What you said is that there is a difference between reporting facts and declaring facts. I said there is no such difference. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not what I said. I said there's a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. In the first, you take a look at the world, you assess what you see, and you say "there's a dog." In the latter, you assert as an authority what the facts are. You look at the world and say "you are in contempt of court." The former is indicative, the latter performative. The former fallible, the latter infallible.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

The priest must perform an act to make the transubstantiation occur, but that's not what is meant by performative. I must put water in the freezer to make it ice, but my act is not performative from a linguistic perspective. That is to say, the priest's acts do not constitute a performative act to the extent that what he does necessitates the metaphysical event of transubstantiation. It is entirely possible that what he does accomplishes nothing at all. On the other hand, when a judge says, "you are in contempt," that utterance necessitates your being in contempt. The metaphysical status of your being in contempt results from the utterance.

Of course "transubstantiation" has no tangible referent, because "substance' has no tangible referent — Metaphysician Undercover

The tangible referent of the transubstantiation would be the transformation of the bread and wine to flesh and blood, which would occur, according to Catholicism in a non-empirically verifiable way. Regardless, something (whatever it might be) changed, and that changed thing would be the referent. I don't refer to transubstantiation in the abstract (as in a substance generally), but I refer to the specific wafer and wine used in the ceremony. That wafer and wine would be the referent should someone ask "where is this transubstantiation?

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? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know nothing about Catholicism. Some of what I have said about Catholicism has been corroborated by others, such as T. Clark, whose wife is Catholic, and by online encyclopaedias.

If I wanted to learn about Catholicism, I would not seek you out to teach me. I would seek a more credible source.

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

Transcombobulation? I've never heard something so ridiculous in all my life! Transubstantiation, on the other hand, that's the real deal. And, I can assure you, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the latter is a central tenet of my religion, whereas the former is not. There's no conflict of interest here.

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. — Akanthinos

Ouch. That's another corroboration, and from someone who used to be a Catholic for a long time. Are you ready to retract what you insinuated about Hanover and myself, @Metaphysician Undercover? How about you, @Buxtebuddha?

What you said is that there is a difference between reporting facts and declaring facts. I said there is no such difference. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you are wrong, as usual, assuming you stand by that claim. There is a world of difference between what the BBC does and what a conspiracy theorist does.

Pardon, but retract what? That you're an ignoramus?

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? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I'm saying that what a thing is is something other than the words which refer to it. I'm further saying that, not only would it be mistaken to say that what a thing is is the words which refer to it, it would be utterly bonkers, and a prime example of the reification fallacy.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's wrong.

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? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's what I'm saying. Words decribe things, they are not the things themselves. That's a basic error.

I don't believe that God decides anything at all, except in the sense that, say, Frodo decided to travel to Mount Doom.

I justify that claim by appealing to the law of identity, which states that a thing is what it is. It does not state that a thing is what it is called. Nor is that entailed by meaning as use.

Sect. 43 of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations says that: "For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the word "meaning", it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."

So, for example, if there was a language whereby the word "fish" was used to refer to any member of the feline species, then that would be the meaning of the word "fish" in that language.

But it would not follow from that that a feline has gills. Yet, if we apply your logic to this example, then that is the consequence. You're saying that if we were to call a cat "a fish" then that is what it would become. A cat would become a fish, a fish has gills, therefore a cat would have gills.

That is clearly absurd, clearly mistaken, and should clearly be rejected. It is clear to me at least, but then, I have better critical thinking skills than you. You often get yourself into a muddle.

What do you mean by "literally" here? — Metaphysician Undercover

I have clarified my meaning once already. Why should I have to repeat myself?

If this name, "body of Christ" is assigned to this object, how can you get more literal than that? — Metaphysician Undercover

What object? The wafer? What's literal about assigning the name, "body of Christ", to a wafer? I'll answer that question for you: there's nothing literal about that whatsoever. What would be literal would be to interpret that act of naming to entail that the wafer has actually become the body of Christ. And please don't pretend that you don't understand what I mean by that. I would like you to put an end to your sophistry. It does you no credit.

"Body of Christ" literally means that object which the name is assigned to. — Metaphysician Undercover

In English, "the body of Christ", in accordance with a literal interpretation, means the body of Christ, and nothing else. The word "body" would refer to his body, meaning his flesh, bones, organs, appendages, and so on. The name "Christ" refers to Jesus Christ of the Bible, who Christians believe to be the son of God, and who, so it is said, was crucified around two thousand years ago.

Are you speaking English or some other language? I'm speaking English.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

The named object is bread because it fits the definition of "bread" that you can find in a dictionary. I'm assuming that we're both speaking English: am I wrong to make that assumption? Is the dictionary wrong? It would be mistaken to say that the object is bread if this nonsense about transubstantiation is true, or if we're speaking some other language, but it isn't, and we're not (to my knowledge), so it's not mistaken to say that it's bread.

It is not a name change, it is transubstantiation. — Metaphysician Undercover

You implied that it was both, but now you're denying that it's a name change. Have you changed your mind or are you contradicting yourself? Which is it?

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

I already understand what transubstantiation is, so that entire explanation was unnecessary and a complete waste of time. It would help if you were charitable, but you have not been charitable. On the contrary, you have insinuated that I know nothing about transubstantiation, even though I can explain what it is, and in fact have already done so.

Like I said, I do not have a problem with that in principle, nor do I think that it's impossible. I just don't believe that it happens. And I don't believe that it happens, because I do not have good enough reason to believe that it happens.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

This demonstrates that you've missed the point by a country mile. I haven't once denied that there's a process referred to as "transubstantiation". But that doesn't prove what you think it does, and Hanover has set the record straight on this. If I questioned an authority on geometry why it is that a right angle is an angle of 90 degrees, and not an angle of 20 degrees, as I am going to assert for arguments sake, then he could explain it to me. He could show me why I was wrong. But if I questioned your authority on religion, he would just give me a load of bollocks, and he'd still be wrong.

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

Jesus Christ! If it's a matter of faith, then we agree. That's why I don't believe in transubstantiation. But if it's a matter of faith, then why the heck are you trying to argue the case? Arguing is what you do when you think that there's a reasonable case to be made. Faith is what you resort to when you don't have a clue, but are overcome with emotion.

Pardon, but retract what? That you're an ignoramus? — Buxtebuddha

When you make a fool of yourself, don't you think that it's a good thing to attempt to undo the damage? I mean, if you don't mind people thinking that you're a fool, then by all means carry on regardless.

I also don't agree with much of what MU is saying here.

Well, 'need' is not the word the word I'd use, but still. — Akanthinos

It might not be the word the word you'd use, but is it the word the word the word you'd use?

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. — Michael

Yes, thank you. Michael gets it.

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. — Michael

Well maybe some Christians told you that, but these Christians obviously are not familiar with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is clearly stated that what is referred to is the substance, that's why it's called transubstantiation. It is also stated that the accidents, which are the sensible properties of the substance remain as those associated with bread and wine. Otherwise the Church would have no way of accounting for the fact that the body and blood of Crist look and taste like bread and wine.

Come on Michael, the Church has been an institution for close to two thousand years. Do you really think that it could have maintained that status by saying something so irrational as what you represent here?

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. — Michael

As I say, you are very clearly, and totally wrong here. All you need to do is read some quick information about transubstantiation. Properties are irrelevant here, what we are talking about is substance.

That's not what I said. I said there's a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. In the first, you take a look at the world, you assess what you see, and you say "there's a dog." In the latter, you assert as an authority what the facts are. — Hanover

I still don't see any difference. Assessing the facts amounts to taking a look and saying "there's a dog". Decreeing the fact amounts to saying "there's a dog". Before you can decree, as a fact, "there's a dog", you must necessarily assess the facts. And if you assess the facts, and say "there's a dog", all you are doing is decreeing the facts. If you are decreeing "there's a dog", with completely disregard for whether or not it is a fact, this is something completely different from decreeing facts, and is irrelevant to our case here.

I really do no not see any difference still, perhaps you could try again.

The priest must perform an act to make the transubstantiation occur, but that's not what is meant by performative. I must put water in the freezer to make it ice, but my act is not performative from a linguistic perspective. That is to say, the priest's acts do not constitute a performative act to the extent that what he does necessitates the metaphysical event of transubstantiation. It is entirely possible that what he does accomplishes nothing at all. — Hanover

Clearly the priest's act is performative, because it is by this act that transubstantiation occurs. And, it is also very clear that it is impossible that this act accomplishes nothing, because following this act the participants respect the items as the substance of Christ's body and blood, and proceed to take part in the sacrament. The act definitely accomplishes something. So you are very wrong on both counts here.

The tangible referent of the transubstantiation would be the transformation of the bread and wine to flesh and blood, which would occur, according to Catholicism in a non-empirically verifiable way. Regardless, something (whatever it might be) changed, and that changed thing would be the referent. — Hanover

It is very clear that something tangible changes in transubstantiation, and this is the attitude of the people toward the items. As I said, "substance" is an assumption we make. So if the substance of the object changes, then this means that the people's assumptions concerning the object change. And that is what we see in the change of the people's attitude toward the objects. Therefore there is real tangible evidence that transubstantiation has occurred.

That's what I'm saying. Words decribe things, they are not the things themselves. — Sapientia

I fully understand this, and I agree with you. But we are talking about "what the thing is". What I am asking is if you believe that there is a "what the thing is" which is other than words, or some other type of symbol? I do not believe there could be. But if you do, I know you probably can't tell me in words what this "what the thing is" would be like, but could you give me some other indication of "what a thing is" which wouldn't be words or symbols?

I justify that claim by appealing to the law of identity, which states that a thing is what it is. — Sapientia

This isn't quite right though. The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself, identical with itself. It does not say that a thing is what a thing is, it says that a thing is itself. So we cannot derive "what it is", from the law of identity. That's why we must proceed toward description to derive what the thing is. But I don't think you can have a "what the thing is" without words or some sort of symbols.

In English, "the body of Christ", in accordance with a literal interpretation, means the body of Christ, and nothing else. The word "body" would refer to his body, meaning his flesh, bones, organs, appendages, and so on. The name "Christ" refers to Jesus Christ of the Bible, who Christians believe to be the son of God, and who, so it is said, was crucified around two thousand years ago. — Sapientia

Right, now according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the items of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. Why do you have difficulty with that? Do you not understand what transubstantiation means?

I already understand what transubstantiation is, so that entire explanation was unnecessary and a complete waste of time. It would help if you were charitable, but you have not been charitable. On the contrary, you have insinuated that I know nothing about transubstantiation, even though I can explain what it is, and in fact have already done so.

Like I said, I do not have a problem with that in principle, nor do I think that it's impossible. I just don't believe that it happens. And I don't believe that it happens, because I do not have good enough reason to believe that it happens. — Sapientia

I have a problem with this claim, so I'll be brutally honest. I think you are lying. I don't think you understand what transubstantiation is at all. I think that if you really understood what it means, and thought that it was possible, as you claim, then you couldn't avoid seeing that it is going on all the time. Instead, you do not believe that it happens, therefore I conclude that you lie when you claim to understand it.

Yes, thank you. Michael gets it. — Sapientia

See, my claim that you are lying is justified. You really know nothing about transubstantiation. It is all about change of substance, as the name implies, and nothing about change of properties, and this is stated in church doctrine. You and Michael both know nothing about transubstantiation.

Jesus Christ! If it's a matter of faith, then we agree. That's why I don't believe in transubstantiation. But if it's a matter of faith, then why the heck are you trying to argue the case? Arguing is what you do when you think that there's a reasonable case to be made. Faith is what you resort to when you don't have a clue, but are overcome with emotion. — Sapientia

I've been saying this from the beginning, transubstantiation relies on faith. When the faith is there, it occurs. If there is no faith it cannot occur. However, the fact that you do not have faith doesn't prevent transubstantiation from occurring, because it occurs by means of all those who do have faith. So no matter how much you argue against it, you will not prevent it from occurring unless you kill the faith in all of those involved, so that they quit doing it. Good luck with that, but you need a better approach. Claiming that transubstantiation does not occur, just because you don't believe in it, is not the right approach. This is like arguing that because you do not believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist.

Well maybe some Christians told you that, but these Christians obviously are not familiar with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is clearly stated that what is referred to is the substance, that's why it's called transubstantiation. It is also stated that the accidents, which are the sensible properties of the substance remain as those associated with bread and wine. Otherwise the Church would have no way of accounting for the fact that the body and blood of Crist look and taste like bread and wine.

Come on Michael, the Church has been an institution for close to two thousand years. Do you really think that it could have maintained that status by saying something so irrational as what you represent here? — Metaphysician Undercover

As I say, you are very clearly, and totally wrong here. All you need to do is read some quick information about transubstantiation. Properties are irrelevant here, what we are talking about is substance. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're being pedantic. The point is that they're not just choosing to use the term "Christ's body" to refer to whatever substance the bread actually has. They're claiming that it has a particular substance.

Your talk about whether or not "it ought to be called the body and blood of Christ, and not some other name" is misplaced. It has nothing to do with what name to use and everything to do with what the facts are.

I fully understand this, and I agree with you. But we are talking about "what the thing is". What I am asking is if you believe that there is a "what the thing is" which is other than words, or some other type of symbol? I do not believe there could be. But if you do, I know you probably can't tell me in words what this "what the thing is" would be like, but could you give me some other indication of "what a thing is" which wouldn't be words or symbols? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand how you could fully understand and agree with what I said, yet respond with the above. Yes, like I said, there is a "what the thing is" which is other than words or some other type of symbol. The thing is what it is. The thing is the thing. If the thing is a cat, then that's what it is. A cat is not a word or a symbol. A cat is a cat. Please don't make the use-mention error. I beg of you.

And so what if I can't tell you that without telling you that? What on earth is that supposed to prove?

This isn't quite right though. The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself, identical with itself. It does not say that a thing is what a thing is, it says that a thing is itself. So we cannot derive "what it is", from the law of identity. That's why we must proceed toward description to derive what the thing is. But I don't think you can have a "what the thing is" without words or some sort of symbols. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is quite right though. A thing is identical to itself. What is it? I just told you: a thing. That is explicit within the premise. What, therefore, is it identical to? A thing. What thing? The thing. The thing I just referred to. It is identical to itself. The thing is the thing. It is what it is. The cat is the cat, the fish is the fish, the bread is the bread, the wine is the wine, and the body and blood of Christ is the body and blood of Christ.

If you don't get that, then I fear that there is little hope for you.

Right, now according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the items of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. Why do you have difficulty with that? Do you not understand what transubstantiation means? — Metaphysician Undercover

I know that according to the doctrine of transubstantiation the items of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. The only "difficulty" I have with that is that it's false if taken literally, as it is supposed to be taken, as a Catholic would maintain, as has been corroborated. And yes, I do understand what transubstantiation means, so we can move on from that, unless you want to dwell on that a little longer. Perhaps you get a kick out of patronising me. I could understand that. But I don't know what your motive is, and I don't really care, to be honest. What matters is the fact that I'm right, you're wrong, and I know that to be the case.

I have a problem with this claim, so I'll be brutally honest. I think you are lying. I don't think you understand what transubstantiation is at all. I think that if you really understood what it means, and thought that it was possible, as you claim, then you couldn't avoid seeing that it is going on all the time. Instead, you do not believe that it happens, therefore I conclude that you lie when you claim to understand it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, my turn. I think that you think what you do because you're uncharitable and you're either not the brightest bulb in the pack or you let your emotions cloud your good judgement. What you don't see, or refuse to see, is that what is going on all the time is not what the Catholic claims. The Catholic has a conflict of interest. As a Catholic, he or she has committed to that claim, and to commit to that claim in the first place is telling. The Catholic would have to be willing to abandon that which is of central importance to them. That's not just an intellectual matter, but an emotional one.

See, my claim that you are lying is justified. You really know nothing about transubstantiation. It is all about change of substance, as the name implies, and nothing about change of properties, and this is stated in church doctrine. You and Michael both know nothing about transubstantiation. — Metaphysician Undercover

This shows that it's not just me who you're uncharitable with. I agree with you that it's about substance, and I agree with Michael that you're being pedantic.

I've been saying this from the beginning, transubstantiation relies on faith. When the faith is there, it occurs. If there is no faith it cannot occur. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's exactly the sort of thing that a brain washer would say, and that is no coincidence. That should send a red flag.

However, the fact that you do not have faith doesn't prevent transubstantiation from occurring, because it occurs by means of all those who do have faith. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it really doesn't. But, of course, you don't see that, because you're blinded by your faith. You've actually blinded yourself, it seems, and, furthermore, it seems to me that that's just how you like it.

So no matter how much you argue against it, you will not prevent it from occurring unless you kill the faith in all of those involved, so that they quit doing it. Good luck with that, but you need a better approach. Claiming that transubstantiation does not occur, just because you don't believe in it, is not the right approach. This is like arguing that because you do not believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I am aware that no amount of arguing will achieve anything if you're arguing with someone who cannot be brought to their senses or reasoned with. If you are such a person, then I should probably give up trying.

Yes, I am aware that no amount of arguing will achieve anything if you're arguing with someone who cannot be brought to their senses or reasoned with. If you are such a person, then I should probably give up trying. — Sapientia

I've been reading this back and forth for several days. I want to make sure I understand your positions. To summarize - Metaphysician Undercover - yer fer transubstantiation. Sapieatia - yer agin it. Is that correct? I'm glad we've finally gotten that clear.

I've been reading this back and forth for several days. I want to make sure I understand your positions. To summarize - Metaphysician Undercover - yer fer transubstantiation. Sapieatia - yer agin it. Is that correct? I'm glad we've finally gotten that clear. — T Clark

Yes, that's it, give or take a few minor details. :D

You're being pedantic. The point is that they're not just choosing to use the term "Christ's body" to refer to whatever substance the bread actually has. They're claiming that it has a particular substance.

Your talk about whether or not "it ought to be called the body and blood of Christ, and not some other name" is misplaced. It has nothing to do with what name to use and everything to do with what the facts are. — Michael

Again, I completely agree.

You're being pedantic. — Michael

Right, the topic is substance. You come in and start to talk about properties as if properties were substance. I point out to you that we're talking about substance, not properties. You say I'm being pedantic, as if someone might think that the difference between substance and property is a trivial difference. Confusion with respect to this subject, "transubstantiation", is the result of failing to be pedantic. I thank you for expressing that you think I've demonstrated this virtue.

The point is that they're not just choosing to use the term "Christ's body" to refer to whatever substance the bread actually has. They're claiming that it has a particular substance. — Michael

Did you not read what I said about substance? Substance is what a thing, any thing, every thing, is assumed to have. There's no such thing as a particular substance, except as a particular thing, like there is no such thing as a particular existence other than as a particular thing. Substance, and existence are what all things are assumed to have, as things. The substance which a thing actually has can be no different from the substance which a thing is assumed to have, because substance is nothing more than an assumption in the first place, an assumption which is made to account for the claim that the thing has real material existence.

The thing is what it is. — Sapientia

I went through this already. You misrepresented the law of identity. It does not state that a thing is what it is, it states that the thing is the same as itself. What the thing is, is something other than this. If a thing, and "what it is", are one and the same, then a thing would be a form without matter. We must account for the fact that a real thing has material existence. If a thing, and "what it is" were one and the same, then all kinds of imaginary things, like unicorns and such, which have a "what it is" would necessarily be actual things.

The only "difficulty" I have with that is that it's false if taken literally, as it is supposed to be taken, as a Catholic would maintain, as has been corroborated. — Sapientia

As I've explained to you, it is true if taken literally. There are items which are named body and blood of Christ, and these items are body and blood of Christ because that is what they are called. Take that literally! These particular items are referred to by these words, body and blood of Christ. Therefore these items are literally the items which are called body and blood of Christ. That is the literal meaning. There is no falsity here.

You create the falsity by insisting that "body and blood of Christ" must refer to something other than these items. You are not taking it literally, you are insisting on another meaning of "body and blood of Christ". Based on this other meaning, which you refer to, which is not the literal meaning given by the Church, that these items are the items which are called body and blood of Christ, you claim falsity. Therefore it is only by refusing the literal meaning, given by the Church, that these items are literally the items called the body and blood of Christ, and referring to some other meaning, which you conjure up in your mind, that you claim falsity.

I agree with you that it's about substance, and I agree with Michael that you're being pedantic. — Sapientia

Michael's argument relied completely on reference to "properties". You agreed with Michael. Now you agree with me, that we are talking about substance, and not properties. My argument is that if taken literally, transubstantiation is a valid explanation of the sacrament of the Eucharist. You may describe me as a pedant all you want, that's fine because my whole point is that adhering to the literal meaning is necessary for maintaining the validity of the Eucharist. But you seem to be lost, claiming that adhering to the literal meaning renders transubstantiation as false, but then you agree that I am the one being pedantic.

You're still missing my point. You think that the ritual is transubstantiation by fiat. But that's not the case, just as the world wasn't flat by fiat simply because people claimed that the world was flat.

The ritual is transubstantiation if and only if the substance changes, and whether or not the change occurs has nothing to do with what people believe or what people claim or what word people use to describe the ritual. Every Christian might be wrong. The bread is only ever bread and never Christ's body. The wine is only ever wine and never Christ's blood.

This isn't just an argument over nomenclature, which is where you keep going wrong.

I really do no not see any difference still, perhaps you could try again. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you assess the facts and believe there to be a dog, you will have that belief even if you don't utter it.

If you are a judge and believe the witness to be in contempt of court, he will not be if you don't utter it.

I've said it every way I can. You're going to have to go online and look up the distiction between performative utterances and declarative statements because the distinction is real and not one I've concocted.

The act definitely accomplishes something. So you are very wrong on both counts here. — Metaphysician Undercover

The question isn't what the priest's words do to the minds of the congregants, but what it does to the wine and bread. Either the congregants stand in the presence of a miracle or they've been tricked. Are you saying transubstantiation might just be that event where a priest bullshits believers into thinking wine becomes blood?

It is very clear that something tangible changes in transubstantiation, and this is the attitude of the people toward the items. As I said, "substance" is an assumption we make. So if the substance of the object changes, then this means that the people's assumptions concerning the object change. And that is what we see in the change of the people's attitude toward the objects. Therefore there is real tangible evidence that transubstantiation has occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover

This doesn't follow. I get that folks can be tricked into thinking that iron is gold, but the iron doesn't change because they were tricked. Their behavioral changes about the iron doesn't say anything about the iron. It just says something about them and maybe the guy who tricked them.

It is very clear that something tangible changes in transubstantiation, and this is the attitude of the people toward the items. As I said, "substance" is an assumption we make. So if the substance of the object changes, then this means that the people's assumptions concerning the object change. And that is what we see in the change of the people's attitude toward the objects. Therefore there is real tangible evidence that transubstantiation has occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover

Clearly the priest's act is performative, because it is by this act that transubstantiation occurs. And, it is also very clear that it is impossible that this act accomplishes nothing, because following this act the participants respect the items as the substance of Christ's body and blood, and proceed to take part in the sacrament. The act definitely accomplishes something. So you are very wrong on both counts here. — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems MU is saying the act of transubstantiation is completely subjective. By MU's definition, "substance" is an assumption. Therefore, the only things that change are people's assumptions.

And I don't so much have a problem with that, and have pointed it out previously (indicating he was referencing relativistic notions of reality), but that attempt to describe transubstantiation is antithetical to official Church teaching. The Church is saying something actually changed in the bread and wine, even if it can't be empirically verified.

To be clear, I don't agree with his assessment. I'm just trying to make sense of how this conversation has persisted in these fourteen pages since I left the debate.

Perhaps a more succinct version of MU's position would be something like this:

Transubstantiation occurs iff communicants believe transubstantiation occurs.
There is objective evidence that communicants believe transubstantiation occurs.
Therefore, transubstantiation occurs.

Maybe this is missing something? You can correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position . I'm not taking up the debate again. Just trying to clarify.

I would expect to see biological evidence of the body and blood of Christ
— Sapientia
Why? That's not what the doctrine claims. — Agustino

That is exactly what the doctrine claims. That the bread and wine is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the magic of the sacrement.

Why do you think that Luther was so angry?
Why do you think the Anglicans wish to preserve the empty ritual decided to call it "consubstantiation"? And thereby implying that the bread and wine somehow coexisted in with Jesus?

Transubstantiation occurs iff communicants believe transubstantiation occurs. — ProbablyTrue

I'm not deep into the theology of this, but that doesn't seem right, though it may be MU's position. On the other hand, I don't think that transubstantiation quite amounts to ritual magic, such that physical changes occur in the material of the bread and wine.

What is left, for an atheist, is nothing. But for a theist there is another possibility, which is that God sees it differently. 'In the eyes of God' there is a difference, that we can see as a moral difference. It is a real difference, because God cannot be deceived, and hence substantial, but not a physical difference. Thus it is rather in line with holy water, consecrated ground, testimony sworn on the Bible, or the union of marriage. Ritual does nothing physical, and yet transforms the moral significance of things, not merely in the eyes of the faithful, but in the Eyes of God, such that though it might be a virtue to wash one's socks, it would be a sin to use holy water for such mundane purposes.

That is exactly what the doctrine claims. that the bread and wine is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the magic of the sacrement. — charleton

I recommend you go back to things you know, such as smoking weed. Clearly, you don't understand what "literarily" means.

No I do not understand what

"literarily" — Agustino

means...
But I do understand what 'literally' means.
Can you explain what all the fuss was about when Luther rejected the sacraments or should he also go back to smoking weed?

I recommend you go back to things you know, such as smoking weed. — Agustino

I recommend you stop being so rude. Since you know more about this, educate us, don't just sneer at our ignorance.

I went through this already. You misrepresented the law of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I didn't. I even repeated back to you what the law of identity states. I then went on to explain how we can determine from that what a thing is.

It does not state that a thing is what it is, it states that the thing is the same as itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wow. If it states that the thing is the same as itself, then that's what it is. How can you not see that? Let me go through it step by step with you.

Do you see the part where it says, "the thing"? That tells us what it is.

Do you see the part where it says what the thing is? That's the part which begins, "the thing is...".

Do you see the next part where it tells us that it is the same as itself? That part, given the law of noncontradiction, tells us that not only is the thing the same as itself, but it cannot be so yet be a different thing at the same time and in the same respect.

What's more, the thing can be anything, like a cat or a wafer, and the same rules apply.

Why is this relevant? Because from that, we can determine that the wafer is the wafer, and not the body of Christ, and that the wine is the wine, and not the blood of Christ. They are what they are, and they're not what they're not, and there's no good reason to believe that they've somehow magically changed from the one to the other.

What the thing is, is something other than this — Metaphysician Undercover

You need to be clearer. If you're saying that what a thing is, is something other than itself, then you're contradicting the law of identity, and are therefore mistaken.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to say that to identify a thing of which we do not already know the particulars as a particular thing, then the law of identity won't help, then I agree. That's not what I was saying, and that's not relevant. We already know what the particular things are before the ceremony. We are in agreement that they are wafer and wine. That's what matters. Where we disagree, is that you assert, without good reason, that, at some point during the ceremony, they literally change substance and literally become the body and blood of Christ.

If a thing, and "what it is", are one and the same, then a thing would be a form without matter. We must account for the fact that a real thing has material existence. If a thing, and "what it is" were one and the same, then all kinds of imaginary things, like unicorns and such, which have a "what it is" would necessarily be actual things. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand how you've arrived at any of those conclusions. It would require explanation, but I'm not sure whether that would help or hinder the discussion, as it might amount to a tangent. I suspect that you've got the wrong end of the stick.

As I've explained to you, it is true if taken literally. — Metaphysician Undercover

But your explanation fails, and I've explained why your explanation fails. I shared my conclusion that, at best, you can only manufacture a trivial truth as a result of sophistry.

There are items which are named body and blood of Christ, and these items are body and blood of Christ because that is what they are called. Take that literally! These particular items are referred to by these words, body and blood of Christ. Therefore these items are literally the items which are called body and blood of Christ. That is the literal meaning. There is no falsity here. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've addressed this already. That argument contains a non sequitur, and it uses language deceptively.

We've already been over this. Your argument has been refuted. You're just repeating yourself and sending us around in circles. Remember the following?

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. — Sapientia

Remember this?

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. — Sapientia

You create the falsity by insisting that "body and blood of Christ" must refer to something other than these items. — Metaphysician Undercover

What items? You need to be clearer. We start with a wafer and wine. These items are consumed, and a ceremony is performed. I do not believe that the ceremony changes the items in any way. So we are left with consumed wafer and wine. End of.

If they've been given a different name, then they've been given a different name. That changes nothing other than the name.

Do you understand? Do you understand what Shakespeare meant when he wrote that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet? Do you accept that calling a cat "a fish" would cause it to grow gills all of a sudden? You need to address this point, instead of evading it. It is very important, because it is a reductio ad absurdum which refutes your argument.

You are not taking it literally, you are insisting on another meaning of "body and blood of Christ". — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I am taking it literally, and that's why it is false. Micheal and I are right on this point. It's not about the meaning of "body and blood of Christ". That's not being disputed. I told you what that means, it was in line with a literal interpretation, and you agreed! That should have settled the matter! One way of putting it is as Michael put it to you: it's not about meaning, it's about facts.

Based on this other meaning, which you refer to, which is not the literal meaning given by the Church, that these items are the items which are called body and blood of Christ, you claim falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is the literal meaning given by the Church. You agreed to this. Have you since changed your mind? The alternative is contradiction.

I'm not disputing what is meant, I'm disputing that their meaning reflects reality. I think that your confusion arises out of mistaking the latter for the former.

Therefore it is only by refusing the literal meaning, given by the Church, that these items are literally the items called the body and blood of Christ, and referring to some other meaning, which you conjure up in your mind, that you claim falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover

That conclusion, assuming it follows, follows from false premises, based on a misunderstanding of my position. That conclusion can therefore be rightly disregarded.

Michael's argument relied completely on reference to "properties". You agreed with Michael. Now you agree with me, that we are talking about substance, and not properties. — Metaphysician Undercover

I know! Shocking isn't it? I was wrong in that respect, so I made a concession. If only you could do likewise! I agree that that was the wrong word to have used. So does Michael. Now it is time to move on.

I recommend you stop being so rude. — unenlightened

Okay.

My apologies.

Can you explain what all the fuss was about when Luther rejected the sacraments or should he also go back to smoking weed? — charleton

Luther didn't reject all the sacraments, he just disagreed with the Aristotelian interpretation of transubstantiation which was common in his day. Not to mention that there were times in Luther's life when he agreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation as well.