Evelyn Underhill, arguably the most learned scholar on Christian mysticism, disagrees. She argues to some length that mystical experiences are unitive; She says that William James' "four marks" of mysticism aren't sufficient, and she lays out her own four instead:

"1. True mysticism is active and practical, not passive and theoretical. It is an organic life-process, a something which the whole self does; not something as to which its intellect holds an opinion.

2. Its aims are wholly transcendental and spiritual. It is in no way concerned with adding to, exploring, re-arranging, or improving anything in the visible universe. The mystic brushes aside that universe, even in its supernormal manifestations. Though he does not, as his enemies declare, neglect his duty to the many, his heart is always set upon the changeless One.

3. This One is for the mystic, not merely the Reality of all that is, but also a living and personal Object of Love; never an object of exploration. It draws his whole being homeward, but always under the guidance of the heart.

4. Living union with the One - which is the term of his adventure - is a definite state of form of enhanced life. It is obtained neither from an intellectual realization of its delights, nor from the most acute emotional longings. Though these must be present, they are not enough, It is arrived at by an arduous psychological and spiritual process - the so-called Mystic Way - entailing the compete remaking of character and the liberation of a new, or rather latent, form of consciousness; which imposes on the self the condition which is sometimes inaccurately called "ecstasy", but is better named the Unitive State." - Mysticism, Evelyn Underhill

Evelyn Underhill, arguably the most learned scholar on Christian mysticism, disagrees. She argues to some length that mystical experiences are unitive; She says that William James' "four marks" of mysticism aren't sufficient, and she lays out her own four instead: — Noble Dust

The interpretation of a mystical experience may be unitary as the representations are not independent to the religious or cultural practice the mystic belongs to and therefore social constructed and one can even say the experience itself emerges from this; but, it is only in the mind of the individual who falsely attributes it to be formed by a duality between the two in an attempt to legitimise it.

Dreams are episodic. We all have dreams, because we all have brains and thus the cognitive tools that form remarkable and fantastic 'experiences' when we are asleep, fantasies that are shaped by the symbols of our environment that create pictures that we can interpret in an attempt to attribute meaning to it and to our unconscious mind. But, to believe in those dreams as an actual reality that exists?

Mystical experiences merely expose the depth of the individual' desperation for meaning and things like false pregnancies or hysteria are examples of how this desperation can manifest physiologically as though the mind is resisting an existential reality that is too much to bear. Loneliness really is our inability to articulate who we are and we try to find it in others, in religion, in society, new ageism etc, when all of it is in our own minds.

“There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”
― C.G. Jung

So-called 'mystical experiences' are a by-product stemming from a misunderstood unconscious self and mysticism is merely one such way of interpreting yourself and your place in the external world. But, when a person actually begins to believe in astrology, who actually thinks that there is accuracy in star signs, they are not well.

belongs to and therefore social constructed and the experience itself emerges from this - — TimeLine

But the focus of mystic practice is exactly that; practice over theory, as Underhill sets out. Social constructs, as I understand them, are passive, and not active; not practical. A social construct is passed down within the social unconscious; mystic practice is the opposite of that.

But, to believe in those dreams as an actual reality that exists? — TimeLine

As an aside, I've had dreams that to this day feel more real to me than reality, in some ways.

Mystical experiences merely expose the depth of the individual' desperation for meaning and things like false pregnancies or hysteria are examples of how this desperation can manifest physiologically as though the mind is resisting an existential reality that is too much to bear. Loneliness really is our inability to articulate who we are and we try to find it in others, in religion, in society, new ageism etc, when all of it is in our own minds.

“There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”
― C.G. Jung

So-called 'mystical experiences' are a by-product stemming from a misunderstood unconscious self and mysticism is merely one such way of interpreting yourself and your place in the external world. But, when a person actually begins to believe in astrology, who actually thinks that there is accuracy in star signs, they are not well. — TimeLine

For clarity, how much of the mystics have you read?

Christ is the named subject, and we are trying to identify the body and blood of this one called "Christ". You don't agree with the Church's identification. You haven't made a clear case as to why you think that the Church is wrong. Sounds like you have a personal problem to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's your problem. What do expect me to do about that? It would help if you read the case that I've been making and then made a specific criticism or request for clarification.

