Transubstantiation

[Don John of Austria]

Okay, I have explained the Transubstantiation to people in this way and I want to know wht ya'll think of it, specificly do you think there is anything in error here, I cannot see any however, when dealing with things fof such importance it is wise to get others opinions.


First a brief explanation of the nature of reality according to modern Physics. According to the current understanding of matter by science all physical objects are made up of about 110 elements( there could be more but we have to make them in a nuclear reactor) only about 85 of which occur in nature, all other things are made up of compounds or mixtures of these elements. Each of these elements has its own atom which is its own and is not capable of being broken down further chemically or physically ( you must start a nuclear reaction). Now each atom is in fact made up of subatomic particles, including the three most important for our discussion, electrons, protons, and neutrons. Now here is where it gets interesting, acccording to physics all the subatomic particles are the same, each proton is the same as any other proton, for example a proton from an iron atom is identical to a proton from a helium atom. It is the number of protons in an atom which makes the atom what it is, i.e. an oxygen atom has 8 protons, hydrogen has 1 proton, helium has 2 protons, etc. number of nuetrons, and number of electrons causes the element to have other certian chemical and physical properties. Now what this means is it is only structure, not substance, that causes things to have there respective properties. Now lets continue, each subatomic particle is made up of an even smaller particle called a quark, what that quark is made up of is open to a great deal of debate but suffice it to say what ever it is made up of it is the basic substance of reality. Now we can move to the mystical trasformation part of the discussion.

The transubstantiation is the Changing of the substance of the thing from that of bread and wine to that of Christ, so that it actually becomes Christ flesh and blood but keeps the appearance of bread and wine, meaning in fact that the chemical and physical properties do not change but it's substance does. Now concidering the above this isn't hard to accept at all, for we know already that it is infact the structure of a thing that gives it it's properties and not it's substance, what the transubstantiation actually is doing is changing the substance of the quarks, from the stuff that makes up normal matter into the stuff of Christ the Divine Substance, it does not however change the structure of the atoms which make up the bread and the wine, only thier substance; thus thier properties do not change even though what it really, really is does change. It changes from the material substance to the Divine substance.


Does anyone ssee any theological problems with this explanation, i have had some success with it, but as i said it is important to have others look at it and see if you can see any dangerous flaws in the arguement.

Edited December 29, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[Socrates]

Interesting.
Don't really see anything wrong with it (as long as it's presented as a theory, and not a definative explanation of the Mystery)

[Benedict]

I do not see anything wrong with it. It certainly sounds less risque than my basic but usually enlightening "brain transplant" sci-fi explanation.

[thessalonian]

Like the others I see no real theological problems with it. My only concern might be that if we come to a point where we can fully identify what quarks are then some might see it as a proof that transubstantiation is false if your theory is in fact false. I do not believe that it is or ever will be scientifically provable that the change occurs. Therefore I am sceptical of your theory, since it seems to me to provide a path to such a proof.

Blessings

[Apotheoun]

The various subatomic particles and the other things identified by modern physics are accidents, for they inhere in the immaterial substance of a being. In other words, it is the substantial form, which is an immaterial principle, that gives structure to a being, and not the various things studied in modern physics.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

This is very interesting...I don't see any Theological problems...However, as thessalonian stated...there could be a scientifical problem in the furture...and due to the ambiguity of quarks, there could be a fallacy. But i am not a physics major...

But it sounds awesome...Great Job.

Totus Tuus,
Andrew Joseph

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
12/30 - Sixth Day in the Octave of Christmas

Substance (read: substantial form) is not a material entity, according to Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics. Material explanations can't suffice.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Dec 30 2004, 07:16 AM'] JMJ
12/30 - Sixth Day in the Octave of Christmas

Substance (read: substantial form) is not a material entity, according to Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics. Material explanations can't suffice. [/quote]
Agreed.

[Benedict]

Shot down by the Church nerds.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Substance (read: substantial form) is not a material entity, according to Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics. Material explanations can't suffice. [/quote]

Well Most Phycist would agree with that, what ever it is that causes Quarks to exist the substance of reality, is not ( probably) a material thing but some form of creative energy.

