I remind you that I've already provided my personal reasons for believing the doctrine here:

I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.

So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them. — Agustino

The masses you appeal to are simply wrong. — Sapientia

Yep, some of them no doubt are.

They aren't intelligent enough to make sense of these experiences, or they're in denial, so they jump to conclusions and believe what they want to believe. — Sapientia

Some of them aren't intelligent, others are extremely intelligent. There are both kinds of people. Or do you mean to suggest that only stupid people have mystical experiences or claim to have had them?

The doctrine assumes that what is real, indeed what is most real, is not the physical world. Trying to make sense of it while assuming some version of materialism, as you apparently hold to, is definitionally impossible. — Thorongil

So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd.

Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation.



“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
-Tertullian

“the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
-Justin Martyr (110-165 CE)

Yeah me too, I wasn't talking about dreamland. — Agustino

Could've fooled me! You were talking about the mystical transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of a man who died around 2000 years ago. That is the stuff of dreams and myths, not reality. You'd have to be blind not to see that.

What would you expect to happen if the doctrine was true? You must know what predictions the doctrine makes to judge if they do or do not happen.

And please don't tell me some idiotic thing like I expect a literal change. No - I want you to tell me exactly what you would expect. If it's a literal change, you have to tell me, for example, I expect that in the wine there will be found blood, or something of that sort. — Agustino

No, that's a deflection. I don't expect miracles. Why should I humour you and entertain the idea? I expect results based on facts, not on wild imagination.

Yes, by analogy they certainly are comparable. You said you were mystified how something can remain physically the same and yet literarily change. I just gave you an example - a common one as you say - where that happens. So then you're not really so mystified about how something can remain the same physically and yet literarily change. — Agustino

No, they're not comparable for the reasons given. And you're wrong that there would be no physical change. We're constantly changing physically from one moment to the next. This is covered by science, e.g. physiology and particle physics. Is this supposed transubstantiation that is thought to occur after receiving the Eucharist likewise covered by science? No, because it's just a myth, taken up on faith. It's not falsifiable and is therefore unscientific.

The doctrine doesn't contradict any scientific predictions, so why is it the doctrine vs science? :s — Agustino

The doctrine is unscientific. That's why it's the doctrine vs. science.

Yeah me too. I have confidence in science when dealing with physical & quantifiable matters. — Agustino

But you also have confidence in myths with nowhere near as robust a basis in evidence as in other matters. That's the problem. Just because science cannot apply, you don't need to recklessly abandon critical thinking. And, to make matters worse, you're probably not even consistent. If you don't believe in ghosts or celestial teapots, then why transubstantiation? Why the double standard? Why the special pleading?

Its predictions have turned out correctly indeed. But only in a limited domain. And that's the domain which studies the behaviour of physical matter, where things can be studied quantitatively. So if we're dealing with a domain where we need a qualitative study, and not a quantitative one (such as spirituality), then science is of little use. The same way that a hammer is great for hittin' the nails, but crap for cutting the tree. You are being entirely irrational and laughable if you're telling me I should use science in a spiritual matter because science has great results in an entirely different domain. — Agustino

No, on the contrary, you are being entirely irrational. You are embracing such nonsense with open arms, whilst I am not letting my guard down. If I found that a hammer wasn't a suitable tool for cutting down the tree, then I'd find a more suitable tool, like a saw. I wouldn't throw my tool kit away and put my faith in some sort of invisible magic. The domain you're talking about is fantasy. It's not either science or fantasy.

Were we discussing the Bible? That's news to me. — Agustino

Okay, then simply swap "The Bible" for whatever doctrine you were referring to. That's a nonresponse.

So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way — ProbablyTrue

No, not in any way, but certainly not in a scientific way. Of course, the positivist could reply that only that which is verified by science counts as knowledge, but that too requires justification, a difficult task given the self-refuting nature of the claim.

Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. — ProbablyTrue

By "the text" I suppose you mean the Bible. It may be disputable, but I think the New Testament affirms the doctrine. And early Christians did believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All Christians believe it is symbolic, by the way, but those who believe in the real presence don't think it's merely symbolic or symbolic in such a way that Christ is not really present. So the two quotes you provided don't refute the doctrine at all. In fact, the Tertullian quote affirms it quite strongly.

not in a scientific way — Thorongil

Ok. The burden of proof still rests on the believer, and fuzzy feelings don't count as proof.