No, that's your problem. What do expect me to do about that? It would help if you read the case that I've been making and then made a specific criticism or request for clarification. — Sapientia

Hey, the case you've been making is irrelevant to what I'm saying. You first engaged me, not vise versa. So if you don't want to listen to me then...

The Church has decided nothing, but would allege only to have reported the facts as they are. They don't get to decide, like they're the Supreme Court and it's their rules. — Hanover

You don't think so? You don't think that they must decide what the facts are before they can report them? They have decided what the facts are, concerning Christ. Are you familiar with the word "creed"?

There is also much dispute as to what the euchrist is, with non-Catholic, but very Christian denominations asserting that the wafer and wine are but symbolic representations of the body and blood. Why are the Catholics the ones who ought be given the authority to render the decree as to what it is. Are they more learned and knowledgable? — Hanover

Well, isn't there always a bunch of shit disturbers who refuse to accept the word of authority?

Hey, the case you've been making is irrelevant to what I'm saying. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it's definitely not irrelevant to what you said. You said that I haven't made a clear case as to why the church is wrong. Those were your exact words. You brought it up, and I just responded. I don't agree. I think that it's just not clear to you because you haven't put enough effort into understanding it. And, since you didn't bother to go into specifics, I can't really help you with that. You stopped engaging properly with the points that I was making.

I was talking about assigning a name "the body of Christ" to an object. You were talking about what "bread" means, and what "body" means.

However, all your stated principles supported my claim. You said "Meaning is use". So if "body of Christ" is used to refer to this item, then that is what this item is. You are clearly wrong to be calling it "bread".

Well, isn't there always a bunch of shit disturbers who refuse to accept the word of authority? — Metaphysician Undercover

If there's good reason to reject what the shitty authority on shit is claiming, then why shouldn't the shit disturbers disturb the shit out of the shitty authority on shit by refusing to accept his shit?

I can't disagree there

You don't think so? You don't think that they must decide what the facts are before they can report them? They have decided what the facts are, concerning Christ. Are you familiar with the word "creed"? — Metaphysician Undercover

The distinction I'm making is between reporting the facts and decreeing the facts. The former is what the Church would admit doing, the latter is what a ruling authority who created their empire would do. If a king states that all first born children are to rule their households because they are holy, then it is so, simply by virtue of the king's authority. He could the next day modify his decree and decree that it was in fact all second born children who were holy. Metaphysically, though, the king can change nothing, and to the extent holiness is a metaphysical fact, he can't change that by whim. That is, the first born doesn't become holy because the king said so. He just defined some terms and created a law. The Nicene Creed, according to Catholics, wasn't set forth as an internal decree that happened to be subject to the whim of the ruling authority at the time, but it sets forth metaphysical truths that have been discovered and reported by the Church.

It is the distinction between a performative utterance and declarative statement.

Well, isn't there always a bunch of shit disturbers who refuse to accept the word of authority? — Metaphysician Undercover

Either transubstantiation occurs or it doesn't. I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement. The Catholics say it does occur. The Mormons say it doesn't. One of those groups is correct. According to you, though, you're stuck with them both being correct within the context of their respective faiths because each has the power to decree whatever the hell they want. That relativistic view of reality is surely not one accepted by the Catholic Church, and they would not accept that transubstantiation is the product of the mind of the participant, with the Mormon not being in the presence of transubstantiation during a Catholic Mass while his Catholic friend seated next to him in the pew is.

You may believe that religion is whatever the authority says it is, and that may be true as a political and historical fact, but no religion admits to that, but they insist their belief system is metaphysically true.

The distinction I'm making is between reporting the facts and decreeing the facts. — Hanover

There is no difference between these two. To report the facts is to decree what the facts are. You are trying to make a boundary, a distinction, where no boundary or distinction could possibly be. Your example expresses a distinction between a rule, what ought to be done, and what is fact, what is the case. So your example of a decree is the decree of a rule, what ought to be done, not the decree of a fact, (what is the case), which is really nothing other than reporting the fact.

