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

[The Kilted Heathen]

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.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

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.

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 The substance of the bread and wine, but not the accidents, has been replaced by the substance of the body and blood of Christ.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.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Catholic Theology incorporates a great deal of Greek philosophy. The idea of substance comes from Aristotle, being what a thing really is independent of its properties. The thing in itself exists regardless of changes in its measurable properties. If you car has a fender replaced, it is still your car in its entirety. It substance, its real self, has not changed even if the new fender is pink. Transubstantiation is a special case, where the substance becomes something else - the body and blood of Christ - but the accidents, the measurable properties do not change. This is not something that happens in the physical world. It is miraculous. Or so Catholic Theology deems it.

Epicurus agrees that this is a proper use of the word "accident."

 

[Thief]

Depends on what you mean by a miracle. Normally that term is applied to some sort of modification of natural laws. That is not the case with Transubstantiation. The natural world is not modified. Instead there is a supernatural presence beginning at the moment of consecration.

!2 years of Catholic school remains in the memory bank long after there is a need for it.

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

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

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

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.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No you do not understand what is being said.

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.

Catholics deny eating the accidents of flesh and blood because those accidents are not there.

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.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

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.

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

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Whatever. I'm not going to keep going around in circles here, explaining myself for - what, third? Fourth time in a row?

 

[Mister Emu]

Are you implying that it hasn't? Catholics claim that transubstantiated bread literally becomes Jesus' flesh. But then when people point out it doesn't (and provide evidence to that effect) oh, the transformation isn't quite so literal any more.

That people can claim that bread literally is and is not flesh at the same time is truly astounding.

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.

 

[metis]

This has been Catholic theology for almost a millennium.

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.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

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.

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.

 

[metis]

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.

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.

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

I was merely referring to the Neo-Aristotlelian understanding put forth by Aquinas.

 

[metis]

I was merely referring to the Neo-Aristotlelian understanding put forth by Aquinas.

Thanks for the clarification.