of medieval physics may be, it is going to have to make do until we find an adequate alternative. To which I would respond that that is all very well, but why not then simply speak of the Real Presence, with appropriate safeguards to make it clear that we are not talking about a subjective presence or a presence merely of Christ’s Soul or Divinity?

This isn’t a big deal to me. If I were Catholic, or if I decided to become Catholic on other grounds, I’d have no problem trusting the Church’s judgment on this issue. But since you ask why other Christians (such as Anglicans) have issues with the term, this is my answer!

Edwin
 
rr1213 said:
If that’s the case, what is wrong with the Orthodox understanding of the elements?

Or the Lutheran understanding (putting aside for a moment the Catholic objection to Lutheran orders)…“in, with and under” the bread and wine?
Click to expand...
The Lutheran understanding does not measure up to Scripture:
“This IS my body…”
Also, which came first - Luther’s “in with and under” or Trents “transubstantiation”?
 
Philthy said:
The Lutheran understanding does not measure up to Scripture:
“This IS my body…”

That is the Lutheran understanding. Jesus didn’t say “The substance of this isn’t being transformed into the substance of my body.”

Also, which came first - Luther’s “in with and under” or Trents “transubstantiation”?
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation (though not Trent’s declaration thereof). But that really isn’t the point. Both theories are trying to explain the essential mystery. If transubstantiation is flawed, it’s fair to propose an alternative theory. Myself, I don’t see a major doctrinal difference between the two.

Edwin
 
rr1213 said:
If that’s the case, what is wrong with the Orthodox understanding of the elements?

Or the Lutheran understanding (putting aside for a moment the Catholic objection to Lutheran orders)…“in, with and under” the bread and wine?
Click to expand...
I don’t know enough about the Orthodox understanding to comment, but I do know their consecration is valid, which is all I need to know.

As for the Lutheran understanding, it won’t serve because it doesn’t go far enough. Jesus isn’t merely “in, with and under” the bread and wine. The bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ. How exactly this is we really do not know, but transubstantiation comes closest to explaining the reality as we’re likely to understand it in this life.

It’s like most of the mysteries of Christianity. For instance, just how did Christ become incarnate in Mary’s womb? Just how were people healed at his touch? Exactly what was the physical operation of Jesus’ body when he rose from the dead? We don’t know, but then most Christians simply take these miracles for granted while, for some unknown reason, they must pick apart the Real Presence. It is enough for me that Jesus declared “This is my body…this is my blood.” What more, really, do we need to know or debate?
 
Contarini said:
The best argument for it, it seems to me, is that modern physics are simply inadequate to describe the Real Presence, and that however confusing the language of medieval physics may be, it is going to have to make do until we find an adequate alternative. To which I would respond that that is all very well, but why not then simply speak of the Real Presence, with appropriate safeguards to make it clear that we are not talking about a subjective presence or a presence merely of Christ’s Soul or Divinity?
Click to expand...
A excelent post, and although I can’t totally agree you clearly articulated a reasonable position.

The mystery of transubstantiation is difficult to understand, and often misunderstood. If something is diffcult to comprehend however, substituting a different term does not make it easier. In fact, replacing a traditional widely used term with something else contributes more to confusion than to clarity. If we were to abandon the traditional terminology to use something borrowed from quantum physics, I don’t think we would have advanced in any way. Seems to me that we are best off sticking to traditional terms, and increasing our efforts to explain and clarify them.

There are also some who seem to prefer replacing specific if difficult terms with vague, poorly defined terms. That might be a strategy to avoid arguments, but I don’t think it is a means of promoting understanding.
 
Contarini said:
You get these claims about Eucharistic miracles that imply that the flesh really is the natural flesh of Jesus in terms of DNA, chemical composition, etc. That would make no sense in terms of transubstantiation as St. Thomas defines it–such claims demonstrate that the people speaking this way don’t have a clue what substance meant in medieval philosophy. Arguably these more literal views were common even in St. Thomas’s day and transubstantiation was always a rather elitist conception–which is a further strike against it.

In short, I could conceivably accept transubstantiation as Aquinas defines it, but I’m not convinced that most Catholics understand what he meant by it or mean anything remotely like the same thing. Edwin
Click to expand...
I was getting ready to blast you but then I realized it wasn’t a Catholic who said this but one of my favorite Protestants on these forums:tiphat:

Although I realize from your post, you do not place much stock in these Eucharistic Miracles, I did wish to post a link for any who wished to look who may not be aware.

Here is a link to The Real Presence Association and the documentation of several Eucharistic miracles.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
MariaG said:
I was getting ready to blast you but then I realized it wasn’t a Catholic who said this but one of my favorite Protestants on these forums:tiphat:

Although I realize from your post, you do not place much stock in these Eucharistic Miracles, I did wish to post a link for any who wished to look who may not be aware.

Here is a link to The Real Presence Association and the documentation of several Eucharistic miracles.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
Click to expand...
I’m actually open to the possibility that these are genuine. But in that case, as Aquinas puts it, “during such apparitions Christ’s proper semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed either in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above.” Aquinas insists that Christ’s body *in its proper species *remains in heaven.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
I’m actually open to the possibility that these are genuine. But in that case, as Aquinas puts it, “during such apparitions Christ’s proper semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed either in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above.” Aquinas insists that Christ’s body *in its proper species *remains in heaven.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links Edwin:)

I tried to take a look at them now, but I am afraid I am a little too tried to tackle them with any real understanding.

I always appreciate these things from you. You are one of the few non-Catholics I know whom I think knows the Catholic faith, has no distorted view of Catholic teachings in any way, yet still does not feel that God is calling Him to become Catholic. And I cannot say with any surety that you are wrong:p

I will place those links in my “to study list” and either post here or PM you my thoughts:) Hopefully they will be worth more than :twocents:

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
MariaG said:
Thanks for the links Edwin:)

I tried to take a look at them now, but I am afraid I am a little too tried to tackle them with any real understanding.

I always appreciate these things from you. You are one of the few non-Catholics I know whom I think knows the Catholic faith, has no distorted view of Catholic teachings in any way, yet still does not feel that God is calling Him to become Catholic. And I cannot say with any surety that you are wrong:p

I will place those links in my “to study list” and either post here or PM you my thoughts:) Hopefully they will be worth more than :twocents:

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
Click to expand...
The species link just came with the quote from the Summa–I didn’t create it and hadn’t looked at it. Though now I have looked at it it’s helpful and relevant (FWIW, it makes my brain hurt too–my courses in scholastic philosophy are 10 years ago now, though I try to keep my hand in by reading Aquinas!)

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top