Transubstantiation

[Akita Suggagaki]

I am not questioning or challenging what we Catholics term "Real Presence" in the Eucharist.
On another thread I expressed a possible need to explain how it occurs.

In the Catechism we find:

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."

The problem is "substance".

What do we mean by that term. I don't think the catechism tells us.

In 252 it does say:
The Church uses
(I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity,
(II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and
(III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.


New Advent tells us:
It is necessary, therefore, to recognize in each thing certain secondary realities (see ACCIDENT) and also a permanent fundamentum which continues to exist notwithstanding the superficial changes, which serves as a basis or support for the secondary realities — what, in a word, we term the substance. Its fundamental characteristic is to be in itself and by itself, and not in another subject as accidents are.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Substance

A genus supremum, cannot strictly be defined by an analysis into genus and specific difference; yet a survey of the universe at large will enable us to form without difficulty an accurate idea of substance

www.newadvent.org

So in the Eucharist we are saying that the substance, the fundamental characteristic is changed even though everything we know to be "bread and wine", breadness and wineness remain. Now, Aristotle and Plato would say that breadness and wineness are the substances. They are all that make bread bread and wine wine. St Thomas kind of twisted their notion of substance in a way they did not intend.

It seems to me that we are really talking about the introduction of Christ's presence, not as a material substance, but as a non material spiritual reality. That would be substance in a conceptual sense, like the substance of an idea, or argument or theory. For example, what is the substance of a person? It would seem to be an enduring conscious personality and center of awareness. Not some transcendent immaterial particle.

The ancient concern about mater and substance no longer seems to serve us in an age where we acknowledge the dynamic change and process of all things around us.

 

[PloverWing]

As a non-Catholic, I will listen quietly to this discussion, with interest. The doctrine of transubstantiation (not Real Presence, but transubstantiation in particular) seems to require a belief that things have "substance", as defined in the quotes above. Is it possible to be a faithful Catholic without believing in Aristotelian metaphysics? (Feel free to point me to a modern Catholic philosophy text, if that's a better way to go. )

 

[zippy2006]

Is it possible to be a faithful Catholic without believing in Aristotelian metaphysics?

I suppose I would ask whether it is possible to give a coherent account without appealing in some way to Aristotelian metaphysics. Aristotle is the philosopher of common sense, and so to drastically deviate from his approach is generally to deviate from common sense. "In many subject-matters, to think correctly, is to think like Aristotle; and we are his disciples whether we will or no, though we may not know it" (John Henry Newman).

The question is whether there is a real objection to transubstantiation. The OP reflects a tradition of people who have a conclusion in search of an argument. They simply want novelty and "progress," and when they offer an argument their understanding of both ancient and modern philosophy is seen to be severely lacking. They are repeating soundbytes they have heard from pop authors, and there is no scholarly rigor to the position.

The simple fact that when a Catholic or non-Catholic group tries to oppose the concept of transubstantiation, they end up with a different doctrine of the Eucharist, points to the conclusion that transubstantiation best maps the doctrine (which is precisely what the Catholic Church claims, rather than that the concept is indispensable or dogmatic).

For a learned and classical explanation and critique of transubstantiation from a Lutheran point of view, I would recommend Jordan Cooper's short clip, "Differences Between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic View of the Eucharist." Any real debate about the concept of transubstantiation tends to be a debate about the fittingness of the concept. Dismissing it out of hand as based on outdated metaphysics is a cliché based in ignorance. A strong case could be made that the concept of transubstantiation imports the least metaphysical baggage of any doctrine of the Eucharist, given how intuitive and commonsensical Aristotle's broad approach is. I don't think those who critique transubstantiation on the basis of metaphysics alone have a leg to stand on (in large part because their metaphysical alternatives are non-existent, unestablished, or preposterous). Beyond that, we are speaking about a miracle, and a critique of a metaphysical account/description of a miracle is always going to be shaky given the fact that metaphysical accounts of miracles are inherently shaky in the first place. The only formidable critiques are theological critiques.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Aristotle is the philosopher of common sense, and so to drastically deviate from his approach is generally to deviate from common sense.