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 30 2004, 01:49 PM']
Well Most Phycist would agree with that, what ever it is that causes Quarks to exist the substance of reality, is not ( probably) a material thing but some form of creative energy. [/quote]
JMJ
12/30 - Sixth Day in the Octave of Christmas

Be that as it may, though, when you use "substance" in a metaphysical way to attempt to describe a physical reality, it can't work. In metaphysics, a "substance", such as the substance of a human person, the substance of a fox or the substance of a Venus fly-trap, does not exist as a physical entity. In fact, [i]matter[/i] in itself doesn't exist as a physical entity either. Substance and matter are primarily and priorly metaphysical realities and not physical ones.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Dec 30 2004, 01:30 PM'] JMJ
12/30 - Sixth Day in the Octave of Christmas

Be that as it may, though, when you use "substance" in a metaphysical way to attempt to describe a physical reality, it can't work. In metaphysics, a "substance", such as the substance of a human person, the substance of a fox or the substance of a Venus fly-trap, does not exist as a physical entity. In fact, [i]matter[/i] in itself doesn't exist as a physical entity either. Substance and matter are primarily and priorly metaphysical realities and not physical ones. [/quote]
I agree.

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 30 2004, 03:50 PM'] I agree. [/quote]
JMJ
12/31 - St. Sylvester

Isn't it weird how substance doesn't exist physically, but neither does matter? So weird.....for that exact reason I'm hesitant to subscribe to the distinction, but I haven't found a better one out there that explains as much as it does.

[InHisHands381]

I have a question about Transubstantiation myself....okay, I know some denominations (such as Lutherans...and correct me if I'm wrong) also believe that when they receive communion it is truly the body and blood of Christ. However, they don't believe it is Transubstantiation but rather some other term which I can't recall at this moment. Do you know what they call it? And can you explain the difference?

[cathqat]

InHisHands,

The term for the Lutheran & Anglican doctrine is "consubstantiation." I think there is an existing thread on it elsewhere.

[Benedict]

Consubstantiation is the belief that Christ is present in, with, and under the substance of the bread and wine.

In transubstantiation, the bread and wine are wholly replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

In consubstantiation, the bread and wine remain alongside the real presence.

[phatcatholic]

can someone explain how matter does not exist physically? thanks

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 2 2005, 03:11 AM'] can someone explain how matter does not exist physically? thanks [/quote]
JMJ
1/2 - St. Basil the Great

phatcatholic -

It's not matter in the scientific sense, but the philosophic sense. Prime matter is the basic "stuff" that can be made into anything. Thus, it is said that prime matter is "potentially everything but actually nothing." Prime matter always sits in potency, but as soon as it is actualized it loses total potency - this sounds awful convoluted, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Therefore, prime matter doesn't [i]actually[/i] exist, but it [i]potentially[/i] exists.

It's comparable to embryonic stem cells, to a degree. Those kinds of cells, if I remember right, are called "totipotent" - they can become any kind of cell in the body. Once they become a certain type of cell, though, they lose their totipotent character. Prime matter is the same way - it's "totipotent" until it actually becomes something.

I'm just being confusing now.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]It's not matter in the scientific sense, but the philosophic sense[/quote]

I think it is imprtant to state that science is a philosophy, it is one that has often been hostile to the Scholastic tradition, I tell my students regularly " remember science is about finding the Facts, not finding the Truth, those are not the same thing" but you have to understand until rescently the philosophy of science rejected the aristotilian ideas of matter but now theoretical Physics is grasping at the same ideas, they are coming from a differant direction, a far inferior one, but they are finally reaching the same conclusions, we should be hppy about this, it means that we might have some friends among our long time enemies.

[Phatmasser777]

Lol. That is really screwed up science.

"physical properties do not change but it's substance does."

Substances..What do you think the physical properties make up!!

oy.

Nice try, but science proves all that stuff very wrong and impossible.