In today's world, how does the concept of SUBSTANCE and TRANSUBSTANTIATION have any meaning beyond Church?

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

When these ideas were first put forth, they became the prevailing philosophies of their day.

Now, however, except in a class on the history of philosophy, the church is the last place where they are even discussed. They long ago gave up their influence over the way we think of ourselves and our world.

How are modern people supposed to integrate Christianity in their lives when such an outdated philosophy lies at the core of Catholic theology?

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

One of the (very) few reasons that I am not Roman Catholic. I shy away from that term, much preferring the Greek Orthodox "mysterion" ("it's a mystery...it just IS!") or, the classic Anglican "Real Presence".

“Christ Jesus took the Bread and brake it. He was the Word that spake it. And what that Word doth make it, that I believe, and take it.”

Queen Elizabeth I

Answer 2

Such philosophy isn't outdated; I am a Thomistic thinker, and I use his philosophy to examine everything, not just Christian doctrine. The problem is that we've elevated mechanical arts to the level of science. These things can only give us particular theories of particular things, not a single theory of everything. They also rely on improper knowledge. For instance, I *know* the world is round, but this knowledge is an improper knowledge based upon faith in the observations and truthfulness of others; I can never plotted a course around the world, or gone to outer space myself to actually know, in a proper sense, that the earth is round. Had I not heard that this was true, I would have interpreted my sense experience differently.

Now, let me point out that your objection to philosophy is itself a philosophical objection, which is natural. A closed system (such as the scientific method) has no means of testing its value within the strict confines of its method. A philosophical defense must be made.

Now, let me give you an example: we have an apple. This apple has both a form, made up of accidents (i.e. things that must inhere in something other than themselves, such as color, place, quantity, quality etc.) and substance (or primary matter--what makes the apple an apple despite changes in accidents). The apple ceases to exist as an apple "substance" when the accidents are sufficiently diffused. In the end, this is just a roundabout way of describing the common experience of reality, rather than the specialized expierience garnered in the secondary sciences.

Answer 3

Because like most western empirical philosophy, there has been a linguistic turn. Try reading the slim volume " Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition" by Alasdair MacIntyre.

Substance still finds a place albeit a very different one than Aquinas, say, thought; but it is still there. It is at the heart of what W.O.V. Quine and others were about.

HTH

Charles

Answer 4

The distinctions of "Form" and "Substance" are still somewhat relevant in philosophical realms. But we hardly perceive reality in those terms anymore - assuming anyone outside of the academy ever did :-)

As far as "Transubstantiation" goes, well, there are a lot of words and concepts that don't have much relevance outside of the church. That's why we bundle them up and label them "theology", which is just a branch of philosophy dealing with "God". I don't know, honestly, to what extent people bother with such concepts in their daily lives.

Peace and (((hugGs)))

Answer 5

The Church has not (Google benediction or Corpus Christi or just read the Catechism), sometimes the Anglican Church refers to itself as Catholic though, perhaps it was so this case as many Anglicans now reject transubstantiation. Catholic Doctrine does not change for the record, it merely grows.

Answer 6

Shouldn't it work on Chicken Tikka and Bass also?