An incredible comment. You must be joking, and yet obviously you're not.

Stating that something is the cold hard truth does not make it so. You merely repeat, again and again, "I am right, I am right, I am right", claiming to be speaking the truth (as if we thought you were arguing for something you did not believe), while your views are disputed by several people.

The presence is real. That is to say, it is ontological and objective. — Michael

The presence of Christ is real whether or not God exists, but what "real" means differs accordingly. That something is "true", "fact", or "real" requires a judgement. If it is not God which makes this judgement then it is human beings.

In so teaching the Church rejects the view that faith is the instrument that brings about Christ’s presence in the sacrament. — Michael

I agree, the church would stipulate that it is God which brings this about. But for the atheist there is no God. For the atheist what is "real" is so by human judgement (including assumptions that there is reality without human judgement, which itself is a human judgement). So that there is reality, for the atheist, requires faith in human judgement. And, by the same means that any reality is real for the atheist, faith, the presence of Christ in the sacrament is also real.

Of course the Church rejects that faith is the means by which Christ is present, because the Church recognizes the role of God in this occurrence. But for those of us who do not recognize God as real, the presence of Christ in the sacrament, is just as real as anything else. This is because without God, our entire reality is based on faith in human judgement. And, without God, so is the presence of Christ in the sacrament, real by faith in human judgement. So even for the atheist, the presence of Christ is real, in the same sense that anything else is real, it is real by faith.

The difference being that the faith is not attributable to the atheist, it is only attributable to the participant. So the atheist only claims that the judgements which I have faith in are more real than the judgements which you have faith in. Of course one human judgement is not more real than another, so this is not a proper approach. The proper approach is to argue that one judgement is better than another.

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

If God doesn't exist, then the only way that fact is determined is human judgement. That there is fact independent of human judgement is a matter of faith, if there is no God. So if there is no God, then whether or not transubstantiation is a matter of fact, is determined by human judgement. The Fathers of the Church are in a much better position to make this judgement than you are. And if you suppose that there is a "fact" of this matter which is independent from human judgement, then this "fact" is solely a matter of faith.

And incredible comment. You must be joking, and yet obviously you're not.

Stating that something is the cold hard truth does not make it so. You merely repeat, again and again, "I am right, I am right, I am right", claiming to be speaking the truth (as if we thought you were arguing for something you did not believe), while your views are disputed by several people. — jamalrob

Does that answer my question about arrogance? You expressed your wholehearted agreement with a comment that was about arrogance, so it is fair to question what relevance arrogance has to who is right and who is wrong. But since you've chosen not to answer, I will answer it myself. It has no relevance to who is right and who is wrong. I could be arrogant and right, arrogant and wrong, humble and right, or humble and wrong.

Now, going back to what really matters, which is who is right and who is wrong - I have already said a great deal about that. So, what do you expect from me? That I restart the whole discussion from scratch?

I didn't respond to it because it was a silly point, and since you know I'm an intelligent person, you must know my answer: obviously you could be arrogant and right. I happen to think you are. But that's irrelevant to the point unenlightened was making.

I didn't respond to it because it was a silly point, and since you know I'm an intelligent person, you must know my answer: obviously you could be arrogant and right. I happen to think you are. But that's irrelevant to the point unenlightened was making. — jamalrob

It wasn't a silly point. I think that that's a silly thing to say, in addition to being unnecessary and provocative, which is just what you reproached me for doing earlier.

It's not irrelevant, and I addressed his point.

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

You tell me, since you applauded its use as the cold hard truth.

You tell me, since you applauded its use as the cold hard truth. — unenlightened

I didn't applaud anything. Isn't it interesting how words can be manipulated to your advantage like that? I said it how it is. The cold hard truth is the cold hard truth, whether it is stated arrogantly or modestly. And that is itself the cold hard truth.

So the cold hard truth is an ad hom pontification? In my roundabout way, I am disagreeing with you that what you quoted is cold, hard or true. Rather it is heated, wet, and false. It also fails utterly to even address the question because the whole thing is an ad hom.

So the cold hard truth is an ad hom pontification? — unenlightened

Oh the irony. Says he who brought up arrogance.

In my roundabout way, I am disagreeing with you that what you quoted is cold, hard or true. Rather it is heated, wet, and false. It also fails utterly to even address the question because the whole thing is an ad hom. — unenlightened

Well, we'd have to actually go into details. So, what is it, specifically, that you're claiming is false? What is it, specifically, that you're claiming is of no relevance? And why do you think that that's the case?