By "the text" I suppose you mean the Bible. It may be disputable, but I think the New Testament affirms the doctrine. And early Christians did believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All Christians believe it is symbolic, by the way, but those who believe in the real presence don't think it's merely symbolic. — Thorongil

Are you suggesting that Jesus ate and drank himself with his disciples? I provided quotes of very early Christian leaders denying the physical presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. You care you cite some of the early Christians you speak of? I could cite many more to make my case.

In fact, the Tertullian quote affirms it quite strongly. — Thorongil

"...that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol."

You do not understand the theological implications here. This is Tertullian affirming that God was flesh, not that the bread became God's literal flesh and blood.

Ok. The burden of proof still rests on the believer, and fuzzy feelings don't count as proof. — ProbablyTrue

You're strawmanning here. And the burden of proof lies on whoever makes a claim. If the non-believer claims that transubstantiation is false, it's up to him either to disprove the presuppositions of the doctrine or prove his own that rule it out.

I provided quotes of very early Christian leaders denying the physical presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. You care you cite some of the early Christians you speak of? I could cite many more to make my case. — ProbablyTrue

Here are some: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm

Are you suggesting that Jesus ate and drank himself with his disciples? — ProbablyTrue

Sure, why not. Aquinas, for example, thought so: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm

You do not understand the theological implications here. This is Tertullian affirming that God was flesh, not that the bread became God's literal flesh and blood. — ProbablyTrue

Well, here's the Catholic response: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence . Makes sense to me. You're just quote mining without respect of context.

Makes sense to me. You're just quote mining without respect of context. — Thorongil

I'm just getting to work so I won't be able to reply in depth, but the first part of the Catholic response is A) mumbo-jumbo, and B) confirms what I said.

"Indeed, both Tertullian and St. Augustine are emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.

In the case of Tertullian, all we have to do is go on reading in the very document quoted above to get a sense of how he is using the term “figure,” and it is entirely Catholic. Notice what he goes on to say:

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body...

Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretend[ing] the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it."

I don't see that it does.

You and Agustino are NEVER going to settle this business of transubstantiation.

For one thing, Agustino is calling it a "mystical" experience. It might be 1% - 3% clearer, maybe not, if he called it a "mystery" instead of a mystical event. People are thought to have "mystical experiences". Contemplatives work at achieving mystical experiences. A few people are struck by mystical experiences, usually to their dismay. Transubstantiation isn't something that one can achieve, work at, improve, or make happen. Through great effort, one can not improve one's understanding of a MYSTERY either. Mysteries are unfathomable and that's that.

The priest utters the incantation (the words of institution) and that's it from our end. HOW transubstantiation occurs is a mystery of the action of God [IF one believes that such a thing happens. Of course, if one doesn't believe that anything happens, then the whole thing is just so much hocus pocus].

No one has ever had a sensory experience that would tell them that the bread and wine had become, by a mysterious act of God, to be "the body and blood of Christ". I don't think there is any reason to think that the alleged author of the incantation, JC himself, was turning the bread and wine of the passover meal into his blood and flesh either.

If Jesus did say such a thing, my guess is that he was referencing a more ancient solemnity when the priest poured out the blood of an animal sacrifice before the people, to ritualistically 'seal' a covenant.

Jesus might not have spoken the incantation (Gasp! Heresy! Burn him slowly at the stake!) The incantation may have been devised by the early church, as might the last meal of Jesus with the disciples. I'll assume here that Jesus did say it, though. We'll never know for sure, either way.

There is nothing to argue for in a Mystery. It's there, we do not, can not, have not, and never will understand it.

Myself, I don't like the whole business of mysteries, incantations, mystical bodies, and so on and I don't believe in them. What one REALLY has to strive to believe in is that the Church DID NOT cook up theories which were, shall we say, implausible? and then called them a Mystery or a Mystic crystal revelation, or something, and then told the laity to just believe it or go to hell.

Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know — Agustino

No Catholic has ever experienced transubstantiation. The substance of the bread and wine leaves and is replaced by that of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, the only thing that remains is the 'species' ("espèces" in french), which is specifically everything that can be experienced by experiencing bread and wine.

For a Catholic it isn't symbolic either (according to the Cathechism anyway). The substance of the flesh and blood of Christ is truly there, and there is truly nothing left of the bread and wine except for everything that makes us feel about it that it is bread and wine.

