# Does transubstantiation presuppose an Aristotelian physics?



## RamistThomist (Jan 12, 2013)

I am debating a Romanist and he got embarrassed when I poiinted out the substance/accidence distinction in Transubstantiation, which is official dogma, but it assumes the validity of Aristotelian metaphysics, which has as much in common with reality as "aether."

My Catholic catechism is boxed up, so I could be wrong, but I thought Rome assumed that Aristotle was valid on this point. Is that correct.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 12, 2013)

I thought so too, Jacob, but I am sure you have read more than I have on the subject.


----------



## dudley (Jan 12, 2013)

I am an ex roman catholic and now a Presbyterian and as reformed protestant I reject and renounce the Roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation. I can tell you however that the Council of Trent which declared the doctrine of transubstantiation did not impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents: it spoke only of the species (the appearances), not the philosophical term "accidents", and the word "substance" was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West, as shown for instance by its use in the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ having the same "οὐσία" (Greek) or "substantia" (Latin) as the Father.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 13, 2013)

The newly rediscovered Aristotle (via Byzantine and Muslim scholars) was controversial by those who accepted him uncritically and those who opposed him completely. Aquinas, like his mentor Albertus Magnus, sought a middle course of using Aristotle constructively for Christian theology. He not only wrote several commentaries on Aristotle's works, but typically called him "the Philosopher" in his _Summa_. He is generally credited with employing the substance/accidence distinction of Aristotle's philosophy in his sacramentology of transubstantiation. As Dudley rightly observes, this transubstantiation viewwas codified in Trent. But, the term itself predates Aquinas to the scholarship of the Dark Ages.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 13, 2013)

I can't give you a direct answer to your question, but I can point you toward a good reference work. The best work I have seen on the development of eucharistic theology in the medieval period is Ian Christopher Levy, John Wyclif: scriptural logic, real presence, and the parameters of orthodoxy

John Wyclif: Scriptural Logic, Real Presence, and the Parameters of Orthodoxy (Marquette Studies in Theology): Ian Christopher Levy: 9780874626889: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jan 13, 2013)

For the guys who majored in science and not in philosophy what is the substance/accidence distinction?


----------



## Philip (Jan 13, 2013)

Unoriginalname said:


> substance/accidence



Substance=stuff of which an object is made

Accidents=properties of an individual object


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 13, 2013)

To piggyback upon what Philip noted, the RCC has dogmatized the idea that, in the Sacrifice of the Mass, the bread and wine remain "sensibly" bread and wine in the accidents. That is to say that they still taste and act like bread and wine. The "miracle" of the Mass, however, is that the bread substantively becomes the real body of Christ and the wine substantively becomes the blood of Christ. Thus, in this act, the bread and wine become objects of real worship and the worshiper is thought to eat and drink the real substance of Christ. Any leftovers need to be consumed on the spot or put into a Sacristy where they are prayed to by the faithful.


----------



## Te Deum (Jan 22, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The "miracle" of the Mass, however, is that the bread substantively becomes the real body of Christ and the wine substantively becomes the blood of Christ. Thus, in this act, the bread and wine become objects of real worship and the worshiper is thought to eat and drink the real substance of Christ. Any leftovers need to be consumed on the spot or put into a Sacristy where they are prayed to by the faithful.



This is correct. The host (bread) is also often paraded in a monstrance for the adoration of the faithful.

It seems to me that the question here is how can the body of our Lord exist without its proper accidents (flesh, bones, organs, _etc._) in any meaningful sense.


----------

