but that doesn't seem right — unenlightened
What is left, for an atheist, is nothing. But for a theist there is another possibility, which is that God sees it differently. 'In the eyes of God' there is a difference, that we can see as a moral difference. It is a real difference, because God cannot be deceived, and hence substantial, but not a physical difference. Thus it is rather in line with holy water, consecrated ground, testimony sworn on the Bible, or the union of marriage. Ritual does nothing physical, and yet transforms the moral significance of things, not merely in the eyes of the faithful, but in the Eyes of God, such that though it might be a virtue to wash one's socks, it would be a sin to use holy water for such mundane purposes. — unenlightened
I recommend you go back to things you know, such as smoking weed.
— Agustino
I recommend you stop being so rude. Since you know more about this, educate us, don't just sneer at our ignorance. — unenlightened
Michael's argument relied completely on reference to "properties". — Metaphysician Undercover
The ritual is transubstantiation if and only if the substance changes, and whether or not the change occurs has nothing to do with what people believe or what people claim or what word people use to describe the ritual. — Michael
Maybe this is missing something? You can correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position — ProbablyTrue
. If it states that the thing is the same as itself, then that's what it is. — Sapientia
If you're saying that what a thing is, is something other than itself, then you're contradicting the law of identity, and are therefore mistaken. — Sapientia
What items? You need to be clearer. We start with a wafer and wine. These items are consumed, and a ceremony is performed. I do not believe that the ceremony changes the items in any way. So we are left with consumed wafer and wine. End of. — Sapientia
My claim is that the substance changes. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why should you believe that the colour of the sky ought to be called "blue", and not some other name? Faith. Why should you believe that the items of the Eucharist ought to be called body and blood of Christ, and not some other name? Faith. There is no substantial difference between these two examples.
That's not even an issue. Transubstantiation occurs, that is a fact. There is something which is referred to as transubstantiation, and to deny this is to deny a fact. So the question is what is transubstantiation. To ask whether transubstantiation occurs, is to deny the fact in skepticism, then ask whether the fact is a fact. It's a pointless exercise because one will inevitably come to the conclusion, yes there is something which is going on which is called transubstantiation. Now let's proceed to see what this thing, transubstantiation, is. So it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can refuse to take part in the ceremony if you have no faith in it, but that doesn't matter. Unless everyone refuses, then it will still be going on, and there will still be something called transubstantiation, and therefore transubstantiation will still be a fact.
There's a difference between calling the colour of the sky "blue" (an act of naming) and calling the items of the Eucharist "the body and blood of Christ" (an act of asserting a proposition). — Michael
Transubstantiation (unlike the Eucharist) isn't the sort of thing that is established by fiat. One cannot simply dictate that the substance of the bread becomes the body of Christ, just as one cannot simply dictate that the shape of the Earth is flat. — Michael
As I said with Hanover, I don't recognize the distinction you are making. To assert the proposition "this item is the body of Christ", is nothing other than to name the item as the body of Christ. A proposition is by nature a proposal, and no matter how it is asserted, it may be rejected. So your use of "asserting" here is just a red herring. — Metaphysician Undercover
If a priest says "I now pronounce you man and wife," he has changed the status of the parties, but he hasn't changed the parties in any substantial way. — Hanover
The Catholic Church claims that the utterances of the priest result in the metaphysical alteration of the bread in an actual way. Those utterances would alter the substance even if the name remained the same and the substance would be whatever it is even if it lacked a name. — Hanover
If God changed the substance of something, and the name for it didn't change, we would have no way of knowing that the substance changed. — Metaphysician Undercover
We could know the substance changed by its behavior prior to altering its name. — Hanover
To assert the proposition "this item is the body of Christ", is nothing other than to name the item as the body of Christ. — Metaphysician Undercover
I replied to everything I thought was relevant, maybe repeat the part that you have a special interest in. — Metaphysician Undercover
Just as to assert the proposition "I have £1,000,000 in my bank account" isn't just me naming the amount in my bank account (which is actually less than £1,000,000). — Michael
That's completely different, it's predication, stating a property of your bank account, it's not naming an object. The example is not relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover
What matters is the fact that I'm right, you're wrong, and I know that to be the case. — Sapientia
By "substantial," I mean something changed to the actual substance of the bread and wine, or, in my analogy, the substance of the man and wife. It is not just a change in status. — Hanover
He's saying that the facts are such that the bread satisfies the pre-established meaning of the term "the blood of Christ". His claim isn't true by fiat. — Michael
Right, the pre-established meaning appears to be what the Church has established, and this is that the items referred to are in fact, the body and blood of Christ. You're like Sapientia, are trying to reach, in equivocation, for some other meaning. But this is the meaning you, or Sapientia attempt to establish, and therefore not the pre-established meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
You are making Michael's mistake, mixing up properties for substance. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.