Transubstantiation And Aristotelian Metaphysics

[ICTHUS]

Protestant apologist and Presbyterian seminarian John Roberson (whom some of us have affectionately come to know as 'mustbenothing' or 'muste') recently started [url="http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=76556&page=1"]this thread[/url] on Christian Guitar Resources. Now, while normally I can hold my own against John, I was at a loss to answer some of his allegations. Would someone with a knowledge of Aristotelian metaphysics and Tridentine doctrine of the Eucharist please browse through this thread and see if you can rebut John?

Peace of Christ,
Ryan

[Dave]

Ryan, could you tell us exactly WHICH arguments you need help with? So much was said in the thread, and determining what all needs a response could give one gray hairs.

[p0lar_bear]

I didn't read the arguments, but this might help.

The word transubstantiation was used long before the revival of Aristotlian philosophy. The first official use of the word was at the Synod of Rome in 1070 where Berengarius was made to profess the substance of Christ in the Eucharist
It was officially defined by the Church in 1215 at the 4th Lateran Council (1st Chapter).

While the word is often associated with St. Thomas Aquinas, he did not introduce it.

[ICTHUS]

Specifically, this is his main thesis.

Of what is the Eucharist a sign? The Body and Blood of Christ. But it is the Body and Blood of Christ, you maintain. It is, then, a sign of itself. If something is a sign of something else, then the latter thing is the thing of which it is a sign -- that something is the thing signified. If the thing signified is identical to the sign, then the sign is the thing signified. If the two are identical, there is really no separate sign; there is just the thing signified. [b]The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation thus contradicts Trent's definition of a Sacrament, for it turns the sign into the thing signified, meaning that there is not really a sign at all.[/b]

[Aloysius]

the word "sign" does not necessarily mean it is not also in actuality the thing it symbolizes. it is a visible sign of invisible grace, and it is a sign to the fullest extent of the word in that it not only indicates it but really shows it.

[Livin_the_MASS]

Transubstantiation is when the priest invokes the Holy Spirit to come upon the gifts of bread and wine. Then the priest acting "In the Person of Christ" says the prayers, "This is my body....." and "This is my blood...."

When this is done every Sacred Host down to the last crumb and every drop of the wine BECOMES the WHOLE CHRIST, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

The substance changes into Christ Whole and entire. We see the appearances that remains we see The Sacred Host, we See and taste the Sacred Wine but the substance changes into Christ. [b]We receive Christ under the veil of a Sacrament![/b] Belief in Christs' True Presence takes faith, if you feel lacking in this say "Lord I believe, help my unbelief"

[b]Thomas Aquinas Prayer:[/b]

[quote][b]Devoutly I adore You, hidden Deity, Under these appearances concealed.
To You my heart surrenders self For seeing You, all else must yield.
Sight and touch and taste here fail; Hearing only can be believed. I trust what
God's own Son has said. Truth from truth is best received.
Divinity, on the Cross, was hid; Humanity here comes not to thought. Believing
and confessing both, I seek out what the Good Thief sought. I see no wound as Thomas did, but I profess God above. Draw me deeply into faith, Into Your hope into Your love. O memorial of the Lord's sad death. Show life unto man, O living Bread. Grant that my soul may live through You, By Your sweet savor ever fed.
Jesus Lord, my Pelicon devout, With Your Blood my sins dismiss. One single drop could surely save from sin this world's dark edifice.
Jesus, Whom now I see enveiled, what I desire, when will it be? Beholding Your fair face revealed, Your glory shall I be blessed to see.
Amen.[/b][/quote]

Hope I helped
Pax
Jason

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 18 2004, 08:53 PM'] the word "sign" does not necessarily mean it is not also in actuality the thing it symbolizes. it is a visible sign of invisible grace, and it is a sign to the fullest extent of the word in that it not only indicates it but really shows it. [/quote]
John's words - This won't do, because the outward sign is not of bread and wine. Then, bread and wine would be the thing signified. On the contrary, the Body and Blood of Christ are the things signified. We thus have to have an actual substance that is the sign for the Body and Blood of Christ. But, we've got no substance but the actual Body and Blood of Christ, if transubstantiation is true! We need the bread and wine to be the signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, but we've got no bread or wine left.