Could've fooled me! You were talking about the mystical transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of a man who died around 2000 years ago. That is the stuff of dreams and myths, not reality. You'd have to be blind not to see that. — Sapientia

Transubstantiation is no harder to believe than that light is a wave and particle at the same time. That there are a practically infinite number of parallel universes that can never be seen. That the world consists of mathematics. That objective reality exists when there is no way, even in theory, to know it directly.

The above quotation of Tertullian is his response to Marcion of Sinope. Marcion was a proponent of docetism, which purported that Jesus had no physical body. Tertullian is emphasizing the body of Christ not in the bread and wine, but that he had one at all.

Read this again:
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body."

Notice he makes a special note saying, "that is, the figure of my body."
The word figure, which is the translation used by the Catholic Church, also means "sign" or "symbol".
Tertullian would have no need of clarifying this if he indeed meant that Jesus was speaking literally of the bread and wine.

In the grand scheme, Tertullian's opinion is just one of many so even this doesn't amount to much. I doubt we'll solve a major theological schism here in the ShoutBox.

*Edit*

Another quotation of Jesus we could look at is John 10 verse 7:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."

So Jesus is not only bread and wine, but a door!

No, that's a deflection. I don't expect miracles. Why should I humour you and entertain the idea? I expect results based on facts, not on wild imagination. — Sapientia

I didn't ask you to entertain the idea. I simply asked you to tell what you expect to happen if the doctrine is true? That's much like asking you what would you expect to happen if Newton's theory of gravitation is true? Can you answer one question? Then you should be able to answer the other too. So stop trembling, shaking, and deflecting, and answer the darn question in clear and no uncertain terms.

And you're wrong that there would be no physical change. We're constantly changing physically from one moment to the next. This is covered by science, e.g. physiology and particle physics. Is this supposed transubstantiation that is thought to occur after receiving the Eucharist likewise covered by science? — Sapientia

Yes, actually, if you put it that way, in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable.

But that's irrelevant. In both cases. The fact that there are neural correlates for a qualitative experience does not eliminate the qualitative aspect of it, nor does it show that science can investigate the qualitative experience itself. That's for phenomenology to do.

If you go from non-horny to horny then this same girl that you're looking at becomes qualitatively different. She means something different for you, even though nothing, in her, physically changed. Something did physically change in you - the neural correlates - but they don't "contain" the qualitative meaning and inner understanding of the event.

No, because it's just a myth, taken up on faith. It's not falsifiable and is therefore unscientific. — Sapientia

That's only your own faith.

The doctrine is unscientific. That's why it's the doctrine vs. science. — Sapientia

No, it's not. The doctrine makes no physical predictions, so it simply has nothing to do with science.

Just because science cannot apply, you don't need to recklessly abandon critical thinking. — Sapientia

Sure, that's exactly why I gave you 4 or so different reasons for believing it.

If you don't believe in ghosts or celestial teapots, then why transubstantiation? Why the double standard? Why the special pleading? — Sapientia

Ghosts and celestial teapots are supposed to physically appear, to be observed around in the physical world. They are not qualitative phenomena, but quantitative ones. So how is there an analogy between transubstantiation and ghosts / celestial pots?

You are embracing such nonsense with open arms, whilst I am not letting my guard down. — Sapientia

>:O >:O >:O - it's funny how you think you're not letting your guard down.

Okay, then simply swap "The Bible" for whatever doctrine you were referring to. That's a nonresponse. — Sapientia

Yeah, a nonresponse to a nonquestion. If you can't be sufficiently accurate and specific in the questions that you ask, you'll keep asking a lot of bad questions. Then you'll be like yeah yeah yeah, replace this with that, or whatever, doesn't matter >:O

So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd. — ProbablyTrue

Mystical experiences can be verified scientifically. As can "funny feelings".

Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation. — ProbablyTrue

Apart from the Protestant bit, the other bits are false. Transubstantiation is NOT a physical change, so it's much closer to a symbolic change, absolutely. That's what Orthodox and Catholics have meant from the very beginning. It is aimed at reproducing the effect of Christ's sacrifice, which was the divinization of the flesh (hence of bread and wine).

No Catholic has ever experienced transubstantiation. — Akanthinos

Unhistorical.

For a Catholic it isn't symbolic either (according to the Cathechism anyway). The substance of the flesh and blood of Christ is truly there, and there is truly nothing left of the bread and wine except for everything that makes us feel about it that it is bread and wine. — Akanthinos

Yep it is. Just not physically.

materialism — Thorongil

materialists — Noble Dust

Believe it or not, young laddies, this has nothing to do with materialism. You can be a hardcore materialist and still believe in transubstantiation.

