1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured "DNA Analysis of Consecrated Sacramental Bread Refutes Catholic Transubstantiation Claim"

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Skwim, Jan 27, 2018.

  1. The Ragin Pagan

    The Ragin Pagan A.K.A. The Kilted Heathen

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,582
    Ratings:
    +2,792
    Religion:
    Heathenry (Norse and Slavic Paganism)
    I fully understand what is being said. This does not guarantee that I will see it as making sense even in an internal viewpoint or belief. It doesn't stop me from saying that it is symbolism, in that it is meant to remind of past and mythical events, and represents or stands in for principles that are not readily available - and indeed, are claimed to only exist when viewed "with faith".

    The contradiction in Catholic practice remains that they believe it to be flesh and blood, say "amen" when presented with it as flesh and blood, but deny eating flesh and blood. Again, can't have ones cake and eat it too.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    No you do not understand what is being said. In Catholic theology it is definitely not symbolism. The substance of the bread and wine, but not the accidents, has been replaced by the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic view is that this is really the body (and blood) of Christ, which is affirmed by replying Amen. The accidents are those of bread (and wine) because the accidents did not get changed, this being a more reasonable way of eating (and drinking) the body (and blood) of Christ. The accidents of flesh and blood do not appear, so one is not sensibly aware of what the substance is. Catholics deny eating the accidents of flesh and blood because those accidents are not there. But in Catholic thought the substance is the body and blood of Christ. Substance and accidents are separated. One can have one’s cake and eat it too, if ‘cake’ has two senses. If you deny the existence of substance independent of accidents, if you are incapable of even entertaining hypotheticals in that vein, you will never understand Catholic theology.
     
  3. robocop (actually)

    robocop (actually) Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    4,171
    Ratings:
    +978
    Religion:
    two years re-baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    Epicurus agrees that this is a proper use of the word "accident."
     
  4. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    48,777
    Ratings:
    +4,890
    I might say....the priest I spoke to liked the idea, he could do a miracle

    and after so much catholic schooling I think.....
    they have misinterpreted the actual application

    Yeah He said.....
    This is my blood.....This is my body
    Do this in memory of Me

    It was a gesture in metaphor.....to spark conversation at the dinner table
     
  5. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    An interesting proposal. However only Luke reports any subsequent conversation and that is about who is going to betray Jesus which degenerates into arguing over who is greatest among them, until Jesus chides them. No mention of the Eucharist speech.
     
  6. The Ragin Pagan

    The Ragin Pagan A.K.A. The Kilted Heathen

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,582
    Ratings:
    +2,792
    Religion:
    Heathenry (Norse and Slavic Paganism)
    Rough, let me give you some background on myself. Not only was I a Roman Catholic for the first half of my life, but I took 4 years of Catechism classes (meaning I could be an ordained deacon to this day, if I so choose,) and studied this material directly both in an out of those classes.

    I fully understand what is believed and upheld to be happening.

    I disagree with the claims, and have reached a point where I basically refuse to call a duck an eagle just because they want to feel special and mysterious. The "accidents" not changing to a literal piece of flesh or the wine turning the proper viscosity of blood is explained in the doctrine that when Jesus did the whole "bread and wine" thing at the Last Supper, that set the "species" representation of his communal presence. All well and fine, but that sets the precedence - biblically, no less - for symbolism.

    No, they really don't. "Accidents" doesn't come up with your average Catholic, and denial of eating flesh and blood is very much met - even by priests - with "Well, it is and it isn't... It's a miracle!" Which is just a fancy way of saying they can't rationalize the claim.

    Again, understanding their theology and doctrines is different from finding them utterly ridiculous and full of contradiction-in-claim. Aquinas' philosophy doesn't help it, as their own Catechism stands in opposition to that attempt at rationalization. I will grant you that "DNA testing" a wafer is just as silly and preposterous, but it's an issue that can be revised by altering the official (Catechism) stance. Which has been done before.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    No you do not understand the difference between substance and accident. The substance is body and blood. The accidents are bread and wine. If you cannot distinguish those, you do not understand. Whether you accept these or not, and clearly you do not - your privilege, the doctrine is what it is whether you agree with it or not. Your rejection of Catholicism doe not affect that..

    I see no contradiction between Aquinas and the Catechism.

    1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

    Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. The Ragin Pagan

    The Ragin Pagan A.K.A. The Kilted Heathen

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,582
    Ratings:
    +2,792
    Religion:
    Heathenry (Norse and Slavic Paganism)
    Whatever. I'm not going to keep going around in circles here, explaining myself for - what, third? Fourth time in a row?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,699
    Ratings:
    +1,608
    Religion:
    Christian
    No one is claiming that it is both flesh and not flesh at the same time. Catholics believe in a metaphysical reality, the substance of the host, that overrides it's physical characteristics, called the accidents. This has been Catholic theology for almost a millennium.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,857
    Ratings:
    +16,527
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Actually a lot longer than that, thus going back to at least the 2nd century but it appears even before that as the early church did believe there was something truly special about the Eucharist.
     
  11. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    Paul describes the Lord's Supper probably sometime in the 50s AD.

    1 Corinthians 11:23-29
    23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
    24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
    25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
    26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
    27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
    28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
    29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,857
    Ratings:
    +16,527
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Exactly, and thanks for posting this.

    What the early church had to do was to try and take this and some other scriptural and traditional accounts and try and make sense of it because, if taken literally, it makes no sense.
    Therefore, how does the above and the other accounts deal with this symbolically, and here's where the Greek kicks in that already had a strong influence, not only on the early church but also with Judaism in general. Elements of the latter fought this influence but were only partially successful.

    When Christianity branched away from normative Judaism, thus getting away from the 613 Mosaic Laws, this Greek influence had a profound effect, for better or for worse. People want things explained in a logical paradigm that they can understand and relate to.

    Again, thanks for the above.
     
  13. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,699
    Ratings:
    +1,608
    Religion:
    Christian
    I was merely referring to the Neo-Aristotlelian understanding put forth by Aquinas.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,857
    Ratings:
    +16,527
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Thanks for the clarification.
     
Loading...