Either transubstantiation occurs or it doesn't. I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement. — Hanover

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 is no difference between these two. To report the facts is to decree what the facts are. — Metaphysician Undercover

No it's not. That I say bigfoot exists doesn't make bigfoot exist. When a court rules "you are in contempt," you are in fact in contempt because the court says it. When the Church says transubstantiation occurs, it doesn't just occur. The Church's authority is to speak with authority on assessing and gathering facts, but it doesn't have the inherent power to decree an event.

Your suggestion is that the Church has the power like a court to perform a performative utterance. I'm saying that the Church itself would not make that claim as it pertains to transubstantiation. If it did make that claim, it would be declaring itself the creator of religion and not the upholder of it.

Transubstantiation occurs, that is a fact. There is something which is referred to as transubstantiation, and to deny this is to deny a fact. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is nonsense. It is entirely possible for a phrase or a word not to have a referent (e.g. "the current King of France," Bigfoot, jkldjdc). What people are referring to when they say "bigfoot" is a non-existent animal, and it could well be the case that "transubstantiation" refers to an event that does not occur. Surely there can be a word for that which doesn't occur, so your insistence that the event must occur because there's a word for it does not follow.

That I say bigfoot exists doesn't make bigfoot exist. — Hanover

You are not decreeing this as a fact, so the example is not relevant. If you were decreeing it as a fact, then it would be no different from reporting it as a fact. That someone might dispute the facts which you report is another issue.

The Church's authority is to speak with authority on assessing and gathering facts, but it doesn't have the inherent power to decree an event. — Hanover

How is assessing facts other than deciding what is and is not fact?

It is entirely possible for a phrase or a word not to have a referent (e.g. "the current King of France," Bigfoot, jkldjdc). — Hanover

Sure it's possible, but in the case of "transubstantiation" it is very clear that there is a referent. We can approach the issue two ways. The philosophical way is to proceed with an open mind to analyze the thing referred to as transubstantiation, in an attempt to understand it. The biased way is to proceed as Sapientia does, with a preconceived notion as to what "transubstantiation" means ( a piece of bread is transformed into the body of Christ), and determine whether the thing being referred to as transubstantiation is according to this preconception. In this way she comes to the conclusion that transubstantiation is a fiction. But it is only a fiction according to this preconceived notion, and in reality there is still a very real activity going on which is called "transubstantiation". The only thing exposed is that Sapientia misunderstands transubstantiation.

There's a difference between a priest declaring John and Mary man and wife and me claiming they are.

(And there's a difference between a priest declaring John and Mary man and wife and declaring them supernatural beings.)

I was talking about assigning a name "the body of Christ" to an object. You were talking about what "bread" means, and what "body" means.

However, all your stated principles supported my claim. You said "Meaning is use". So if "body of Christ" is used to refer to this item, then that is what this item is. You are clearly wrong to be calling it "bread". — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that you are talking about a renaming, when, in fact, what's going on is more than that. This is about truth, as well as language. The bread would remain bread, despite what it is called. So, it would not be the case that the bread is the body of Christ. That would result in contradiction. It would be the case that the bread is the body of Christ if, by "body of Christ", what is meant is bread. But that is obviously not what is meant, given that we're talking about a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation does not render a truth, at least from what can be reasonably determined from the available evidence or lack thereof.

That is consistent with meaning as use, properly understood. Whatever term is used in reference to the bread, it is the case that if the meaning entails that it is something other than what it is, namely bread, then that will produce a false statement. It is what it is.

This is nonsense. — Hanover

...does not follow. — Hanover

I agree. That's what you tend to get with an argument from Metaphysician Undercover.

Sure it's possible, but in the case of "transubstantiation" it is very clear that there is a referent. We can approach the issue two ways. The philosophical way is to proceed with an open mind to analyze the thing referred to as transubstantiation, in an attempt to understand it. The biased way is to proceed as Sapientia does, with a preconceived notion as to what "transubstantiation" means (a piece of bread is transformed into the body of Christ), and determine whether the thing being referred to as transubstantiation is according to this preconception. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's taking it out of context. The discussion is in the context of what the Eastern Orthodox Church considers "transubstantiation" to mean. That's the preconception, and it is a necessary preconception. You're not free to deviate from that meaning, or preconception, without changing the subject. This is not about what Metaphysician Undercover thinks "transubstantiation" means, if that is anything other than what the Eastern Orthodox Church thinks it means. What you misleadingly refer to as the "biased way" is actually just what is required to remain on topic.

