Changes

"Substance" here means what something is in itself, its "essence". A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") ''has'' the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them.<ref>This illustration is given in [http://books.google.com/books?ei=DfqWTNTxIpHBswb30Yxb&ct=result&id=4cU9AAAAIAAJ&dq=Catholic+Evidence+Training+Outlines&q=hat#search_anchor Maisie Ward and F. J. Sheed, ''Catholic Evidence Training Outlines'' (Sheed & Ward, third edition 1935), p. 240.]</ref> While the appearances, which are also referred to, though not in the Church's [[Dogma|official teaching]], by the philosophical term '[[accident (philosophy)|accidents]]', are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.<ref>"The word 'substance' as here used is not a technical philosophical term, such as might be found in the philosophy of Aristotle. It was used in the early Middle Ages long before the works of Aristotle were current. 'Substance' in common-sense usage denotes the basic reality of the thing, i.e., what it is in itself. Derived from the Latin root 'sub-stare', it means what stands under the appearances, which can shift from one moment to the next while leaving the subject intact. Appearances can be deceptive. You might fail to recognize me when I put on a disguise or when I become seriously ill, but I do not cease to be the person that I was; my substance is unchanged. There is nothing obscure, then, about the meaning of 'substance' in this context" ([http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9352 [[Avery Dulles]]: Christ's Presence in the Eucharist: True, Real and Substantial).]</ref>

"Substance" here means what something is in itself, its "essence". A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") ''has'' the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them.<ref>This illustration is given in [http://books.google.com/books?ei=DfqWTNTxIpHBswb30Yxb&ct=result&id=4cU9AAAAIAAJ&dq=Catholic+Evidence+Training+Outlines&q=hat#search_anchor Maisie Ward and F. J. Sheed, ''Catholic Evidence Training Outlines'' (Sheed & Ward, third edition 1935), p. 240.]</ref> While the appearances, which are also referred to, though not in the Church's [[Dogma|official teaching]], by the philosophical term '[[accident (philosophy)|accidents]]', are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.<ref>"The word 'substance' as here used is not a technical philosophical term, such as might be found in the philosophy of Aristotle. It was used in the early Middle Ages long before the works of Aristotle were current. 'Substance' in common-sense usage denotes the basic reality of the thing, i.e., what it is in itself. Derived from the Latin root 'sub-stare', it means what stands under the appearances, which can shift from one moment to the next while leaving the subject intact. Appearances can be deceptive. You might fail to recognize me when I put on a disguise or when I become seriously ill, but I do not cease to be the person that I was; my substance is unchanged. There is nothing obscure, then, about the meaning of 'substance' in this context" ([http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9352 [[Avery Dulles]]: Christ's Presence in the Eucharist: True, Real and Substantial).]</ref>

Consider the classic example<ref>[[Plato]], [[Aristotle]], [[Augustine]], [[Plotinus]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Duns Scotus]], [[Bonaventure]], et al.  ''For more detailed treatment and bibliographical links and references see'' [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm The Catholic Encyclopedia, ''"Nominalism, Realism, and Conceptualism"''], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/universals-medieval/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ''"The Medieval Problem of Universals"''], and [http://www.friesian.com/universl.htm "Meaning and the Problem of Universals, ''A Kant-Friesian Approach''"]</ref> of the [[Human nature|human body]].  All of the separate chemical compounds, minerals and water—which when piled together constitute the sum total of the actual physical matter of the human body—are not of themselves a human body, however much they may be physically compounded and mixed and rearranged in the laboratory, since they are still only a pile of [[Organic chemistry|organic chemicals]], minerals and water in a particular complex configuration.  If this has never been alive it is not a human body.  If they are ''participant'' <ref>See [https://almanac2010.wordpress.com/tag/modo-hoc/ Logical fallacy of Composition (Modo hoc fallacy)]</ref> in the integral physical expression of a living human being who has absorbed and metabolized them, or if they are now the physical remains of a once-living human being, the substance of what they actually are is human, hence, a human body. The substantial reality of what is before us is human. The ''substance'' (substantial reality) of what is seen is not solely that of a complex organization of organic chemical compounds, but is (or has been) someone. The chemical elements of the food a person eats become in a few hours part of that person's human body and are no longer food but have been turned into the human flesh and blood and bone of that person, yet the physical chemical elements of what was once food remain the same (calcium, copper, salt, protein, sugars, fats, water, etc.).  The ''substance'' of any matter that has become an integral part of any human being has ceased to be the ''substance'' or ''reality'' of ''food'' and has become incorporated as an integral part of the physical manifestation or expression of that ''human person''.  To touch that matter now is not to touch a batch of chemical compounds or food but to touch that person.<ref>''see also'' [[Moderate realism]] ''and'' [[Ontologism]] ''for influences found within the specifically Catholic interpretation of the reality of the human person underlying the outward physical appearance that is the human body.  see also ''[[soul]]'' and ''[[incarnation]].</ref>

