Science vs Transubstantiation

All I can say is that you can never accuse Catholics of being confusing ever again!!!

God bless,

Grant </font>[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure he's on our side on this one, eh?!

Anyway, the Eucharist certainly is a glorious mystery!

I think the Catholic faith is well symbolized by "in for a penny, in for a pound," while the non-Catholic faith symbology seems to be "in for a penny, but that's bloody well all."

(No, I'm not British, but I have been reading lots of Chesterton lately!)

 

He was alleging that transformation can be proven or disproven by science but transubstantiation cannot. This, however, is not true. Notice the difference between the two.

Transubstantiation says that the substance of the bread and wine is completely replaced by the substance of Christ, only the outward visible form (species) of the bread & wine remains.</font>[/QUOTE]You're missing part of it. It is not only the "visible" form, but all forms perceivable to the world.

Let us look at an example. H20. If it changes from water to ice, this is transformation. All our senses tell us that this is something different, but we can do testing and find that it is still H20. Now take the Eucharist. We cannot do testing and find a difference, because all things that we interact with are the same. The form in all its elements remains, so that every particle that is Christ will exactly resemble a particle of bread. Even though the substance is not bread, we have no way of scientifically proving it because it was a not a change of substance and form, but only substance. The substance in all its essence is hidden under the form.

And we do not believe this. Nor do we believe that there is both a change of substance and form (obviously).

No, because if the DNA were to our senses different, then it would not look the same. If the form of the DNA changes, then the form of the substance also would change (if you changed my DNA, I would not longer be "Grant" but something else). So while the DNA DOES change, it changes in substance but not form, and is thus not detectable. DNA that looks like the DNA of wheat will be detected as wheat, even though it is not substantially wheat.

 

Do not shove words in our mouth. Who said it was necessary for salvation to understand all the lingo? No one. Not me. Not another Catholic. Not the Catholic Church. All we have to have is faith that the bread and wine are now the Body and Blood of Christ. The lingo is there because a lot of us (like you and I on this board) like to dig deeper into theological understandings of our faith, which is fine and dandy, but not neccessary.

Your jest is not well received. No one said we are to take Jesus literally all the time. You force that into the discussion, and it too is not well received. I do not believe that Jesus spoke always literally, and I do not believe that He never spoke literally. It is a combination of the two. You chose to reject this one. Your perogative. That doesn't somehow mean you have a greater understanding, or that the ancient Catholic belief is wrong.

You do not wish to understand; you blind yourself by doing so.

God bless,

Grant

 

When Jesus comes again, are you going to run a DNA test on Him and see if He is God? Oh ye of little faith in the Word of God. You cannot prove with science that Jesus is God; you accept it wholly on faith. So do not throw me the above garbage.

What a comedian. You are the one who insists science is the judge of it, NOT US. Science does not hender my faith. And science will never prove anything that will run contrary to my faith, because science is subserviant to faith. And the Word of God does prove the Real Presence, without using the later word of "transubstantiation," just like the Word of God proves that He is Triune, a word later derived.

Rather, the anti-Catholic must lie about Catholic teaching in order to push his own teachings. You have shown just that in this thread.

That's what those who rejected Jesus said about Him. "Oh him? He's not God! He's the son of the carpenter! Crucify Him! He blasphemes, claiming to be God, when He is SBVIOUSLY a man!" Jesus, the man, was wholly God, and yet "God won't let you see it."

I have to say it: hypocrite.

God bless,

Grant

 

Catholic ideas:

#1. Substance has absolutely no meaning at all in the physical universe. You can not look at a tire and tell "what substance" you are looking at because "substance" can't be seen or detected in any way known to man. The property of "substance" is defined as "totally undetectable in any form" having meaning ONLY within Catholic doctrine.

#2. Swaping the undefined property "substance"
can be "claimed" for any case - any object - at any time. But only as often as the RCC wants to claim it. So ask your friendly neighborhood RCC for changes taking place near you.

#.3 The Bible makes no reference to an undefined property "substance" that has no physical manifestation in the physical universe.