How is assessing facts other than deciding what is and is not fact? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not what I said. What I said was: "The Church's authority is to speak with authority on assessing and gathering facts, but it doesn't have the inherent power to decree an event."

Your position is that the Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation, so once it has so decreed it, it is that without question. That is, its declaration is a performative act, so disputing it would be nonsensical. If the priest says "I now pronounce you man and wife," you are man and wife because the act of pronouncing was the very event. For me to then say the priest was wrong, you are not now man and wife, I would be misunderstanding the priest's comments. The comment wasn't declarative; it was performative.

And that's where I'm saying you're mistaken in your comments. The Church's declaration that transubstantiation results in the bread and wine transforming into the blood and body of Jesus is a declarative statement, not a performative act. They are assessing what has occurred and telling us what happened, but the simple act of declaration does not make it so. That is to say, the Church could be wrong in its assessment.

Put it this way: Assume that on Monday the church said transubstantiation occurred but on Tuesday it said it didn't.

If their statement was performative, then on Monday it occurred and on Tuesday it didn't. If their statement was declarative, then on one of the days they were wrong.

If the judge says you are in contempt of court and then he changes his mind 2 minutes later, then you were in contempt for 2 minutes. If the judge says you stole the candy and 2 minutes later he decides you didn't, whether you stole or didn't steal the candy was unaffected. The judge has no ability to create the facts, and his findings of what the facts are can be wrong.

Sure it's possible, but in the case of "transubstantiation" it is very clear that there is a referent. — Metaphysician Undercover

If the church defines transubstantiation as an actual event where wine turns to Jesus' blood, then there is no referent in my opinion. The word points to nothing other than confusion. If "bigfoot" refers to an actual humanoid creature, then it has no referent.

The bread would remain bread, despite what it is called. — Sapientia

Why would the object be bread if it were called something else? You go on about "meaning is use", but you seem to have no clue of what that means. Use is the act of calling something by a name. What that name means is determined by this act of calling something by that name. If we stop calling something by that name, and start calling it by another name, then the thing is known by the new name. So if we stop calling the thing "bread", and start calling it "body of Christ", then the thing is known as body of Christ, by that very change in usage.

That would result in contradiction. — Sapientia

No, it would be contradiction if it were bread and body of Christ at the same time. But there is no reason to believe that it is still bread, transubstantiation has occurred, so it is not bread. That's your faulty assumption, that it's still called "bread" after being designated "body of Christ". And by this faulty assumption you claim contradiction. It is you who says it's bread in order that you can accuse contradiction, but that's a straw man, it's not bread its body of Christ. Transubstantiation has ensured that it will no longer be called "bread", it will be called "body of Christ". And as you affirm, meaning is use.

What I said was: "The Church's authority is to speak with authority on assessing and gathering facts, but it doesn't have the inherent power to decree an event." — Hanover

I'll repeat my question. How is "assessing facts" something other than deciding what is and isn't fact?

The comment wasn't declarative; it was performative. — Hanover

Do you realize, that in the act of transubstantiation, the word is both performative and declarative (as you describe these two)? Therefore I do not think that your distinction between these two is relevant.

Your position is that the Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation, so once it has so decreed it, it is that without question. — Hanover

Yes, "transubstantiation" is a concept proper to the Church. The Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation. Likewise, "photoelectric effect" is a concept proper to physics, and physics has the authority to state what happens during the photoelectric effect.

The Church's declaration that transubstantiation results in the bread and wine transforming into the blood and body of Jesus is a declarative statement, not a performative act. — Hanover

That is not what the Church declares. There is no transformation, it's called transubstantiation. The two are completely different. One is a change in form, the other a change in substance. When the substance changes, in transubstantiation, all the accidentals, which are what we sense, remain the same. Only the substance changes.