Consider the classic example<ref>[[Plato]], [[Aristotle]], [[Augustine]], [[Plotinus]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Duns Scotus]], [[Bonaventure]], et al.  ''For more detailed treatment and bibliographical links and references see'' [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm The Catholic Encyclopedia, ''"Nominalism, Realism, and Conceptualism"''], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/universals-medieval/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ''"The Medieval Problem of Universals"''], and [http://www.friesian.com/universl.htm "Meaning and the Problem of Universals, ''A Kant-Friesian Approach''"]</ref> of the [[Human nature|human body]].  All of the separate chemical compounds, minerals and water—which when piled together constitute the sum total of the actual physical matter of the human body—are not of themselves a human body, however much they may be physically compounded and mixed and rearranged in the laboratory, since they are still only a pile of [[Organic chemistry|organic chemicals]], minerals and water in a particular complex configuration.  If this has never been alive it is not a human body.  If they are ''participant'' <ref>See [http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/87-fallacy-of-composition Logical fallacy of Composition (Modo hoc fallacy)] (logicallyfallacious.com)</ref> in the integral physical expression of a living human being who has absorbed and metabolized them, or if they are now the physical remains of a once-living human being, the substance of what they actually are is human, hence, a human body. The substantial reality of what is before us is human. The ''substance'' (substantial reality) of what is seen is not solely that of a complex organization of organic chemical compounds, but is (or has been) someone. The chemical elements of the food a person eats become in a few hours part of that person's human body and are no longer food but have been turned into the human flesh and blood and bone of that person, yet the physical chemical elements of what was once food remain the same (calcium, copper, salt, protein, sugars, fats, water, etc.).  The ''substance'' of any matter that has become an integral part of any human being has ceased to be the ''substance'' or ''reality'' of ''food'' and has become incorporated as an integral part of the physical manifestation or expression of that ''human person''.  To touch that matter now is not to touch a batch of chemical compounds or food but to touch that person.<ref>''see also'' [[Moderate realism]] ''and'' [[Ontologism]] ''for influences found within the specifically Catholic interpretation of the reality of the human person underlying the outward physical appearance that is the human body.  see also ''[[soul]]'' and ''[[incarnation]].</ref>

When at his [[Last Supper]], [[Jesus]] said: "This is my body",<ref>{{bibleverse||Matthew|26:26}}, {{bibleverse||Mark|14:22}}, {{bibleverse||Luke|22:19||}}, {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|11:24}}</ref> what he held in his hands still had all the ''appearances'' of bread: the "species" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church [[Dogma|teaches]] that, when Jesus made that declaration,<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM ''Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1356-1381,'' number '''1376''']</ref> the ''underlying reality'' (the "substance") of the bread was changed into that of his body. In other words, it ''actually was'' his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the [[consecration]] of the Eucharist<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM ''Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1356-1381,'' number '''1377''']; ''and'' [http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9352 Christ's Presence in the Eucharist: True, Real and Substantial]</ref> when the [[Words of Institution|words]] are spoken ''[[in persona Christi]]'' "This is my body ... this is my blood."  In Orthodox confessions, the change is said to start during the [[Liturgy of Preparation]] and be completed during the [[Epiklesis]].

When at his [[Last Supper]], [[Jesus]] said: "This is my body",<ref>{{bibleverse||Matthew|26:26}}, {{bibleverse||Mark|14:22}}, {{bibleverse||Luke|22:19||}}, {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|11:24}}</ref> what he held in his hands still had all the ''appearances'' of bread: the "species" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church [[Dogma|teaches]] that, when Jesus made that declaration,<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM ''Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1356-1381,'' number '''1376''']</ref> the ''underlying reality'' (the "substance") of the bread was changed into that of his body. In other words, it ''actually was'' his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the [[consecration]] of the Eucharist<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM ''Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1356-1381,'' number '''1377''']; ''and'' [http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9352 Christ's Presence in the Eucharist: True, Real and Substantial]</ref> when the [[Words of Institution|words]] are spoken ''[[in persona Christi]]'' "This is my body ... this is my blood."  In Orthodox confessions, the change is said to start during the [[Liturgy of Preparation]] and be completed during the [[Epiklesis]].