Result:

Using that definition of substance - there is nothing to "change" when you participate in the Lord's Table - at least NOT in the real physical universe. In fact "NO CHANGE" is the reality to be expected.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Your sarcasm is noted.

Might you give me another example of transubstantiation in nature? If you can, then your whole argument is moot. If you cannot, then your argument that we, as Catholics, can apply this to other things is both insulting and fictitious, and frankly, I would be surprised if people continue to trust you on this board.

So, I'm waiting. An example or non-example, based on your above post, puts you in the wrong either way.

In the meantime, my faith in this miracle remains permenantly steadfast, even though Bob apparently thought he could persuade me with his snide sarcasm.

God bless,

Grant

 

If you agree that my explanation is "on our side on this", then that which separates Catholics and protestants on this issue is language.

Protestants see that there is no material transubstantion of the elements. Protestants therefore caveat the celebration of communion by directly stating that the symbols that are consumed in the celebration remain symbols that the spirit interprets in accordance with Jesus' own words. Whereas, Catholics, on this BBS, and on all other BBS's where the topic is discussed, clearly and loudly state that the elements do change and become the "real" flesh and "real" blood of Jesus, without so much as a preparatory remark about the spiritual implication of such change. Therefore it is a transubstantiation of truth that is in question and not a transubstantiation of material.

To clear up this apparent discrepancy between Catholicism and Protestantism, the truth must be established in the presentation and not the celebration.

So all you Catholics, clean up your act, and we protestants may be able to join you at the Table of Remembrance again!

 

Yelsew,

Umm....no.

God bless,

Grant

 

The offer is on the table, but is being refused by the Catholic Church.

 

The Catholic Church has no "act to clean up" in regards to its teaching of the Eucharist.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hmmm. You mean, can I give you an example where some denomination will "claim" that no physical properties - nothing detectable - is "changed" from vegetable-plant substance (though not detectable as a plant in "substance" to start with since substance is not detectable) - being "changed" (in a way where no change is seen at all - on any leve whatsoever) to "flesh"

I can't give any examples of that - or of the Easter bunny - or of coodies. You have to "imagine" all of it. No examples available.

By making up this idea of "substance - something that can not be detected in any form" - CHANGING (and no way to detect that anything HAS changed other than the claims of the RCC) THEN the ONLY deciding factor is - "what is the RCC claiming now". So any claim that it makes regarding the non-change happening "again" in another "non-detectable way" - is just as valid and verifiable as any other claim in that regard.

If it is all left to the realm of the imagination of the RCC - any claim is "just as trustworthy" as any other - BY definition.

This is not that hard to understand. It is not a case of "taking my word for anything" it is just a case of watching carefully what you and other Catholics here are claiming in this regard.

The supposed "miracle" that "makes no difference" and has no "attributes" - that "is not detectable" - is no miracle at all.

We can all - show "nothing" and claim it as a miracle. I could pronounce "my car is now an airplane in substance" and because my "definition" of substance is "no detectable change of anyhting you can observe" - my claim of a "miracle" in that case is nothing more than "imagination".

In Christ,

bob

 

Is this really called for? Have you receieved a direct revelation from God or something?

I am seriously disappointed with some of the Protestants here and their misrepresentations and false accusations of Catholics. I do not agree with how they see the Eucharist, but come on, deal with the real teachings and stop trying to paint them out to be the "great whore of Babylon."

Also, I would be extremely leary if someone is going to base what they believe on science and what it can prove. Science is clearly limited in its abilities. Besides, are you going to believe everything science 'proves'? If so, you are merely a random chance that is accidently here because of evolution. This is what many scientists feel is 'proven'.

Neal

 

While I do not necessarily agree with the RCC's teaching on the Eucharist, I understand what Grant has summarized. I can't argue the logic with the definitions being used. I don't agree with it, but I understand what they're teaching. It can't be proven by science. Just accept, guys. It is a different interpretation that what Protestants hold to. Why put them to the test with modern science?