They are assessing what has occurred and telling us what happened, but the simple act of declaration does not make it so. That is to say, the Church could be wrong in its assessment. — Hanover

Let me see if I can interpret what you are insinuating here. The Church has been carrying out this procedure in hundreds or thousands of locations, numerous times every year, for hundreds and hundreds of years. They call this procedure "transubstantiation".

You are saying that maybe the Church is wrong, maybe transubstantiation has never occurred. What about all these millions of instances of the very same thing occurring, with millions of participants, which the Church has called "transubstantiation"? Are you saying that these events never happened? Are you saying that the events happened, but the Church is wrong to title the event transubstantiation? What are you insinuating?

On what would you base such an accusation? Have you taken part, such that you have first hand experience? If so, from what you have said above, it appears like you were expecting a transformation instead of a transubstantiation. Perhaps your experience was such that you observed no transformation and so you fallaciously concluded that there was no transubstantiation.

If the church defines transubstantiation as an actual event where wine turns to Jesus' blood, then there is no referent in my opinion. The word points to nothing other than confusion. If "bigfoot" refers to an actual humanoid creature, then it has no referent. — Hanover

I assume that if there is an event where water turns to gas, and this is called "evaporation", then in your opinion there is no referent to this word, the word points to nothing but confusion.

You're trying to argue with two people who haven't read or understood the theology. Good luck changing their mind...

I have no intention to change their minds. I think the idea that there's reality which is beyond our capacity to sense, but can still be known by the mind, is way beyond both of them. For them, if it looks and tastes like bread, then it must be bread, regardless of what its true substance is. I just like to see if I can bullshit my way through anything. If the leaders of the church can do it, then why can't I?

Well what's the point in talking about something you know nothing about if you don't want to learn something about it, unless you're going to at least pretend to know something about it?

I think the idea that there's reality which is beyond our capacity to sense, but can still be known by the mind, is way beyond both of them. For them, if it looks and tastes like bread, then it must be bread, regardless of what its true substance is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your comments misstated the Catholic position by stating that transubstantiation exists because the Catholic church said it did. That has nothing to do with the new issue you've raised, which is that you believe my rejection of transubstantiation arises due to my wholesale rejection of the spiritual realm. That statement is incorrect and non-responsive to anything previously discussed.

I'll repeat my question. How is "assessing facts" something other than deciding what is and isn't fact? — Metaphysician Undercover

Why are you asking a question about a distinction I never raised? My comment was that there was a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. I clarified that by quoting what I said, but you instead just re-asked the same question, ignoring my prior clarification.

Yes, "transubstantiation" is a concept proper to the Church. The Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation. Likewise, "photoelectric effect" is a concept proper to physics, and physics has the authority to state what happens during the photoelectric effect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, and physicists can get it entirely wrong. They might describe a photoelectric effect completely wrong and a simple auto mechanic might get it right. A physicist has expertise in his field, but if his statements don't correspond to reality, then he's wrong. And so it is with the transubstantiation. A Catholic scholar can speak to the issue of what it entails, but he can be wrong. And this is my point: the Catholic position on transubstantiation is declarative and indicative, but in no way performative. If it were, it would mistake the Church for God, as if it could create reality as opposed to simply report on it.

Nothing I'm saying here denies transubstantiation. It simply rejects your proof of its existence, which relies upon an argument not advanced by the Church.

You are saying that maybe the Church is wrong, maybe transubstantiation has never occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that maybe nothing at all (on any level) happened to the wafer and wine. It was no different before or after the ceremony.

What about all these millions of instances of the very same thing occurring, with millions of participants, which the Church has called "transubstantiation"? Are you saying that these events never happened? Are you saying that the events happened, but the Church is wrong to title the event transubstantiation? What are you insinuating? — Metaphysician Undercover

Let us suppose that I tell everyone that I can literally turn rocks into gold. As a result, millions come every Tuesday to my house where I pray over rocks and then I produce a nugget of gold as proof. I call this change "transcombobulation," Let us then suppose that I am discovered later a fraud or that I was just confused. It would be correct to say that transcombobulation never occurred. What actually occurred was that I held a big meeting that turned out to be a big pile of nonsense.

