But you think likewise, and I wouldn't believe you if you said any different. Plus you've been very uncharitable, yet I set that aside and got stuck in. — Sapientia

Oh yeah, remember this?

I just like to see if I can bullshit my way through anything. — Metaphysician Undercover

You think I'm very uncharitable, I think you are extremely uncharitable. So there!

If the 'substance' of your claim is that 'substantial' means 'material' then I think you are substantially mistaken. — unenlightened

It doesn't have to be material, but it has to be some substance in the wafer that changed. If wafers have spirits or some non-material composition, that has to actually change. No one says a man changes in literal substance when married (except maybe he gets fat and gives up the notion of happiness). As I see it, you're changing from a literal to a figurative definition of substance. I'm using it literally, but I'm not committed to it being material.

You think I'm very uncharitable, I think you are extremely uncharitable. So there! — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. You win a point. Congratulations. But my request is for you to set that aside and get stuck in, as I have done. I will try to be charitable if you do likewise. Like I said, quid pro quo. The offer still stands. The ball is in your court.

Would you rather continue the discussion topic or discuss the discussion itself?

We created the same analogy cross posting where I used the blood of Moses and you used the blood of Zeus in an amazing moment of synchronicity. I now believe in transubstantiation. There's more out there than either of us know.

I can't make it the case that the water in my glass is the blood of Zeus just by saying that it is, or by creating a religion and having others perform some ritual and claim that the water is the blood of Zeus. — Michael

I know, you need the will of God to assist you. If everyday you refer to that item as the blood of Zeus, and everyone else around you refers to it as the blood of Zeus, you will keep thinking, it's not really the blood of Zeus, it's really just water. But if by the will of God, it is the blood of Zeus, and you have faith in this, then you will believe that it is the blood of Zeus. And of course, it really is the blood of Zeus, by the will of God.

I know, you need the will of God to assist you. If everyday you refer to that item as the blood of Zeus, and everyone else around you refers to it as the blood of Zeus, you will keep thinking, it's not really the blood of Zeus, it's really just water. But if by the will of God, it is the blood of Zeus, and you have faith in this, then you will believe that it is the blood of Zeus. And of course, it really is the blood of Zeus, by the will of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you accept that it is false to argue that transubstantiation happens by fiat simply because the Church says it does. Your arguments are a non sequitur.

For transubstantiation to occur the wine must actually turn into the blood of Christ, which requires divine intervention – something that many will say never happens (and, of course, divine intervention doesn't happen just because the Church says it does).

Glad we got there in the end.

The accidental properties remain unchanged but an essential change to the substance occurs, thus rooting this whole discussion in ancient Greek philosophy, I assume to offer an explanation for why there is nothing empirically verifiable when transubstantiation occurs. — Hanover

Ok, now you've distinguished between accidental properties and essential properties. A change to essential properties doesn't constitute a change in substance, it constitute a change in the type of object, the substance would stay the same.

I don't see how this is responsive to what I said, which is that a substantial change can occur without a name change, as I don't see how linguistic theory impacts metaphysical change. — Hanover

Since "substantial change" is something we judge, and somewhat arbitrarily, according to our principles of judgement, I don't see how you can support that claim, unless you appeal to God to support this type of substantial change. Then like I said, God could make a substantial change which we wouldn't even notice.

But my request is for you to set that aside and get stuck in, as I have done. — Sapientia

I don't like that phrase "get stuck in". What do you mean by that? I only conjure up an image of being Catholic, and being "stuck in" this sacrament, without the will power, nor capacity, to free myself from it.

So for now, I will reply to what interests me and not get "stuck in" to something that I might regret later, like quicksand. In case you're not there to pull me out.

I don't like that phrase "get stuck in". What do you mean by that? I only conjure up an image of being Catholic, and being "stuck in" this sacrament, without the will power, nor capacity, to free myself from it.