Oh the irony! Says he who brought up arrogance. — Sapientia

... Catholic Church in its arrogance ...
— charleton

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

Not me! If we can't get the details of who brought up what agreed, details are going to be beyond us.

Not me! If we can't get the details of who brought up what agreed, details are going to be beyond us. — unenlightened

Ok, fine. You've established that it wasn't you. But let's all stop talking about arrogance, in a discussion about transubstantiation, for goodness sake.

I'm happy to let the whole post alone as a somewhat unpleasant irrelevance. It was only your endorsement of it that provoked me to respond to it at all.

I'm happy to let the whole post alone as a somewhat unpleasant irrelevance. It was only your endorsement of it that provoked me to respond to it at all. — unenlightened

Agreement, not endorsement. And what I was agreeing with was more than that one minor detail which we've been unduly focussing on. I mean, really? A single word?

Agreement, not endorsement. And what I was agreeing with was more than that one minor detail which we've been unduly focussing on. — Sapientia

Oh, the irony!

endorsement
ɪnˈdɔːsm(ə)nt,ɛnˈdɔːsm(ə)nt/Submit
noun
1.
the action of endorsing someone or something.
"the issue of full independence received overwhelming endorsement"
synonyms: support, backing, approval, seal of approval, agreement, acceptance, recommendation, advocacy, championship, patronage; affirmation, confirmation, authorization, authentication, ratification, sanction, warrant, validation, licence; rubber stamp; informalthe nod, the thumbs up, the OK
"the proposal received their overwhelming endorsement".

Let's spend a few pages wondering whether you agreed or endorsed, and whether one can declare an agreement that does not constitute an endorsement. Or perhaps not. I think I'll leave you to imagine that, and all the other details we might go into.

Let's spend a few pages wondering whether you agreed or endorsed, and whether one can declare an agreement that does not constitute an endorsement. Or perhaps not. I think I'll leave you to imagine that, and all the other details we might go into. — unenlightened

So predictable. That they are listed as synonyms does not mean that their meanings or connotations are identical. I think that you know this, and that you are choosing these words on purpose precisely because of their connotations. First it was "applaud", now "endorsement". What next? Cheering it on? The word "agreement" will do just fine, if that's okay with you. And I'll remind you that it is a fallacy to appeal to emotion. Given that you think that the original comment is heated, wet, and false, it would of course be in your interest to make it appear as though I support it more than I do, so that it appears as though I am guilty by association, in the hope that it might save you the trouble of having to dig any deeper into any more substantive content contained therein.

it would of course be in your interest to make it appear as though I support it more than I do, — Sapientia

No it wouldn't, because I am not a Catholic and do not believe in transubstantiation. You agree with what you quoted, you support it (your word) to the extent of claiming its truth, but you neither applaud nor endorse it. Fine. But let's all stop talking about endorsement, in a discussion about transubstantiation, for goodness sake. I mean, really? A single word?

No it wouldn't, because I am not a Catholic and do not believe in transubstantiation. — unenlightened

I know you want to have the last word, but so do I.

It would be in your interest, not for that reason, but for the reason that I gave: because you think that what was said was, in your own words, heated, wet, and false.

You agree with what you quoted, you support it (your word) to the extent of claiming its truth, but you neither applaud nor endorse it. Fine. — unenlightened

Yes, that is fine. It struck me as the cold hard truth, although its mention of arrogance was unnecessary and distracting.

But let's all stop talking about endorsement, in a discussion about transubstantiation, for goodness sake. I mean, really? A single word? — unenlightened

Says he who introduced it into the discussion.

Says he who introduced it into the discussion. — Sapientia

But let's all stop talking about arrogance, in a discussion about transubstantiation, for goodness sake. — Sapientia

I mean, really? A single word? — Sapientia

We seem to be going in circles. I'll let you have the last word.

We seem to be going in circles. — unenlightened

I'll remind you that I gave you the opportunity to elaborate with regards to your claim of falsity, and that might have set us on off in a more linear direction, but you did not answer my question. You were too caught up about that of which we should not speak, for sake of goodness.

I'll let you have the last word. — unenlightened

Thank you. Very kind of you.

As a young, devout RC with a very questioning mind I used to be tortured by transubstantiation. My devotion said I MUST believe in it (by which I mean that the consecrated host is actually the body of Christ - I acknowledge that a number of other meanings of transubstantiation have been used above), but my analysis of it said it could not make sense.

