Hi Tim,

In the context of science, which is what the article is about, it's effect wasn't very great.

Historians have had trouble finding much long term damage to science even from Galileo's trial. The damage to the Church's reputation was far greater.

Best wishes

James

Thank you for the response. :)

No I don't mean to contradict Aquinas, only to say that we 'know' that objects and beings are substances, that's how we approach reality. To believe Transubstantiation is an act of faith. It makes sense to a person of faith because it's what Christ said, "This is my body." It is also a mystery.

It has everything to do with God "I Am" telling us what "is".

I realize that isn't satisfying to non-believers and I'm not sure what to say to them. All I can say is that as I converted, there was a moment when it hit me. I believed it. I knew it. It isn't unreasonable, but it's beyond reason. Without that revelation we wouldn't have come up with this dogma.

As a former chemist though, I didn't struggle with it at all. I've never seen atoms either, but I accept that they exist because I've interacted with them and 'put faith in my understanding' of them, and found it to predict outcomes satisfactorily. It's a connection with the material world. With the Eucharist, it's far more profound than that, it's a deep love, a connection with God in a special way.

I appreciate the good humor. The difference I perceive between what you're saying and what Aquinas says is that he thinks that the substance can be changed without changing the accidents. Does that mean that the bread and wine now fulfill the role of the blood of christ in an abstract ritualistic sense, or does it mean that something about the bread and wine actually changes into the literal blood and body of christ?

Does external reality change, or does our conceptualization of it change during Mass?

Since tone doesn't come across well in writing, I'm saying this in good humor because it's nearing 5:00 on Friday.

How do I know there's an ontological status of objects or beings? Because I don't take a drink of beer and say, "Yum, I needed that cloud of particles." Nor do I feed my dog and say, "Oh look, another cloud of particles."

It has to do with the way we interact with the real world. We categorize. That's how I make sense of it anyway.

"This is all outdated metaphysics, rejected by scientists, who think that something is made up of fundamental things like charge, quarks etc."

Got a citation? I've never heard that, it seems to be an opinion based on a poor understanding of terms.

The scientific consideration that all matter is made up of fundamental particles in no way contradicts the category of substance. If all matter were considered nothing but its fundamental particles, I wouldn't call you a human. I'd call you a quark cloud not distinguishable from my keyboard.

I don't know what to make of your anti-Catholic snark, except to dismiss it as your inability to argue well.

As for water into wine, it's because Christ said "This is my body." It'd be illogical to say that Christ is the Savior of Mankind, God Incarnate, the Creator of the Universe, and then to say, "Well, he didn't know what he was talking about." It's a matter of sound reasoning about revealed religion.

As for proof, it depends on the urging of the mind to explain things, and if someone doesn't want to be convinced, he could deny that there's proof of a rock laying right in front of him.

What reasons do you have for thinking that the concept of substance and accidents have any antecedent in reality?

~Jesse Webster

Are you kidding me?
In the long term, the Inquisition had trivial effects? You should have done some research.

This is all outdated metaphysics, rejected by scientists, who think that something is made up of fundamental things like charge, quarks etc.

If science can say nothing about substance, it is because science has left behind the out-dated philosophy of the church.

Incidentally, how can you tell that water has ever been turned into wine, when all you can see are the (ahem) 'accidents'?

After all, in Catholic theology what looks like wine could be the same substance as water, and nobody could ever prove that water has been turned into wine :-)