So for now, I will reply to what interests me and not get "stuck in" to something that I might regret later, like quicksand. In case you're not there to pull me out. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, but unfortunately for you, I think that it's too late for that. I think that you got yourself stuck in the quicksand early on, and I would be surprised if you managed to get yourself out of it. I did offer you my hand, but you rejected it. There may still be hope for you yet, as Hanover and Michael are here, continuing on without me: their one true leader.

It doesn't have to be material, but it has to be some substance in the wafer that changed. If wafers have spirits or some non-material composition, that has to actually change. No one says a man changes in literal substance when married (except maybe he gets fat and gives up the notion of happiness). As I see it, you're changing from a literal to a figurative definition of substance. I'm using it literally, but I'm not committed to it being material. — Hanover

Ok. Now imagine being a moral realist. The marriage ceremony makes a real, literal, substantial, actual, change in the moral landscape.

Likewise, just as you say, the non-material composition of the wafer is actually changed: - but this does not mean that one can detect human or Godly DNA that wasn't there before.

Not that I personally subscribe to any of this, you understand, but I think I can defend that it makes sense at least, in the context of there being moral and spiritual aspects of reality.

This makes sense. If these things were presented as such, I doubt much debate would arise. It's when the doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it that it gets called into question. — ProbablyTrue

Agreed.

Then you accept that it is false to argue that transubstantiation happens simply because the Church says it does. Your arguments are a non sequitur. — Michael

It's not "simply" because the Church says so, nothing with the Church is simple, but it is because the Church says so. God follows the word of the Church. The Church requests this from God, and God gives. Therefore what the Church says is the cause of the occurrence. It's like requesting something in prayer, which comes true. God is the immediate cause of that thing occurring, but God does this in response to the prayer, so the prayer is the cause of the occurrence.

The Church requests this from God, and God gives. Therefore what the Church says is the cause of the occurrence. It's like requesting something in prayer, which comes true. God is the immediate cause of that thing occurring, but God does this in response to the prayer, so the prayer is the cause of the occurrence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, so your original arguments were non sequiturs. You're accepting now that transubstantiation requires divine intervention. But that there is a God who intervenes in such a way is certainly something that can be argued against.

Compare with what you said previously:

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Church might say that transubstantiation happens, but if there isn't a God who changes the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, then the Church is wrong, and transubstantiation isn't a fact.

In law, a verbal contract confers a substantial obligation. — unenlightened

What you offer is not relevant. I was offering to the thread that which is claimed by the Catholic Church. Law is not apposite.

I'm not suggesting that transubstantiation is this exactly, but that ritual functions in a substantial though non physical way in ordinary secular life. — unenlightened

Transubstantiation is a nonsense. The question here is what nonsense is believed by Catholics.

It is pointless arguing about the meaning of substance or reality. It is a plain and simple fact that the Catholic Church in its arrogance codified in ecclesiastical law a massive deception upon the people that their priests had the exclusive ability to mobilise divine forces to physically transform ordinary bread and wine in into the flesh and blood of Jesus, with the claim that failure to enter church and receive (with due payments) that sacrament would put the person in jeopardy of salvation. This deception still holds much sway over millions of people world-wide.

Ok, now you've distinguished between accidental properties and essential properties. A change to essential properties doesn't constitute a change in substance, it constitute a change in the type of object, the substance would stay the same. — Metaphysician Undercover

Alright, so you have an object, a cracker. It's accidently made of wheat and essentially made of crackerness. The priest says his prayer and now it's essentially made of Jesusness and accidently made of wheat. The substance has changed. It's now made of Jesusness and wheat whereas it used to be made of crackerness and wheat. I get that Jesusness and crackerness aren't necessarily made of matter because essences are a bit mysterious, but it's not a regular old cracker any more, right?

Since "substantial change" is something we judge, and somewhat arbitrarily, according to our principles of judgement, I don't see how you can support that claim, unless you appeal to God to support this type of substantial change. Then like I said, God could make a substantial change which we wouldn't even notice. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know that we can never judge a substantial change, mostly because I don't know what happens when you pepper something with essence.