Now, being older, no longer RC and having since encountered Aristotle's Essentialism, I can see that that angst was unnecessary. If one accepts Essentialism - that every object has a metaphysical 'essence' which is what it really 'is', and which is only accidentally and unreliably associated with its sensible properties. If one accepts that then transubstantiation is simply the act of replacing one object with another that has the same sensible properties as the first but a different essence.

In a recent thread I opined to MU that the gulf between Aristotelians and non-Aristotelians was greater, more fundamental, than the gulf between theists and non-theists.

For an Aristotelian, transubstantiation is no contradiction at all. It fits in fine to the metaphysical framework. If one is not then it doesn't, and one rejects it. I'm not, and I reject it, but I don't think those that accept it are in cognitive dissonance, as they just have a different (Aristotelian) worldview within which it makes sense.

Here's my question then: Is there any more to it than that?

And - a supplementary question: if there is no more to it than that, why did the scholastics feel the need to write thousands of pages about it (and a nineteen-page thread about it to pop up while I was asleep!)? Why not just summarise the Aristotelian doctrine of Essences (which can be done in a single paragraph) and then say the last sentence of the second para above? Was it perhaps that they were focusing on how or why the transub happened, and what its consequences were, rather than trying to prove that it could happen?

If one accepts Essentialism - that every object has a metaphysical 'essence' which is what it really 'is', and which is only accidentally and unreliably associated with its sensible properties. — andrewk

It's not quite essentialism which is at play here, because it is the concept of substance which the Church latches on to. The reason why there has been so much to debate on the subject is that "substance" is left rather ambiguous by Aristotle. It is introduced to "substantiate" logic. But Aristotle discusses "substance" in a primary sense, as well as "substance" in a secondary sense. In the secondary sense, it appears to substantiate "what a thing is", referring to its species (and this might be what you refer to with essentialism). But in the primary sense "substance" substantiates "that a thing is", referring to its material existence.

Here's my question then: Is there any more to it than that? — andrewk

The varying worldviews here are fundamentally different, and a worldview provides the basis for any epistemology, so the potential ramifications with respect to human knowledge are broad. Consider, as I said earlier in the thread, that one could adopt the premise of process philosophy, and deny the need for substance altogether. This would completely avoid the need to consider the reality of substance.

However, as the most influential process philosophers have found out, there is an aspect of reality which I would describe as a temporal continuity of sameness, which needs to be accounted for. If we do not have "substance" as Aristotle suggests, or God as the theologians suggest, to account for this, we'll just end up turning to some other mystical principle. How we account for this continuity will influence our knowledge concerning the world. For instance, Newton's laws of motion take this temporal continuity for granted, as inertia, in the first law. If it can be demonstrated that the temporal continuity of massive (substantial) existence ought not be taken for granted, then Newton's first law is undermined as unsound.

Consider, as I said earlier in the thread, that one could adopt the premise of process philosophy, and deny the need for substance altogether. — Metaphysician Undercover

If by process philosophy you have in mind the sort of thing proposed by Whitehead, then that would be my approach. Was it him or somebody else that said an object is just a slow event?

A similar (seemingly, to me) approach that comes from a very different heritage is that of Nagarjuna, who makes intricate quadrilemmic arguments that the notion of substance is incoherent. I don't agree with his arguments, finding them logically flawed, although I agree with his conclusion. Nagarjuna was not arguing against Aristotle. I expect he had never come across his writings. He was arguing against the prevailing Indian philosophies of his time. But those philosophies seem to have similarities with Aristotle.

A Nagarjunan phrase I really like (heavily paraphrased) is that each object, living or not, is just what the universe is doing at that time and place. Alan Watts says it is the universe waving (to whom? to itself, would be my guess).

we'll just end up turning to some other mystical principle — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we need to turn to something mystical. 'Principle' sounds a bit too concrete for me - as if a 'mystical principle' might be an oxymoron. I would think that we just turn towards (contemplate, meditate upon) 'the fundamental incomprehensibility of the universe', which is a lovely phrase I picked up from a fictional philosophical book written by the Abbé something-or-other, that was being read by the heroine Flora Poste in 'Cold Comfort Farm'.

I would say that Newton's laws, and any other scientific theory, are rules of thumb that have worked well for us. Like the Hong Kong Dollar exchange rate, it is something that remains very stable until it stops doing so. So it seems to make sense to proceed on the basis that the stability will continue, while the more philosophical will bear in mind that the stability could cease at any instant.