[phatcatholic]

icthus,

my understanding is that the bread is not a sign of anything. nor is the wine a sign of anything. after the transubstantiation, they are [i][b]only [/b][/i]the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

now, the Sacrifice of the Mass is a "sign" in that it symbolizes many things, while at the same time performing something real (for more info, go [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm"][b]here[/b][/url]). if someone insists that the bread and the wine are symbols of something, then they are symbols only as long as they are bread and wine. once they become Jesus Christ, they cease to be signs or symbols of anything. thus, the apparent difficulty is eliminated.

i hope this helps........pax christi,
phatcatholic

[the lumberjack]

so, as long as the bread and wine are only symbols, why is it so grave a sin or forbidden for a catholic to take part in a "protestant" communion?

[Aloysius]

they are not only symbols. that is what muste is trying to say, but it's wrong.

[quote] This won't do, because the outward sign is not of bread and wine. Then, bread and wine would be the thing signified. On the contrary, the Body and Blood of Christ are the things signified. We thus have to have an actual substance that is the sign for the Body and Blood of Christ. But, we've got no substance but the actual Body and Blood of Christ, if transubstantiation is true! We need the bread and wine to be the signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, but we've got no bread or wine left.[/quote]

sounds to me like he's just tryin to twist and confuse the issue. The appearance of the Body and Blood signify the reality, in that they are roughly close in image. bread-flesh. wine-blood. But the actual reality of what they are is in fact what the appearance signifies. The unconsecrated bread and the unconsecrated wine signify, because of their similar appearance, body and blood. The appearance remains, and that appearance still signifies the Body and Blood. But the reality of what it is that is that appears that way is that which the appearance signifies.

alright now, let me gather my thoughts:
[color=blue]The similar appearance of the Body and Blood of Christ is a symbol for the Body and Blood of Christ. The Object is that which it's appearance symbolizes. [/color]

Edited May 19, 2004 by Aloysius

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 19 2004, 05:12 PM'] so, as long as the bread and wine are only symbols, why is it so grave a sin or forbidden for a catholic to take part in a "protestant" communion? [/quote]
b/c the bread and wine also symbolize the communion or unity of belief that we share. partaking in these once they have become the actual body and blood professes our common belief that they ARE what Jesus Christ and the Church say they are.

to receive in another denomination, in which the bread and wine remain only symbols is to profess agreement that they are only symbols, which would make a mockery of what is supposed to be real.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 19 2004, 05:27 PM'] they are not only symbols.  that is what muste is trying to say, but it's wrong.



sounds to me like he's just tryin to twist and confuse the issue.  The appearance of the Body and Blood signify the reality, in that they are roughly close in image.  bread-flesh.  wine-blood.  But the actual reality of what they are is in fact what the appearance signifies.  The unconsecrated bread and the unconsecrated wine signify, because of their similar appearance, body and blood.  The appearance remains, and that appearance still signifies the Body and Blood.  But the reality of what it is that is that appears that way is that which the appearance signifies.

alright now, let me gather my thoughts:
[color=blue]The similar appearance of the Body and Blood of Christ is a symbol for the Body and Blood of Christ.  The Object is that which it's appearance symbolizes. [/color] [/quote]
ooohh, i think i like your explanation better....

btw, w/ this post i will officially become part of the Pham

[b][color=blue]W[/color][color=red]O[/color][color=purple]O[/color] [color=orange]H[/color][color=yellow]O[/color][color=gray]O[/color][color=green]!![/color][/b]

Edited May 19, 2004 by phatcatholic

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]CCC 1131  The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us.  The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces prper to each sacrament.[/quote]

[quote]The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation thus contradicts Trent's definition of a Sacrament, for it turns the sign into the thing signified, meaning that there is not really a sign at all. [/quote]

Could it not be understood to mean that the visible signs of bread and wine signify the invisible reality that they are in fact not bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ? If the signs of bread and wine signify the reality of the Body and Blood, I don't think there would still be a contradiction. I mean, even though it is not bread and wine, the signs, or outward appearances, of bread and wine are still present. Thus the Eucharist is both a sign (its appearances or accidents) and the thing signified (its substantial reality). Or maybe I am just confusing myself. Let me know if this makes any sense.

