Mick wrote:It can be overturned, just not by science. Austere nominalism, for instance, runs contrary to it. Many accounts run contrary to that of substance. Ask yourself what we or virtually any thing is. Is it just a collection of properties, a bundle? or something more, something which is that which receives the properties, holds them.

Or something of which the receiver of the properties is properly that of itself? Or that which of itself becomes the properties of that which it bestows upon itself?

Hi talkietoaster

A simple way of thinking about transubstantiation is "something changes; something stays the same". But this was put in the philosophy of the day which recognized that there was not always a simple relationship between the outer form of something and it's inner 'reality'. You might think of Aristotle's philosophy as being a forerunner of physical chemistry where, for example, it is recognized that 'allotropes' of substances exist where they are the same substance but differ in out appearance ('the 'accidents' in Aristotelian language) - such as carbon existing as diamond and graphite. Aristotle's 'accidents' and 'substance' don't exactly match to allotropes, but the analogy gives a little of the flavour. It is a mistake, I believe, to try and apply Aristotelian thought directly across to our modern understanding of the nature of matter - we simply understand it in the context of that philosophical (not scientific) framework.

The divine becoming present through, and in, the material world is obviously pretty central to the Christian faith - most notably in the the incarnation of Christ, but also in other 'theophanies' such as the burning bush, or the three 'angelic' visitors to Abraham.

Obviously to anyone who does not believe in God the concept of God making particular 'theophanies' in His creation will seem nonsense. As with many things, it depends on which presuppositions you start with. If we acknowledge those presuppositions, the fundamental paradigm we are using, then it becomes clearer what does and does not makes sense to people of different paradigm groups.

God bless +

Michael

Michael66 wrote:Obviously to anyone who does not believe in God the concept of God making particular 'theophanies' in His creation will seem nonsense. As with many things, it depends on which presuppositions you start with. If we acknowledge those presuppositions, the fundamental paradigm we are using, then it becomes clearer what does and does not makes sense to people of different paradigm groups.

Sorry, but this just sounds like a fancy way of saying, "If we go in believing it, we come out believing it." (or vice versa)

A simple analysis of wine or bread before and after will tell us if anything as changed chemically or physically. If you want to believe it has somehow changed, well belief is all you have in the way of justifying it. If it's nonsense to anyone else it is not the fault or hindrance of other's pre-existing paradigm. It's the failure of the believer to show anything in the way of evidence, and therefore justification, of the belief.

Hi Animavore

Why would I have to justify my beliefs to others? I'm quite relaxed that atheists have another world view, another paradigm. I feel no more need to justify my beliefs then I feel a need to demand justification from you for the world view you hold. We're each free to go wherever our our paths lead us, thank God

I was simply offering a bit more info on transubstantiation in case it helped anybody (as it is rather a complex term; resting on rather arcane philosophy). It's also important, I think, to keep these philosophical ideas within their philosophical constructs - there is no simple parallel with modern materialism and yet these ancient philosophical paradigms still appear to have utility as they touch on things we find hard to deal with in modern scientific models (such as the continuity of 'self' as the physical composition our bodies and even brains change over time).

I treat these philosophies in the same way as science - they are all models describing a reality that is independent of the model (just as a detailed scientific description of heat is not heat itself). All models are wrong, but some are useful (with a hat-tip to the mathematician George E. P. Box). About the first thing any scientist learns is the danger of, and caution needed in, straying outside of their model - extrapolation is always much more error-prone than interpolation (you probably remember that even from school science).

Michael66 wrote:
Why would I have to justify my beliefs to others? I'm quite relaxed that atheists have another world view, another paradigm. I feel no more need to justify my beliefs then I feel a need to demand justification from you for the world view you hold. We're each free to go wherever our our paths lead us, thank God

Well you don't have to justify them to me or anyone, but if you're going to say that how we view transubstantiation re:nonsense is based on our presuppositions rather than just a simple case of the believer sees what he wants to see and everyone else sees what is plain, that the bread and wine is still just bread and wine, I think that does need a bit of justification, otherwise, it seems to me, that all or no beliefs are justified. The parents of the boy who pointed out the Emperor had no clothes would've been equally justified in giving him a clip 'round the ear and silencing him as the kid was in pointing it out. But this doesn't seem right to me.

Michael66

Another point which has always struck me is the distinction between third person and first person. 'Mechanical philosophy' operates in the third person, where bread is bread, and wine is wine. However, the eucharist is experienced in the first person, where experiences melt into each other, and the bread can become Christ, and so perhaps can you. I know this does not accord with the substance/accident approach; still, I find it interesting. Of course, many other issues can be approached in this way, for example, awareness itself, which is first person. It's obvious yet startling in a way that I can't live in the third person, yet things are often described thus. So my experience is not a description.

nunnington wrote:Michael66

Another point which has always struck me is the distinction between third person and first person. 'Mechanical philosophy' operates in the third person, where bread is bread, and wine is wine. However, the eucharist is experienced in the first person, where experiences melt into each other, and the bread can become Christ, and so perhaps can you. I know this does not accord with the substance/accident approach; still, I find it interesting. Of course, many other issues can be approached in this way, for example, awareness itself, which is first person. It's obvious yet startling in a way that I can't live in the third person, yet things are often described thus. So my experience is not a description.

I think you raise an important point - I too think a relationship between people and God is important in the Eucharist. That was an insight Luther had, and I'm rather sympathetic to his view on that. The Orthodox Church wisely, I think, stay away from philosophical terms but see the Eucharist as connecting people and the heavenly realm.

So yes, thanks for pointing out the relational aspect - that so often gets lost.