Right, so your original arguments were non sequiturs. You're accepting now that transubstantiation requires divine intervention. And that there is a God who intervenes in such a way is certainly something that can be argued against. — Michael

No, there's no non-sequitur, because the arguments hold with or without God. Without God, substance is a human assumption, it is whatever we say it is. With God, substance is assumed to have objectivity. Divine intervention just provides objectivity to transubstantiation.

See, you still haven't demonstrated a difference between asserting something as fact, and what is really fact. If something is supposed to be fact, this means that it has somehow been judged as fact. If the judgement is not made by God, then it is made by humans. So if God is not the one judging that the items are body and blood of Christ, then it is humans who are making that judgement. Either way, the argument holds. To assume God is to assume real objectivity, to assume human judgement is to assume objectivity by means of inter-subjectivity.

No, there's no non-sequitur, because the arguments hold with or without God. Without God, substance is a human assumption, it is whatever we say it is. With God, substance is assumed to have objectivity. Divine intervention just provides objectivity to transubstantiation.

See, you still haven't demonstrated a difference between asserting something as fact, and what is really fact. If something is supposed to be fact, this means that it has somehow been judged as fact. If the judgement is not made by God, then it is made by humans. So if God is not the one judging that the items are body and blood of Christ, then it is humans who are making that judgement. Either way, the argument holds. To assume God is to assume real objectivity, to assume human judgement is to assume objectivity by means of inter-subjectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover

When the Christian claims that transubstantiation occurs he is claiming that the bread's objective substance changes into the objective substance of Christ's body. He isn't just claiming that this is his (inter-)subjective judgement. Therefore if there isn't a God who changes the bread's objective substance into the objective substance of Christ's body then the Christian's claim is false. Transubstantiation, as he means by it, never happens.

It is pointless arguing about the meaning of substance or reality. It is a plain and simple fact that the Catholic Church in its arrogance codified in ecclesiastical law a massive deception upon the people that their priests had the exclusive ability to mobilise divine forces to physically transform ordinary bread and wine in into the flesh and blood of Jesus, with the claim that failure to enter church and receive (with due payments) that sacrament would put the person in jeopardy of salvation. This deception still holds much sway over millions of people world-wide. — charleton

Yep. That's the cold hard truth.

Alright, so you have an object, a cracker. It's accidently made of wheat and essentially made of crackerness. The priest says his prayer and now it's essentially made of Jesusness and accidently made of wheat. The substance has changed. It's now made of Jesusness and wheat whereas it used to be made of crackerness and wheat. I get that Jesusness and crackerness aren't necessarily made of matter because essences are a bit mysterious, but it's not a regular old cracker any more, right? — Hanover

To begin with, that the object is a cracker, is a judgement. So let's just say we have an object. That it is an object requires that it has substance. Therefore we assume that it has substance. You judge it as essentially crackerness. This is a judgement made from your perception of its properties. That judgement says nothing about its substance. Since the object is essentially crackerness to you, you claim its substance is the substance of a cracker. The priest tells you its substance is now the substance of Christ, regardless of how you judge its properties. So if you have faith, you follow, and accept this. For you, being one of faith, the substance of the object is now the substance of Christ. And it is a fact because God ensures that it is a fact. Without God, any assertion that X is a fact, amounts to nothing more than a hocus pocus language game.

Do you believe in transubstantiation?
— Sapientia

Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation. — Agustino

Own it, Agustino.

When the Christian claims that transubstantiation occurs he is claiming that the bread's objective substance changes into the objective substance of Christ's body. He isn't just claiming that this is his (inter-)subjective judgement. Therefore if there isn't a God who changes the bread's objective substance into the objective substance of Christ's body then the Christian's claim is false. — Michael

I don't recall any reference to "objective" or "objectivity" in the claims of the Church. That's the term I was using to describe the difference between whether or not there is a God. The Church claims that it is fact, and as I demonstrated, it is fact whether or not there is a God. God makes it a truly objective fact, while the lack of God makes it a fact by means of inter-subjectivity. Without God we have no facts other than those provided by inter-subjectivity.