As far as I know, materialism does not deny the qualitative and non-quantitative aspects of existence. It may think they are illusions (ie less real, whatever that is supposed to mean), but it doesn't say they don't exist.

If I may interject, this is the reason why you fail to understand transubstantiation. The doctrine assumes that what is real, indeed what is most real, is not the physical world. Trying to make sense of it while assuming some version of materialism, as you apparently hold to, is definitionally impossible. Trying to understand any idea on your own terms is a recipe for failure. You need to either defeat its presuppositions or demonstrate your own in order to advance the charge of incoherence.

I realize that that's a big task, but it is a necessary one. — Thorongil

You're confusing understanding and agreement. The failure is all yours. It is because I see it for what it is that I reject it, as I reject magical thinking in general.

That's no argument against the charges Thorongil has brought to you.

That's no argument against the charges Thorongil has brought to you. — Noble Dust

Says you. I didn't see much of an argument from him. He uncharitably asserts that I do not understand something that I do. How would he know that I do not understand? Can he read my mind? I can explain what transubstantiation is. In fact, I have already done so. Just because I have a different position, that does not prevent me from understanding. That's a non sequitur. An atheist, a materialist, a whateverist, can understand transubstantiation, without agreeing with it.

'

He brought up the problem of transubstantiation within the context of materialism. Can you explain in detail your position, as a materialist?

He brought up the problem of transubstantiation within the context of materialism. Can you explain in detail your position, as a materialist? — Noble Dust

First, show me where I said that I was a materialist.

Are you not?

Transubstantiation is NOT a physical change, so it's much closer to a symbolic change, absolutely. That's what Orthodox and Catholics have meant from the very beginning. It is aimed at reproducing the effect of Christ's sacrifice, which was the divinization of the flesh (hence of bread and wine). — Agustino

Because some of the early church leaders decided it was somehow literal, it is not clear from the text itself that Jesus(if he said these things at all) meant it literally.
The Gospel of Luke says, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
1 Corinthians 11:23 does too. So clearly it is meant as a symbolic gesture.

Mystical experiences can be verified scientifically. — Agustino

Can you expound?

Depends what it means. And besides, I am not convinced of it's relevance to my criticism. Can only a materialist make the argument I've made? Doubtful.

Can you expound on this? — ProbablyTrue

Expound? Maybe expand.

https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060828/full/news060828-3.html

I made the claim because I was confident that you were from other discussions and claims that you've made. I'd rather hear you describe your views than assume them. If you're interested. But this is the shoutbox, after all. Common curtesy isn't really the norm...

But, alternatively, do you really need me to clarify for you what materialism means? Come on, I'm the philosophical dilettante here, not you. As to the relevance of the criticism of materialism, revert back to Thorongil's OP for the context of materialism.

Expound? Maybe expand. — Agustino

There. I fixed it. It's late.
Any thoughts on the actual quotations from the Bible or do you want to stick with early church leaders?

https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060828/full/news060828-3.html — Agustino

I'm sure they'd find the same things in the minds of Muslims or Mormons.

I made the claim because I was confident that you were from other discussions and claims that you've made. I'd rather hear you describe your views than assume them. If you're interested. But this is the shoutbox, after all. Common curtesy isn't really the norm... — Noble Dust

You can see what my views are in relation to transubstantiation by reading the preceding discussion. What more do want to know, specifically, about my views? And what do you think the relevance will be? I believe that almost everything is made out of a material called matter, including bread and wine. My views are in line with current physics, to the extent of what I know of current physics, so I also accept that it's not just matter, but also fundamental forces, for example.

I'm sure they'd find the same things in the minds of Muslims or Mormons. — ProbablyTrue

Yep, I was never arguing that only Christians have mystical experiences.

Any thoughts on the actual quotations from the Bible or do you want to stick with early church leaders? — ProbablyTrue

What thoughts would you expect? I think the Eucharist is amply prefigured in the Bible.

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" — John 6:51-56

In terms of Christianity there are three sources of revelation:

(1) The Bible
(2) Apostolic Tradition
(3) Personal Mystical Experiences

So even if something isn't in the Bible directly and explicitly - like the Trinity - that doesn't mean that it hasn't be revealed.