Neal

[ June 08, 2003, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

While I don't take these statements literally we are on some level sheep and He is the door. Catholics are not teaching that every aspect of the bread is Christ. But they are saying that on some level that it is the Body of Christ. I agree with what I believe Grant said, that some of the things we decide to take literally and others not. Protestants do not take, "This is my body....this is my blood...." literally. But we do take it literal when Christ said "I am the way and the truth and the life." Ease up a bit, guys. I don't see it as cannibalism that they are teaching.

Neal

 

This form of argument is known as "a tautaulogy" it "says nothing" - it conveys no meaning by saying "the substance of bread is the substance you can't detect because substance is the substance of something" says nothing.

Claiming that the bread REMAINS bread in every detectable way but in SUBSTANCE is changed to flesh and of course Substance is defined as the true SUBSTANCE of the material/matter - again - says nothing. The circular reasoning used to make the argument that "the substance has REALLY CHANGED" where substances is defined "as undetectible properties for which NO CHANGE can be detected" - forms the purest form of tautaulogy - conveying absolutely no meaning.

That claim to the idea of "substance" in the realm of matter/energy/THINGS - is unique in that it is not the typical religion claim to the soul or spirit of something ( the bread ) - or the faith of the bread. It is a claim about the material world - SUBSTANCE.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Please prove to me, scientifically and physiclally, that Jesus Christ is God.

God bless,

Grant

 

There are no specific scientific tests using test equipment or test procedures that prove the Jesus is God. However, we have reasonably reliable biological evidence that children are the product of a mother and father, in every case except that of Jesus.

We have eye witness reports that Jesus who was publically crucified on a Roman cross under the watchful eye and administration of Trusted Roman military officers, in front of an unspecified number of "passerby" witnesses, all who could under oath swear that they witnessed his death. We have at least two eye witnesses who would swear they carried his body to the borrowed tomb of a believer where they laid him to rest, and the Roman soldiers who sealed his tomb and stood guard there by it to ensure that no one came to steal the body. We have the testamony of his followers that on the third day the tomb was open and the body of Jesus was no longer in the tomb. And we have the eye witnesses who have reliably testified in writing that they saw, heard, ate with, and touched, Jesus. And we have the testimony of Jesus Himself of who and what he is. It is reported by eye witnesses to the actual events of that time that over 500 eye witnesses existed that saw Jesus alive after he was crucified.

Scientific? Well, yes, every piece of evidence is admissible in a court of law, and is scientifically sound, and irrefutable. There have been many courtroom tests by lawyers and students of law that attest to the validity of the evidence.

Is Jesus God? The evidence says that he is, by his own testimony He is. And the eye witnesses to him say they are convinced that he is. Thomas the doubter, upon seeing Jesus after he had died, declared him to be "MY LORD and MY GOD!"

Now, I have to ask you, has even one person that you personally know to have died, come back to the living with power and dominion? What about eye witness reports, are there any? No other human as come back to life after 3 days dead. If you know of one, other than Jesus, please present your evidence. If it stands up under the tests that the evidence for Jesus has stood up under, then there are grounds to say that coming back to life is no big deal. However, it it fails those tests, then you must in accordance with the rules of scientific evidence confess that Jesus is God, as has been done millions of times.

 

You are missing the point. The ice/water example was that of TRANSFORMATION. The substance remains the same, but the form changes. It's still H20 in both examples. In the Eucharist, the OPPOSITE happens: the substance changes, while the form remains exactly the same.

So why did God come in the form of a man? How convincing was that? Last I checked, it required faith.

Good job. That's the best example I've seen yet (since others seemed to have ignored the challenge. Now I would point you to read up on Eucharistic miracles.

God bless,

Grant

 

Yelsew,

Again, your argument does not hold up, because YOU HAVE NOT SEEN JESUS IN THE FLESH. You are relying, by faith, on the testimony of others. That is no difference in me trusting in Jesus' words that in the Lord's Supper, I receive His Body and Blood.

It's a matter of faith, 100%. Any other argument you have requires that you have been visited by Jesus, in the flesh, sometime recently and you aren't telling us about it. Your evidence is all testimony, just like mine. You have not witnessed it with your senses, just as I have not.

God bless,

Grant