But the thing is, St Thomas deviated from Aristotle who was quite empirical, amended his concepts in a way Aristotle never intended..

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So wood, a substance. It can be cut, shaved, stained, even bent and those accidental changes do not change it substance, its woodsiness.
There is always a tie, a bond a connection between the substance and the accidents.

But if you burn it the substance is transformed from wood to ash and smoke and heat and light.

In transubstantiation as it exists in the Catholic thought now, a transformation occurs that disrupts the connection between substance and accidentals. It is as if saying that now the wood is ash even though it still looks like wood. In what sense then is it ash?

So also the Eucharist. In what sense is it "real presence"? I would say in the sense that it means something more to us, so much more that it transforms us. It becomes a person. But we don't kneed a metaphysical theory. What we need is a phenomenological theory.

 

[zippy2006]

But the thing is, St Thomas deviated from Aristotle who was quite empirical, amended his concepts in a way Aristotle never intended..

To adopt a metaphysics in order to describe a miracle is by definition to go beyond the scope of the metaphysics. Again, these are not real objections. Such an objection is on par with, "Oh, but you used words in your explanation!" Yes, all explanations use words, just as all descriptions of miracles go beyond natural norms.

In transubstantiation as it exists in the Catholic thought now, a transformation occurs that disrupts the connection between substance and accidentals.

Is transubstantiation sui generis? Yes, of course.

 

[zippy2006]

In what sense is it "real presence"? I would say in the sense that it means something more to us, so much more that it transforms us.

This is one of the errors that transubstantiation helps avoid. The transformative power of the Eucharist does not ultimately come from its "meaning something more to us."

But we don't kneed a metaphysical theory.

Ironically, this would be correct if you actually meant "knead."

What folks seldom grasp is that metaphysics is always at play, and it always buries its undertakers. The Council of Trent just made the interpretive metaphysics a bit more explicit. One could argue that the metaphysics ought to be left (more) implicit, but these end up being subtle arguments about fittingness.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This is one of the errors that transubstantiation helps avoid. The transformative power of the Eucharist does not ultimately come from its "meaning something more to us."

True

Ironically, this would be correct if you actually meant "knead."

Hah! Let's knead some dough and make some bread.

 

[fide]

It seems to me that the interchanging of transubstantiate and transform is the problem. The bread is not "transformed" into Christ - IMHO - the bread ceases instantly to exist, leaving behind only its past natural accidents, and instantly where the bread was, now Jesus is, not bound in any accidents but supernaturally free in their regard, but bound in the supernatural substance of His resurrected and glorified Self.

 

[JSRG]

As a non-Catholic, I will listen quietly to this discussion, with interest. The doctrine of transubstantiation (not Real Presence, but transubstantiation in particular) seems to require a belief that things have "substance", as defined in the quotes above. Is it possible to be a faithful Catholic without believing in Aristotelian metaphysics? (Feel free to point me to a modern Catholic philosophy text, if that's a better way to go. )

It is not required to believe in Aristotelian metaphysics, and we know this because they defined transubstantiation before Aristotelian metaphysics caught on.

Let's go through a timeline. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Aristotle was basically forgotten in the west. It wasn't until the twelfth century that his works were rediscovered and translated into Latin. By this point, the basic doctrine--and even the name--of transubstantiation was in use.

Apparently the first known usage of the specific term transubstantiation--or rather, the Latin word that later came to English as transubstantiation--was from the 11th century by Hildebert of Lavardin. This is not to say he came up with the doctrine, just that he was first one we have on record using that name. This is a key point because this was before Aristotle's works were even available.

But, to be fair, while the term was used and the belief was there, the term hadn't been formally defined yet. That came in the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, which declared:

"There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us."

