Science vs Transubstantiation

Thank-you for pointing that out, Grant. You beat me to it.

Neal

 

You are not following the point.

If I make the claim that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin 2000 years ago - I make NO claim about the physical world today such that "BREAD is changed into FLESH".

Typical claims of faith about events in the past - or the state of the soul or the spirit, or the Nature of beings in Heaven - are NOT claims about matter "changing Bread into FLESH" On Earth In our very presence at a Current point in time.

But when we Switch from claims about the spirit, or about beings in Heaven - and start making Claims about the CURRENT state of "bread" being Currently changed IN our very presence - at the very moment in time WE specify - into FLESH. That is not a "claim about the soul or spirit" of the bread.

When Christ or Paul healed someone - they TOO were making "different" kind of "claim" beyond the typical "claim" of a "saved soul".

They were making a claim about the real world - about things IN the Universe. They were claim that "FLESH" had been "CHANGED" such that "it was now HEALED" at the very "moment in time they specified". And guess what? The "claim" had meaning IN the REAL world because it was a claim ABOUT FLESH.

There is just no good way to obfuscate the point people. It is what it is - a real world claim about FLESH and about real BREAD - REALLY changing.

No way to escape it or dance around it. Though I can appreciate your giving it a good try.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Neal and Grant - you have opened yourself up to verifiable evidence. That is probably a mistake.

Note - you both agreed to the following.

You are equating "substance" and "H2O"! You are claiming that "substance" is "real" that H20 is the "substance" water (as we all would claim today). This opens you up to being "proven wrong" the moment you go on to prove that the "substance" of "bread" is changed to the "substance" that is "Flesh". Those carbon-based "substances" can be "seen" and that is a problem. Because we all agree that "it will be SEEN that there is in fact NO change in those carbon based substances at all".

So if "H2O" is "not the Substance - water" in the previous example (as I am sure you would not want such a thing to be the case) - what exactly IS the "substance water"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

My arguement of proving Jesus divinity still holds. If you HAD lived in the time of Jesus, and did see Him like those who saw Him did, you would have had no proof that He was God. None, except His testimony, or the testimony of those who had seen Him. Your argument about the past does not hold because if Jesus was here now, you still would not be able to prove His divinity.

As for the water argument...

When I see a chair, even if I had never seen that particular chair in my life, I would be able to recognize it as such. Why? Because all chairs have certain properties that I can recognize, and yet, the chair I am viewing can be like no other. While it's form is different from all other chairs, it has the "substance" of a chair. It has that unique "stuff" that qualifies it as a chair. And even if I paint it a different color, or make it out of a different material, it is still a chair, because it still has the "substance" of what makes a chair.

So what am I saying? The "chairness" of a chair is a mental construct. I have a notion of what a "chair" is, and thus I can force that mental contruct onto a real object. I have an idea of what a chair is, and I can recognize an object that qualifies as a chair if I encounter one.

So, once I have this chair, I can change it up, and it is still a chair, because that it what it is. I have deemed it a chair, and it will always be a chair. However, if what looks like a chair, I defined as a "desk," it would cease to be a chair and instead be a desk. Why? Because this is all arbitrary: the substance and the form are separate entities.

I can make a desk that looks like a chair, and it will be a desk because I have defined it as such. It has the form of a chair, but its substance is now that of a desk.

Thus, in the Eucharist, if God wishes to make the "substance" of the material on the alter "the Body and Blood of Christ," this can occur without a neccessary change in form, and not just in mentality, because God's Word does not return to Him empty: it achieves what it sets out to accomplish. The substance, or the WHAT of the "object" is different, even though its form has not changed.

NOW, is this Catholic teaching? I doubt it. What I just wrote is overly complex and philisophical, and perhaps has holes in it. This is my way of thinking through that which cannot really be thought through, because it is an article of faith, not science.

The Catholic belief in "transubstantiation" is our attempt at defining an article of faith, which IS true, even if we do not understand it. In the Roman Rite, we define it as such. In the Eastern Rites, they don't use the same language, but hold to the same belief. Thus, to attack our theology, or understanding of faith, does not do away with the Truth of what occurs. It simply means our human language is limited when attempting to understand the omnipotence of God.

