From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: The Real Presence
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:20:45 GMT

      I don't think the doctrine of transubstantiation
is ultimately dependent on some philosophical school,
nor (I have to disagree with you here, Martin :-),
or rather with Rahner) do I think it is rendered less
meaningful by modern science. 
      Here is how I see it.

      Christ said "This is my body". Before he took and
blessed the bread, it would have been correct to say "this is a
piece of bread", but false to say "this is the body of Christ".
After he took and blessed it and pronounced those words,
it would have been correct to say "this is Christ's body"
but false to say "this is a piece of bread".

      That, in my view is the whole content of transubstantiation.
One does not need to study Aristotle to understand what is
meant. 

       Now, before consecration "this is bread", after
consecration "this is the Body of Christ." Something
is the same about those two sentences. What? THe word 
'this'. The word 'this' does not specify a thing by what
it is but by indicating or showing it. I say "look at
this." I am not telling you what it is, I am showing it to
you. So what has not changed is what is shown, the appearance,
what is manifested to the senses.
       But something is different about the two sentences.
"This is what?" In one case bread, in the other the body of Christ.
What has changed is the answer to "What is this?" This
is what is meant by the "substance": the "what" that "this"
is. The "what" has changed. 

       If you believe that before consecration "this is
bread" and after consecration the only correct answer
is "this is Christ's body", then you believe in transubstantiation.
If you believe that after consecration the correct answer is
"this is bread together with the body of Christ" then you
believe in consubstantiation.

       Now, what remains is the appearance of bread. The
appearance would include what appears to our senses either
aided or unaided. What remains has the appearance of
bread to the naked eye, to the nose, through a microscope,
through an electron microscope, etc. etc. 
       Some people might be tempted to say "if it looks like,
bread, smells like bread, and in everyway acts like bread
then it is bread", I would answer no. You may say it is
in every way perceptible to the senses bread, but you
may not say "it is bread". It appears to be, but it is not. 
That's it. That is transubstantiation. 
       
        Suppose I am a chemist and I want to learn something about
bread. Suppose I commit a sacrilege and use a consecrated host
to make my study. For my practical purposes it will make
no difference whether it was consecrated or not. For those
purposes therefore it is bread. Everything I could learn 
about bread I could learn from the host equally well if it
were consecrated. "Operationally", then, it remains bread.
To the scientist nothing has changed. If you want to say
that operationally, or empirically, or experimentally,
it is bread, that does not contradict transubstantiation.
But it is not bread. 
      Here is a tricky point that perhaps underlies
JJ's question about "real absence" and Rahner's (or whoever's)
point about science. From the scientific point of view
when discussing something purely physical like a piece
of bread does not a complete specification of observable
properties exhaust the description of a thing. What is left
not to be bread if every observable is that of bread? 
Maybe nothing. Of course this a philosophical not really a
scientific issue. Science describes what is observable and 
says nothing one way or another about anything else.
But suppose there is "nothing to" an ordinary piece of bread
except the totality of observable properties of it. And
suppose those all remain after consecration? Can we say that
all that ever did exist of the bread is still there? 
Perhaps. I don't know. All I know is that the Church tells me
that after consecration it is wrong to say "this is bread". 
She tells me "it is not bread, it is the body of Christ."
I think we may adopt any philosophical framework we want
but we must adhere to those two statements. "It is not bread".
"It is the body of Christ." 
       Suppose God decided that every time I saw a certain person
I would see a lion instead, an illusion. Suppose it were very realistic.
No matter what I did it seemed like a lion in truth. But it is not.
Well, perhaps transubstantiation happens like that. It would be
true that empirically, experimentally, operationally, a lion is
there. By observing carefully, I might even learn about the
behavior or physiology of lions. But no lion is there. It is an
illusion. Such an interpretation of transubstantiation would
be quite consistent with the Church's teaching, and quite 
consistent with science and reason. So this shows that the
doctrine does not contradict science or reason. The doctrine
does not commit us to this interpretation, but if any interpretation
exists that is consistent with reason and science, that is
a proof of its reasonableness. If you want to formulate ten other
interpretations that suit you better, the Church does not object.
(See Pope Paul VI's statement of the dogma in his Credo of the
People of God.)
                           Steve Barr.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic