But you think likewise, and I wouldn't believe you if you said any different. Plus you've been very uncharitable, yet I set that aside and got stuck in. — Sapientia
I just like to see if I can bullshit my way through anything. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the 'substance' of your claim is that 'substantial' means 'material' then I think you are substantially mistaken. — unenlightened
You think I'm very uncharitable, I think you are extremely uncharitable. So there! — Metaphysician Undercover
I can't make it the case that the water in my glass is the blood of Zeus just by saying that it is, or by creating a religion and having others perform some ritual and claim that the water is the blood of Zeus. — Michael
I know, you need the will of God to assist you. If everyday you refer to that item as the blood of Zeus, and everyone else around you refers to it as the blood of Zeus, you will keep thinking, it's not really the blood of Zeus, it's really just water. But if by the will of God, it is the blood of Zeus, and you have faith in this, then you will believe that it is the blood of Zeus. And of course, it really is the blood of Zeus, by the will of God. — Metaphysician Undercover
The accidental properties remain unchanged but an essential change to the substance occurs, thus rooting this whole discussion in ancient Greek philosophy, I assume to offer an explanation for why there is nothing empirically verifiable when transubstantiation occurs. — Hanover
I don't see how this is responsive to what I said, which is that a substantial change can occur without a name change, as I don't see how linguistic theory impacts metaphysical change. — Hanover
But my request is for you to set that aside and get stuck in, as I have done. — Sapientia
I don't like that phrase "get stuck in". What do you mean by that? I only conjure up an image of being Catholic, and being "stuck in" this sacrament, without the will power, nor capacity, to free myself from it.
So for now, I will reply to what interests me and not get "stuck in" to something that I might regret later, like quicksand. In case you're not there to pull me out. — Metaphysician Undercover
It doesn't have to be material, but it has to be some substance in the wafer that changed. If wafers have spirits or some non-material composition, that has to actually change. No one says a man changes in literal substance when married (except maybe he gets fat and gives up the notion of happiness). As I see it, you're changing from a literal to a figurative definition of substance. I'm using it literally, but I'm not committed to it being material. — Hanover
This makes sense. If these things were presented as such, I doubt much debate would arise. It's when the doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it that it gets called into question. — ProbablyTrue
Then you accept that it is false to argue that transubstantiation happens simply because the Church says it does. Your arguments are a non sequitur. — Michael
The Church requests this from God, and God gives. Therefore what the Church says is the cause of the occurrence. It's like requesting something in prayer, which comes true. God is the immediate cause of that thing occurring, but God does this in response to the prayer, so the prayer is the cause of the occurrence. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's not even an issue. Transubstantiation occurs, that is a fact. There is something which is referred to as transubstantiation, and to deny this is to deny a fact. So the question is what is transubstantiation. To ask whether transubstantiation occurs, is to deny the fact in skepticism, then ask whether the fact is a fact. It's a pointless exercise because one will inevitably come to the conclusion, yes there is something which is going on which is called transubstantiation. Now let's proceed to see what this thing, transubstantiation, is. So it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can refuse to take part in the ceremony if you have no faith in it, but that doesn't matter. Unless everyone refuses, then it will still be going on, and there will still be something called transubstantiation, and therefore transubstantiation will still be a fact. — Metaphysician Undercover
What you offer is not relevant. I was offering to the thread that which is claimed by the Catholic Church. Law is not apposite.In law, a verbal contract confers a substantial obligation. — unenlightened
Transubstantiation is a nonsense. The question here is what nonsense is believed by Catholics.I'm not suggesting that transubstantiation is this exactly, but that ritual functions in a substantial though non physical way in ordinary secular life. — unenlightened
Ok, now you've distinguished between accidental properties and essential properties. A change to essential properties doesn't constitute a change in substance, it constitute a change in the type of object, the substance would stay the same. — Metaphysician Undercover
Since "substantial change" is something we judge, and somewhat arbitrarily, according to our principles of judgement, I don't see how you can support that claim, unless you appeal to God to support this type of substantial change. Then like I said, God could make a substantial change which we wouldn't even notice. — Metaphysician Undercover
Right, so your original arguments were non sequiturs. You're accepting now that transubstantiation requires divine intervention. And that there is a God who intervenes in such a way is certainly something that can be argued against. — Michael
No, there's no non-sequitur, because the arguments hold with or without God. Without God, substance is a human assumption, it is whatever we say it is. With God, substance is assumed to have objectivity. Divine intervention just provides objectivity to transubstantiation.
See, you still haven't demonstrated a difference between asserting something as fact, and what is really fact. If something is supposed to be fact, this means that it has somehow been judged as fact. If the judgement is not made by God, then it is made by humans. So if God is not the one judging that the items are body and blood of Christ, then it is humans who are making that judgement. Either way, the argument holds. To assume God is to assume real objectivity, to assume human judgement is to assume objectivity by means of inter-subjectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is pointless arguing about the meaning of substance or reality. It is a plain and simple fact that the Catholic Church in its arrogance codified in ecclesiastical law a massive deception upon the people that their priests had the exclusive ability to mobilise divine forces to physically transform ordinary bread and wine in into the flesh and blood of Jesus, with the claim that failure to enter church and receive (with due payments) that sacrament would put the person in jeopardy of salvation. This deception still holds much sway over millions of people world-wide. — charleton
Alright, so you have an object, a cracker. It's accidently made of wheat and essentially made of crackerness. The priest says his prayer and now it's essentially made of Jesusness and accidently made of wheat. The substance has changed. It's now made of Jesusness and wheat whereas it used to be made of crackerness and wheat. I get that Jesusness and crackerness aren't necessarily made of matter because essences are a bit mysterious, but it's not a regular old cracker any more, right? — Hanover
When the Christian claims that transubstantiation occurs he is claiming that the bread's objective substance changes into the objective substance of Christ's body. He isn't just claiming that this is his (inter-)subjective judgement. Therefore if there isn't a God who changes the bread's objective substance into the objective substance of Christ's body then the Christian's claim is false. — Michael
I don't recall any reference to "objective" or "objectivity" in the claims of the Church. — Metaphysician Undercover
if there isn't a God [...] then the Christian's claim is false. — Michael
It is pointless arguing about the meaning of substance or reality.
It is a plain and simple fact that the Catholic Church in its arrogance codified in ecclesiastical law a massive deception upon the people that their priests had the exclusive ability to mobilise divine forces to physically transform ordinary bread and wine in into the flesh and blood of Jesus, with the claim that failure to enter church and receive (with due payments) that sacrament would put the person in jeopardy of salvation.
This deception still holds much sway over millions of people world-wide.
— charleton
Yep. That's the cold hard truth. — Sapientia
And if there is, then the atheist's claim is false. I doubt we can resolve that question to everyone's satisfaction here. — unenlightened
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.
So if you have faith, you follow, and accept this. For you, being one of faith, the substance of the object is now the substance of Christ. — Metaphysician Undercover
And it is a fact because God ensures that it is a fact. — Metaphysician Undercover
Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's. — unenlightened
I have to wonder how many here have sifted through the hundreds, thousands of pages of Christian theology that pertains to one of Christianity's most essential mysteries. Getting through many of the scholastic theologians who articulated transubstantiation the most clearly is an absolute chore. Everybody here seems to be winging it as it goes. — Buxtebuddha
Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's. — unenlightened
Precisely. — jamalrob
It seems a bit heated to me. It is at least a charitable and likely assumption that most of the Catholic Church do not intend to deceive, but genuinely believe the tenets of their faith. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.