A similar (seemingly, to me) approach that comes from a very different heritage is that of Nagarjuna, who makes intricate quadrilemmic arguments that the notion of substance is incoherent. I don't agree with his arguments, finding them logically flawed, although I agree with his conclusion. — andrewk

I agree that the concept of substance is fundamentally incoherent. It's just like the concept of God in that way, it is something assumed because we apprehend a need to assume it. Then it ends up being just an assumption which stands in place of real knowledge, and this is why it is fundamentally incoherent, it is not real knowledge.

So it seems to make sense to proceed on the basis that the stability will continue, while the more philosophical will bear in mind that the stability could cease at any instant. — andrewk

That the stability which we've known in the past, (what was), will continue indefinitely into the future (what will be), is precisely that fundamentally incoherent concept, which stands in place of real knowledge. So if we want real knowledge we need to approach this issue.

Right, back to business. Now, where were we?

Wrong. I was looking for the difference that makes this bread and wine different from normal bread and wine, as the doctrine claims. Without this difference, the doctrine would be internally inconsistent, claiming that bread and wine is different in this case, when it really isn't. But you've already told me you don't have any internal criticism, so I hope you don't start running back with the goal posts now. We established that this difference must not physical. So what kind of difference must it be then? — Agustino

Your original question makes no sense to me in this context, if I interpreted it correctly. When you asked me what I would see, I took that literally, as in, asking what it is that I would observe. I would observe no difference in the bread and wine.

The purported difference is that the substance has changed, and that the elements of the Eucharist which were formerly bread and wine are now the body and blood of Christ. But that isn't something I'd expect to see, and I don't know how I could know that to be the case.

And I didn't say that I had no internal criticism. I do. The internal criticism is epistemological: how can we know this? Even under the assumption that it is true, that question remains. What I did was emphasise the distinction between external and internal criticism, because the absence of that distinction seemed to be the cause of some confusion.

Supernatural doesn't entail being against the laws of physics. Someone coming back from the dead is not against the laws of physics either. Time moving backwards is not against the laws of physics either (just extremely unlikely). So the laws of physics don't actually preclude any of these miracles to begin with. — Agustino

I don't recall mentioning the laws of physics.

You have an erroneous notion of what a miracle is. Walking on water is not against the laws of nature. It may just be that all of a sudden, all the particles of the water find that their velocity is directed to the surface, and so I am maintained floating above it. Now that probability is very very very very super tiny. But it's still there. — Agustino

I disagree, but I think that this is semantic. I'd call that a miracle, as would countless others. In fact, I think that if you put it to the general public in the form of a survey, then the vast majority would agree that it's a miracle. So you're just not speaking the same language as the rest of us.

Coming to the example with the girl, why isn't it supernatural? You know of a certain law of nature that dictates that the girl will suddenly start meaning something different to you? Not really. So the only reason why it's not supernatural, is because it's become a habit as old Hume says - you're used to it. — Agustino

You agree that it's not supernatural, which is all I require.

Nope. Independent accounts of a phenomenon are not sufficient by themselves to establish it happens. In the case of Christ we have collective examples, with many people having seen the risen Christ all at once, and then being willing to die, all of them, for this belief. Are those peeps who claim to have seen a ghost willing to die for that? — Agustino

There are no doubt collective accounts of ghosts too. And what you are or are not willing to die for is irrelevant as a proposed criterion. I wouldn't be willing to die for most of what I'd testify to having witnessed, but that doesn't discount my testimony.

Yes, you can add mystical experience and metaphysics to that list. Anecdotal evidence BY ITSELF may be weak and insufficient. As may an appeal to the masses. But combined, all those form a solid case. — Agustino

No, I can't add metaphysics to the list. That's far too vague and unexplained. And if you think that you've got a solid case, then you must have much lower evidential standards than me - at least when it comes to what we're talking about here. Elsewhere you raise the standards, creating a double standard. The stuff that we're talking about here gets special treatment, because it's your religion. But that isn't a reasonable, objective stance to take, and you should admit that.

You don't seem to be understanding Christianity. The ethics are absolutely NOT the centre of it. Christianity claims precisely that man cannot save himself, so the ethics, by themselves, are useless. Commit them to the flames. What matters is Christ - it is only through faith in Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit that one may uphold the Law. Now seeking to maintain the Law, but taking out the central role of Christ is against the teachings of Christ. — Agustino

No, it's not that I don't understand it, it's just that I have a different take on it. Can't you appreciate that? I certainly didn't suggest taking out the central role of Christ or that Christ is not what matters or that faith in Christ is not essential. These would just mean different things to me. We would be abiding by different interpretations.