I don't recall any reference to "objective" or "objectivity" in the claims of the Church. — Metaphysician Undercover

"The presence is real. That is to say, it is ontological and objective. Ontological, because it takes place in the order of being; objective, because it does not depend on the thoughts or feelings of the minister or the communicants. The body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament by reason of the promise of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, which are attached to the proper performance of the rite by a duly ordained minister. In so teaching the Church rejects the view that faith is the instrument that brings about Christ’s presence in the sacrament. According to Catholic teaching, faith does not make Christ present, but gratefully acknowledges that presence and allows Holy Communion to bear fruit in holiness. To receive the sacrament without faith is unprofitable, even sinful, but the lack of faith does not render the presence unreal" - Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: True, Real and Substantial, Avery Dulles (Jesuit priest, theologian, and cardinal of the Catholic Church)

I have to wonder how many here have sifted through the hundreds, thousands of pages of Christian theology that pertains to one of Christianity's most essential mysteries. Getting through many of the scholastic theologians who articulated transubstantiation the most clearly is an absolute chore. Everybody here seems to be winging it as it goes.

if there isn't a God [...] then the Christian's claim is false. — Michael

And if there is, then the atheist's claim is false. I doubt we can resolve that question to everyone's satisfaction here. In which case, the best one can do is to try and understand how such positions are and are not coherent in their own terms.

It is pointless arguing about the meaning of substance or reality.
It is a plain and simple fact that the Catholic Church in its arrogance codified in ecclesiastical law a massive deception upon the people that their priests had the exclusive ability to mobilise divine forces to physically transform ordinary bread and wine in into the flesh and blood of Jesus, with the claim that failure to enter church and receive (with due payments) that sacrament would put the person in jeopardy of salvation.
This deception still holds much sway over millions of people world-wide.
— charleton

Yep. That's the cold hard truth. — Sapientia

It seems a bit heated to me. It is at least a charitable and likely assumption that most of the Catholic Church do not intend to deceive, but genuinely believe the tenets of their faith. Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's.

And if there is, then the atheist's claim is false. I doubt we can resolve that question to everyone's satisfaction here. — unenlightened

Sure. But I'm not trying to argue against transubstantiation. I'm trying to argue against this claim by Metaphysician Undiscover:

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.

It is simply false to say that transubstantiation occurs by fiat. MU needs to do more than argue that because the Church says that the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ then it must be so.

So if you have faith, you follow, and accept this. For you, being one of faith, the substance of the object is now the substance of Christ. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. If you have faith, then you fall for it, and if you don't, then you don't fall for it.

And it is a fact because God ensures that it is a fact. — Metaphysician Undercover

It would be a fact if God existed, and if God did so, but God doesn't, so God can't.

Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's. — unenlightened

Precisely.

I have to wonder how many here have sifted through the hundreds, thousands of pages of Christian theology that pertains to one of Christianity's most essential mysteries. Getting through many of the scholastic theologians who articulated transubstantiation the most clearly is an absolute chore. Everybody here seems to be winging it as it goes. — Buxtebuddha

Ooh, yes. Very mysterious. Should we dedicate the same amount of time and effort towards the great mystery of the celestial teapot? What if there were hundreds of thousands of pages of celestial teapotology to sift through?

Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's. — unenlightened

Precisely. — jamalrob

And what, pray tell, does arrogance have to do with who is right and who is wrong? That's what really matters.

It seems a bit heated to me. It is at least a charitable and likely assumption that most of the Catholic Church do not intend to deceive, but genuinely believe the tenets of their faith. — unenlightened

Whether it's intentional or not, deception is what it is. Or, if that term's problematic, then swap it for another one. Wouldn't that be the charitable thing to do, since you brought up that old chestnut? The bottom line is that these people are under an illusion, and the Church propagates this illusion.