By the time of the council, Aristotle's works were in fact available. However, as far as I can tell their metaphysical ideas only really caught on after the council. So it is very unlikely the people at the council knew much about Aristotelian metaphysics, let alone were basing their definition of transubstantiation on it. It does not, for example, use the term "accidents" as we would see in later Aristotelian-influenced descriptions of transubstantiation, instead saying that that in transubstantiation, the appearance ("form" in the above translation) of bread and wine remains, but the substance of the bread and wine changes. If one looks at the Latin, you see the Latin word "species" (which means appearance), and while the word "substantia" (substance) is not specifically there, it does say "transubstantiatio" (which became transubstantiation in English) which has the word "substantia" in it.

After the Lateran council, various aspects of Aristotelian metaphysics did start to catch on and were used as a way to describe transubstantiation by a lot of theologians, like Thomas Aquinas (who probably did more than anyone else to popularize it). He therefore repeatedly would talk about the "substance" changing but the "accidents" of bread and wine remaining, unlike the council which referred to substance and appearance.

It should be noted, for the record, that even after centuries of Aristotelian metaphysics being a popular way to describe transubstantiation, the Council of Trent still avoided using specifically Aristotelian terms when reiterating its description of transubstantiation, again referring to substance and appearance ("species" in the below translation):

"And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made 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; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation."

So the bottom line is that no, transubstantiation does not require belief in Aristotelian metaphysics because the term and doctrine predated any real influence of Aristotelian metaphysics. The fact later writers used Aristotelian metaphysics to describe it doesn't change that.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Just some musings on "substance"

Iron is a substance. Oxygen is a substance. Even iron oxide is a substance, compound.
Even DNA is a substance with its own properties Substance goes all the way up to the human person and personality, yes?

When talking about the human person, is the substance the same as the soul?

We tend to think of it in ontological material context with inherent correlating accidents.
Isn't the substance something material?

 

[zippy2006]

It is not required to believe in Aristotelian metaphysics, and we know this because they defined transubstantiation before Aristotelian metaphysics caught on.

This is interesting, and Jimmy Akin corroborates the argument in his article, "Can a Catholic Reject Transubstantiation?"

This goes to what I said above about the fact that Aristotle's basic ideas are not abstruse or unfamiliar. Western thought, beginning with Plato and Aristotle, distinguishes reality from appearance, which distinction eventually becomes ubiquitous.

 

[zippy2006]

Just some musings on "substance"

Here is a free article which attempts to track the historical genesis and meaning of the Latin term substantia, especially as it emerged as a technical term in Roman discourse: "Ousia, substance, essence: on the Roman understanding of being."

 

[fide]

Just some musings on "substance"

Iron is a substance. Oxygen is a substance. Even iron oxide is a substance, compound.
Even DNA is a substance with its own properties Substance goes all the way up to the human person and personality, yes?

When talking about the human person, is the substance the same as the soul?

We tend to think of it in ontological material context with inherent correlating accidents.
Isn't the substance something material?

This might be relevant, from the Catechism:

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. [Cf. Mt 16:25-26; Jn 15:13; Acts 2:41] But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,[Cf. Mt 10:28; 26:38; Jn 12:27; 2 Macc 6 30] that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:[Cf. I Cor 6:19-20; 15:44-45]
"Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day." [GS 14, 1]

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:[Cf. Council of Vienne (1312): DS 902] i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.[Cf. Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3896; Paul VI, CPC # 8; Lateran Council V (1513): DS 1440]

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Here is a free article which attempts to track the historical genesis and meaning of the Latin term substantia, especially as it emerged as a technical term in Roman discourse: "Ousia, substance, essence: on the Roman understanding of being."

Thanks, I will read it.

I also found this , of interest.
Ontology, Theology and the Eucharist: Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham

https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Institute%20of%20SA%20Studies/Ontology,%20Theology%20and%20the%20Eucharist%20-%20Thomas%20Aquinas%20and%20William%20of%20Ockham.pdf

 

[RileyG]

It seems to me that the interchanging of transubstantiate and transform is the problem. The bread is not "transformed" into Christ - IMHO - the bread ceases instantly to exist, leaving behind only its past natural accidents, and instantly where the bread was, now Jesus is, not bound in any accidents but supernaturally free in their regard, but bound in the supernatural substance of His resurrected and glorified Self.