On what would you base such an accusation? Have you taken part, such that you have first hand experience? If so, from what you have said above, it appears like you were expecting a transformation instead of a transubstantiation. Perhaps your experience was such that you observed no transformation and so you fallaciously concluded that there was no transubstantiation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, this is the Church's problem: they have no way to verify their claims. The Church is claiming a change to the wafer and the wine at some level and if that doesn't occur, then transubstantiation hasn't occurred. Whatever the mysterious change is, it must occur for transubstantiation to occur.

I assume that if there is an event where water turns to gas, and this is called "evaporation", then in your opinion there is no referent to this word, the word points to nothing but confusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you'd assume wrong. Whether the process of evaporation creates a tangible referent that you can point to or not hardly affects the coherence of the concept. Freedom is a concept without a referent, but it's not confusing. My comment only was that "transubstantiation" had no tangible referent and the only thing it could refer to is a particular state of confusion, but I did not make a general comment that words without direct referents were always confusing.

Your comments misstated the Catholic position by stating that transubstantiation exists because the Catholic church said it did. That has nothing to do with the new issue you've raised, which is that you believe my rejection of transubstantiation arises due to my wholesale rejection of the spiritual realm. That statement is incorrect and non-responsive to anything previously discussed. — Hanover

You are right, the stated position of the Church is that, during the Last Supper, Christ stated that he was truly sharing his flesh and blood. The Eucharist is founded on the belief that the Last Supper was in fact an act of endowement from Christ to the nascent Church. Amongst this endowement was the power to perform the Eucharist and transubstantiation.

Every position stems from a history of interpretations of interpretations of the holy texts. God forbid the Church has the power to make decisions on the spot about dogma. That would make the backwardness of certain beliefs of Catholicism (and I was Catholic for a long time, I'm allowed to say this :P ) absolutely, totally inexcusable. While now they are simply regrettable and faulty.

Why would the object be bread if it were called something else? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because calling it something else means only that it would be called something else. It wouldn't change what it is, by which I mean the definition which truly describes the object, which would be the definition of bread. What you're doing is erroneously conflating two distinct things, and the logical consequences of doing that lead to an erroneous stance on the issue.

You go on about "meaning is use", but you seem to have no clue of what that means. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I do understand what that means. You are either mistaken about what it means or what it entails or both.

What that name means is determined by this act of calling something by that name. If we stop calling something by that name, and start calling it by another name, then the thing is known by the new name. So if we stop calling the thing "bread", and start calling it "body of Christ", then the thing is known as body of Christ, by that very change in usage. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but it would be the body of Christ by name only, and the Catholic or the member of the Eastern Orthodox Church would dispute that. So where are you going with this? It's an irrelevant conclusion.

Alternatively, if you mean that it would literally be the body of Christ, then you're simply mistaken, as it's not, it's bread.

No, it would be contradiction if it were bread and body of Christ at the same time. But there is no reason to believe that it is still bread, transubstantiation has occurred, so it is not bread. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, you've given no good reason to reasonably accept that transubstantiation has occurred.

That's your faulty assumption, that it's still called "bread" after being designated "body of Christ". — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that transubstantiation has occurred is your faulty assumption. I have no problem whatsoever with assuming a name change, but your assessment of the consequences of such a name change is erroneous. I attribute this to the fact that you're just not as good at grasping this sort of thing as someone like Hanover or myself.

And by this faulty assumption you claim contradiction. It is you who says it's bread in order that you can accuse contradiction, but that's a straw man, it's not bread its body of Christ. Transubstantiation has ensured that it will no longer be called "bread", it will be called "body of Christ". And as you affirm, meaning is use. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it's bread, as per the definition of bread, even if it is called something else. You have misunderstood the implications of meaning as use.

Let me see if I can interpret what you are insinuating here. The Church has been carrying out this procedure in hundreds or thousands of locations, numerous times every year, for hundreds and hundreds of years. They call this procedure "transubstantiation".

You are saying that maybe the Church is wrong, maybe transubstantiation has never occurred. What about all these millions of instances of the very same thing occurring, with millions of participants, which the Church has called "transubstantiation"? Are you saying that these events never happened? Are you saying that the events happened, but the Church is wrong to title the event transubstantiation? What are you insinuating? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think that this is the weakest argument for transubstantiation that I've seen so far. It is begging the question and attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Either that, or it is an example of sophistry, whereby Metaphysician Undercover is attempting to manipulate language to his advantage, but this is deceptive. At best, he can manufacture only a trivial truth. Calling a cat "a fish" won't give it gills.