Yeah, if you told me the story about the giant fire-breathing sea lion, I'd want to see some evidence for it, including testimony, and I'd also be interested in the significance of the event. If he just came to say hello, it's probably not very significant, even if it was a giant fire-breathing sea lion. I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ, and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection, the unique significance of the event, etc. etc. and your little monster story. — Agustino

Yes, I know that you'd want to see some evidence for it. That's why I asked what it would take. How much testimony? What if it was a central tenet of your religion? What if people reported mystical experiences which they attributed to the sea lion? These were not rhetorical questions.

This is where your double standard becomes evident. You are hesitant to bite the bullet because it strikes you as so ridiculous, but it isn't all that different from the claims of religion, and if you were able to stand back and assess the situation from an objective viewpoint, then I think that you'd agree.

So if we want real knowledge we need to approach this issue. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you feel that real knowledge is achievable? Do you think anybody has achieved it? Perhaps some might say that Lao Tzu, Jesus of Nazareth, the Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith or Zoroaster achieved it, although I feel that Enlightenment - impossible to pin down as it is - sounds very different in concept to knowledge.

I believe that real knowledge with respect to this subject is a noble goal. Whether or not it will ever be obtained by anyone, in any absolute sense is not really relevant. I think it is only by having a belief like this, that it is to some extent achievable, that we can be inspired to broaden our horizons and uncover principles previously unknown. By previously unknown, I mean unknown to any human being. I think that enlightenment involves getting a glimpse of what is unknown to everyone, somehow seeing that it is there. By getting a glimpse of the unknown, we realize how vast the realm of the unknown actually is, and in some instances how and where it relates to the known. We can then proceed to develop strategies to approach it.

This discussion was created with comments split from The Shoutbox — Michael

Just out of curiosity Michael, how did you separate all these transubstantiation related comments from the non-transubstantiation related comments in The Shoutbox thread?

I read though 20-odd pages and individually selected the appropriate ones (ignoring any joke comments that only belong in the shoutbox). Took some time.

The problem is that transubstantiation is no different than any other faith based belief, where followers just accept the impossible as a tenet of their faith. Some might have studied the underlying justifications for the beliefs, most not. The basis presented for it seems to be a biblical passage or two then supported by some Aristotelian philosophy then in vogue, which draws upon distinctions not really supportable.

We would need to split off into another thread if we wanted to really break down Aristotle's theory of substances. It's not clear why my substance isn't one of my properties, but I grew tired of reading about it online last night, so I gave up for now.

My point is that I don't agree that the path to enlightenment is paved with being open to the legitimacy of all other beliefs, but more often the opposite: rejecting nonsense and moving on. So , coming to the party with no preconceived notions about the legitimacy of the Church, these beliefs strike me as no more or less valid than a faith based system I could create on the spot.

I read though 20-odd pages and individually selected the appropriate ones (ignoring any joke comments that only belong in the shoutbox). Took some time. — Michael

Wow, that's a lot of work, it takes me fifteen minutes just to find a particular post sometimes.

The problem is that transubstantiation is no different than any other faith based belief, where followers just accept the impossible as a tenant of their faith. — Hanover

Isn't any type of word use essentially the same type of "faith based belief"? So if you reject transubstantiation, you make the statement, "I have no faith in the way that they use words". But you cannot make any valid statement about whether what is expressed by transubstantiation is true or false, without addressing the nature of substance. And if you do, you'll most likely realize that there is nothing there to prevent the validity of the concept of transubstantiation.

From the perspective of a modern scientific viewpoint, substance is taken for granted. And what is taken for granted cannot change or else that would contradict "taken for granted". In religions, substance is not taken for granted, it relies on the will of God. So "taken for granted" is not absolute, it is relative to God as "granted by God"; therefore substance can change by the will of God. How can we ever make a judgement about which of these perspectives is "true", when they are probably equally false, just different ways of representing the unknown?

My point is that I don't agree that the path to enlightenment is paved with being open to the legitimacy of all other beliefs, but more often the opposite: rejecting nonsense and moving on. So , coming to the party with no preconceived notions about the legitimacy of the Church, these beliefs strike me as no more or less valid than a faith based system I could create on the spot. — Hanover

I see a big problem with this perspective. Very few things persist through time, the ones which do are massive objects like the earth, sun and stars. An "idea" or "belief" is not at all massive, it's very fleeting, and as we grow older they slip away to failing memory, until we die, and they're gone. To have a belief which may persist for generation after generation of human beings requires a very structured system of communication, word use. Ever play the game "Whisper Down the Valley"? Your decision to reject as "nonsense" a system which has allowed ideas to persist for hundreds, even thousands of years, is not a rational decision.