I agree. What is wrong with saying transformed though? Is it because it relates to forms and not substance and accidents? I’m overthinking it.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

“soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

Soul is certainly something deeper than the physical material principle of being.
Quite like a fundamental substance, spiritual in nature. Or maybe better to say supernatural. Not under nature but above it. Not substance but super-stance. Well now I am just confusing things.

Real question is: Is substance a purely spiritual thing, like soul? I think it is.

 

[zippy2006]

Real question is: Is substance a purely spiritual thing, like soul? I think it is.

No, not colloquially or literally, and that is the sense we should primarily attend to. Not theologically either, for the eating of a sacrifice is a material act. "Body and blood" are not purely spiritual, just as that which is eaten is not purely spiritual. The sacrificial offering is present under the appearance of bread and wine, and it is the sacrificial offering which is consumed. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Thanks, I will read it.

I also found this , of interest.
Ontology, Theology and the Eucharist: Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham

https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Institute%20of%20SA%20Studies/Ontology,%20Theology%20and%20the%20Eucharist%20-%20Thomas%20Aquinas%20and%20William%20of%20Ockham.pdf

“The Council of Trent evidently uses the term ‘substance’ not in a technically philosophical way, Aristotelian or otherwise, but in its most simple and basic sense, what could be called the ordinary language meaning of the term” (p. 17). That is, Trent is not committed to defending a particular metaphysical understanding of transubstantiation.

"Thomas and Ockham defended differing views of the ontological status of Aristotle’s category of quantity. What can we learn from this debate? It is instructive that the Church did not condemn Ockham’s theology, and that, when in fact it was analyzed and scrutinized in detail, the Church found it consistent with the canons of Lateran IV. This is an important historical lesson, as we have to recognize that even in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries there were numerous voices defending various models of transubstantiation. This is significant because many Catholic theologians approaching the Eucharist today are not Aristotelians, much less Aristotelians of a particular Thomistic variety."

Interesting article on dealing with the persistence of the accidents of bread and wine in the substance of the Body and Blood.

 

[Valletta]

I am not questioning or challenging what we Catholics term "Real Presence" in the Eucharist.
On another thread I expressed a possible need to explain how it occurs.

In the Catechism we find:

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."

The problem is "substance".

What do we mean by that term. I don't think the catechism tells us.

In 252 it does say:
The Church uses
(I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity,
(II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and
(III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.


New Advent tells us:
It is necessary, therefore, to recognize in each thing certain secondary realities (see ACCIDENT) and also a permanent fundamentum which continues to exist notwithstanding the superficial changes, which serves as a basis or support for the secondary realities — what, in a word, we term the substance. Its fundamental characteristic is to be in itself and by itself, and not in another subject as accidents are.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Substance

A genus supremum, cannot strictly be defined by an analysis into genus and specific difference; yet a survey of the universe at large will enable us to form without difficulty an accurate idea of substance

www.newadvent.org

So in the Eucharist we are saying that the substance, the fundamental characteristic is changed even though everything we know to be "bread and wine", breadness and wineness remain. Now, Aristotle and Plato would say that breadness and wineness are the substances. They are all that make bread bread and wine wine. St Thomas kind of twisted their notion of substance in a way they did not intend.

It seems to me that we are really talking about the introduction of Christ's presence, not as a material substance, but as a non material spiritual reality. That would be substance in a conceptual sense, like the substance of an idea, or argument or theory. For example, what is the substance of a person? It would seem to be an enduring conscious personality and center of awareness. Not some transcendent immaterial particle.

The ancient concern about mater and substance no longer seems to serve us in an age where we acknowledge the dynamic change and process of all things around us.

We try in words to describe as best we can a great mystery. To me, the use of "substance" in the Catechism means "the reality." Once the bread and wine are consecrated the reality is that they are now the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.