For them, if it looks and tastes like bread, then it must be bread, regardless of what its true substance is. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I am open to the possibility that its substance has changed as purported, but for me to believe that it has in fact changed, I must have good enough reason. I don't have good enough reason. You have not provided good enough reason. Therefore, I don't believe it.

Why are you asking a question about a distinction I never raised? My comment was that there was a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. I clarified that by quoting what I said, but you instead just re-asked the same question, ignoring my prior clarification. — Hanover

What you said is that there is a difference between reporting facts and declaring facts. I said there is no such difference. You attempted to clarify by saying that there's a difference between assessing facts and declaring facts, or something like that. I was unable to grasp how you were trying to categorize these things so I asked twice for you to provide me with a comprehensive clarification. Care to try again, because I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make?

Sure, and physicists can get it entirely wrong. They might describe a photoelectric effect completely wrong and a simple auto mechanic might get it right. A physicist has expertise in his field, but if his statements don't correspond to reality, then he's wrong. And so it is with the transubstantiation. A Catholic scholar can speak to the issue of what it entails, but he can be wrong. And this is my point: the Catholic position on transubstantiation is declarative and indicative, but in no way performative. If it were, it would mistake the Church for God, as if it could create reality as opposed to simply report on it. — Hanover

This is all meaningless to me I do not see the basis for your claim that transubstantiation is in no way performative, and that this is the Church's position on it. I think your wrong on this point and the rejection of my argument is wrong on this point. Clearly the Eucharist is a sacrament and transubstantiation is therefore performative.

Let us suppose that I tell everyone that I can literally turn rocks into gold. As a result, millions come every Tuesday to my house where I pray over rocks and then I produce a nugget of gold as proof. I call this change "transcombobulation," Let us then suppose that I am discovered later a fraud or that I was just confused. It would be correct to say that transcombobulation never occurred. What actually occurred was that I held a big meeting that turned out to be a big pile of nonsense. — Hanover

This example states that you were discovered as a fraud. It is not comparable with the Eucharist unless transubstantiation has been discovered as a fraud. All your argument amounts to is that it's possible that its a fraud. But as I said, the Church has been carrying this out for hundreds and hundreds of years, with millions of people, and continues to do so today. No evidence of fraud that I can find. What evidence do you have of any type of fraud? Don't you think that it would have been stopped by now if it was fraud?

The Church is claiming a change to the wafer and the wine at some level and if that doesn't occur, then transubstantiation hasn't occurred. Whatever the mysterious change is, it must occur for transubstantiation to occur. — Hanover

It's not a mysterious change. It is a change of substance. And all that is required to understand this change is to understand the nature of substance. Don't you agree that each and every thing, to be a thing, necessarily has substance? To say that a thing has substance is to say "that it is". But to say "that a thing is", and to say "what a thing is", is to say two different things. So "substance" doesn't tell us anything about what the thing is, only that it is. This allows that "what" the substance of a thing is, can be anything which we say it is.

My comment only was that "transubstantiation" had no tangible referent and the only thing it could refer to is a particular state of confusion, but I did not make a general comment that words without direct referents were always confusing. — Hanover

Of course "transubstantiation" has no tangible referent, because "substance' has no tangible referent. If transubstantiation had a tangible referent it would be contradiction, or equivocation in the use of "substance". That is exactly why there is no tangible change to the object in transubstantiation, substance is not tangible, it is only intelligible as an assumption, it is what we assume that an object has, in order that we can say that it exists.

Process philosophers may deny the existence of substance. But without the assumption of substance, the temporal continuity of an object is very difficult to account for. Once we have identified the temporal continuity of an object, as substance, then we can play special language games with that substance, as the Church does, because we are not referring to what the thing is, only that it is.