[Aloysius]

that's basically what i said... only i understood it when i said it i didn't understand it when you said it. lol

[Livin_the_MASS]

A quote from Fr. John A. Hardon on Transubstantiation, just for another view!

[quote][b]"As often as we have heard the word "transubstantiation," few Catholics fully know what it means. Transubstantiation means that the substance of bread and wine--- what makes them bread and wine--- is replaced by the whole Jesus Christ. The "breadness" and "wineness," so to speak, are changed into the living Jesus, true God and true Man, whole God and whole man. It does not merely mean that the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of Christ. The Real Presence is not only the substance of Christ, but the whole Christ--- His substance plus all the human properties of His humanity.

"Finally, transubstantiation describes how the physical qualities of bread and wine---their color, texture, taste and whatever else is perceived by the senses---remain, but they lose their substance. The qualities of bread and wine remain, but their substance is replaced by the whole Christ."

[i]With us today Today "On The Real Presence Of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist"
Page 29.[/b][/i][/quote]

Now again for your "sign" question St. Thomas Aquains is awesome here is a quote from him in Scott Hahns book on "Scripture Matters"

[quote][b]"What applies to water applies to the other Sacraments as well. Thomas provides another useful illustration of the "three ages" in his discussion of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6. Bread has always provided sustenance for man in the order of nature; yet, in its "natural" state, it also prefigured the unleavened bread of the Passover and the manna that rained down in the desert; these in turn served as foreshadowing types of the Holy Eucharist. Thomas explains: "Each is a symbol of the spiritual food. But they are different because [the manna] was only a symbol; while the other [the bread of Christians] contains that of which it is the symbol, that is, Christ himself." Through these three successive ages of divine economy--- nature, law, and grace---God drew increasingly nearer to man. With the sacraments of the New Law, God united Himself to man. But only in heaven will the glory of that union be fully perfected and unveiled to us. That is the moment for which Thomas prayed, and toward which all creation groans. In the words of "Adoro Te Devote": O Jesus whom I now see veiled, / when shall my longing prayer be blest, / that I may see your face unveiled / and in that glorious vision rest?"

[i]"Scripture Matters by: Scott Hahn Pages: 61-62[/b][/i][/quote]

Thomas theory on the Sacraments, the "three ages" are like this

[quote][b]"First stage is natural from the time of creation through the time of the patriarchal period. Natural religion was practiced in a natural familiy, where fathers like Noah and Abraham fufill priestly and kingly roles by virtue of their paternity. The family table is a natural altar; the family meal is a natural sacrifice. But Genesis also shows how sin progressively dismantles this natural way.

Second stage or period of nature gave way to written law---the time of animal sacrifice, the laws of Moses, a separate sanctuary, the Levitical priesthood, ritual purity, and Israel's separation from the Gentiles. Yet this era too fell short of God's promise.

The Third stage the period of grace arrives with the advent of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the establishment of the Church and the sacraments of the New Testament. This age will remain until the comsummation of history."[/b]
[i]quotes from "Scripture Matters"[/i][/quote]

Thomas uses these three stages on the sacraments like the example he gave with the Eucharist above how in the natural law bread fulfilled the needs of man. This would lead to the second stage with the written law which gave us the unleavened bread in the desert. Now these were prefigurements of the Eucharist, signs of the Eucharist to come. Now in the third stage the stage of grace those "signs" are made present in the sacraments. Jesus said "I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it." In the stage of grace in John 6 it is explained how it is fulfilled, "I am the Bread of Life." "The Bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world"
"My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink" "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you do not have life within you" Jesus was Teaching how he was fulfilling prophecy. The bread the "sign" in the Old Testament was to become Him in the New Testament. Jesus is "The Living Bread come down from Heaven"

I hope this explains the "sign" theory to you. The sign is no longer a sign but is fulfilled, Jesus Christ is the "Bread of Life" where He makes Himself Truly Present so that we may become one with Him and adore Him in The Holy Eucharist.

God Bless
Jason