You might call this fraud, but that's only because you are refusing to play that language game, and so you cite some other rules which are contrary to the rules of that game, to rationalize your refusal. The loser is you though, as the quitter is the loser. By quitting the game, rejecting these rules, and adhering to those contrary rules, you deny yourself the capacity to understand the nature of substance. And if you persist, adhering to process philosophy in your denial of substance, you will find as the process philosophers before you have found, the need to turn to God in the end. Then you'll just have to start the game all over again.

Because calling it something else means only that it would be called something else. It wouldn't change what it is, by which I mean the definition which truly describes the object, which would be the definition of bread. What you're doing is erroneously conflating two distinct things, and the logical consequences of doing that lead to an erroneous stance on the issue. — Sapientia

It's all words, definitions, the whole shebang. How can you say "what a thing is" is something other than the words which refer to it. That is what you're saying isn't it? If not, then the words which refer to it are what it is. So if it's called "body of Christ" then it is body of Christ. That is, unless you are saying that there is a "what the thing is" which is other than the words which refer to it. How would you justify that claim? Does God decide what it is, using something other than words?

Alternatively, if you mean that it would literally be the body of Christ, then you're simply mistaken, as it's not, it's bread. — Sapientia

What do you mean by "literally" here? If this name, "body of Christ" is assigned to this object, how can you get more literal than that? "Body of Christ" literally means that object which the name is assigned to. You are claiming that the named object is bread, through some association or metaphor, disregarding the literal name "body of Christ". So it is you is not adhering to what is literal, and who is simply mistaken.

No, that transubstantiation has occurred is your faulty assumption. I have no problem whatsoever with assuming a name change, but your assessment of the consequences of such a name change is erroneous. I attribute this to the fact that you're just not as good at grasping this sort of thing as someone like Hanover or myself. — Sapientia

It is not a name change, it is transubstantiation. This means that the underlying substance, which we assume to be there, in order to ground our experience that the object has a temporal continuity of existence, changes at some point in time. The object's appearance to us, through our senses does not change, only the substance changes. The object's real existence is known through its temporal continuity which is grasped by the mind. The mind allows that temporal continuity (the substance of existence) to end at some point in time, and begin again as a different substance, at that point in time.

The object has been assumed to have continuous existence under the name "bread" until that point in time. From that point onward its temporal continuity is known under the name "body of Christ". This is the object itself which is being referred to with these terms, not the object's appearance through our senses. The nature of temporal existence, and the principles of logic allow that we can say that the object was called X up until this point in time, at which point we start to call it Y. At each successive moment of time, the object is naturally a different object, we only assume that it maintains identity as the same object with continued existence. All that is required is that we release this unnatural assumption for a moment, allowing that the object has a different identity before and after that moment. You seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with this, but there is not.

I think that this is the weakest argument for transubstantiation that I've so far. It is begging the question. — Sapientia

No it's not begging the question, its appeal to authority, but when the authority is demonstrated to be authoritative there is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority. If the child asks the parent, why do you insist that I call the colour that the sky is "blue", and the parent says it's because millions of people have been calling it that for hundreds of years, then the parent's authority is justified. Likewise, if the Church has been carrying out this activity for hundreds of years with millions of people, then their authority to call this process "transubstantiation" is justified. And your claim that there is no such thing as transubstantiation, that it is a fiction, is untenable.

No, I am open to the possibility that its substance has changed as purported, but for me to believe that it has in fact changed, I must have good enough reason. I don't have good enough reason. You have not provided good enough reason. Therefore, I don't believe it. — Sapientia

Exactly as I said when I joined this discussion, it's a matter of faith. The only reason to believe is faith. You have no faith, you have no reason to believe. 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.

Exactly as I said when I joined this discussion, it's a matter of faith. The only reason to believe is faith. You have no faith, you have no reason to believe. 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. — Metaphysician Undercover

This has nothing to do with names. When the Christian claims that the bread is the body of Christ, he isn't just choosing to use the label "body of Christ" to refer to the bread; he's claiming that the bread has certain properties.

When I claim that something is a triangle, I'm not just using the label "triangle" to refer to that object; I'm claiming that it has a three-sided shape. If it doesn't have a three-sided shape then my claim is false. And if the bread doesn't have the necessary properties required for it to be the body of Christ, then the Christian's claim is false.