God bless,

Grant

 

No Gracesaves, there is a definite difference in our faith.

Your faith requires that something of substance actually changes into a different substance. Your testimony clearly states that the object of your faith (in this case bread and wine) changes in substance to human flesh and human blood when consumed in a human mouth.

My faith requires that my spirit accepts the one substance to be a direct substitute for the other substance. My testimony clearly states my objects of faith (again, bread and wine) remain bread and wine upon consumption by human mouth. And that my spiritual acceptance of those elements is that they are the body and blood of Jesus, the Christ without a change of substance.

If my spirit accepts the testimony of those known to be eye witnesses, it is just the same as me being an eye witness. What they claim to believe about the object of witness, is what I am compelled to believe about that same object. If that is not true, then the Word of God, the Holy scriptures becomes an unreliable source of myth brought to us by the Catholic Church. The bible that you read and find trustworthy is the same bible that I read and find trustworthy. The non-biblical teachings that you have received are different than the bible that I read. Different by interpretation and application.

There is solid evidence to support my understanding, while there is no such evidence to support your understanding. That means that my faith is based on reliable information and yours is not.

 

Care to narrow that down just a bit? There is faith other than that which comes by hearing the word of God, and you begin learning faith as an infant, long before you can read the word of God. So you need to narrow the focus of the faith that Paul is addressing or you need to agree that there is faith outside the word of God.

 

And faith is not just a blind leap. There are things we base our faith on. Why should I believe the Bible is the Word of God? You can't just answer "Because it is!" There is a rational basis to faith as well. You have to know about something to believe in it. Remember, faith has substance and evidence.

As for the Eucharist, I am not trying to defend the Catholic doctrine. You are wanting evidence for teachings that the Catholic Church has. Well, I know it is not the same matter as the Eucharist, but give me proof of your name. Sola Scriptura. Prove that, please. Or, do you ever pray for the health of someone? Do you think that God answers those prayers positively sometimes? If you said yes, please prove it. You should be able to because the healing takes place in the physical world. The heathen get sick and better at times too, so why should they believe that your God intervenes in the physical realm? Or do you think sometimes that God acts in situations in life, such as keeping you safe, blessing you, allowing things to happen to you, etc? How do you know it is God? You should be able to prove all those things that happen in the physical realm, right?

Neal

 

Yelsew,

With a reading of the Last Supper, John 6, and Paul's admonishments on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians (Ch. 7, I believe), to say I have no basis is only to reject our interpretation. We HAVE basis, you simply reject the interpretration as false. That does not rid us of our Scriptural basis, only the analysis of it.

God bless,

Grant

 

funny... thats the same thing that happens when wheat does not change.

 

Yes, when wheat does not change, its form does not change. That is why the Eucharist is a miracle, one that cannot be explained with scientific reason, but by faith alone.

God bless,

Grant

 

Neither John nor Paul says that bread becomes flesh and wine becomes blood. Therefore you are interpreting what they say "your way". So how is that different than what you accuse non-Catholics of doing.

Regarding John 6, have you ever seen a loaf of bread walk or heard one talk? Jesus is speaking figuratively when he says that He is the bread of life. Bread has for milleniums been a staple of life to humans. Jesus is saying that he is the author and finisher of life, and that by consuming him (believing in Him) we can have life through him. Not by eating his flesh, but by "taking in" his truth!

In John 6, Jesus' discussion follows the preceding day's "miracle of the Loaves", so Please put Jesus words in their proper context.

In 1 Cor 11, Where Paul instructs regarding the Communion elements. He does not say that the bread and wine transubstantiate into the flesh and blood of Jesus. He repeats Jesus' words to "do this in remembrance of me", a symbolic act using symbols to represent the reality. There is no evidence anywhere, in any part of God's creation, to prove that any symbol becomes the reality of what is symbolized. When you can provide some evidence that symbols become what is symbolized, then we may have common ground upon which we can agree.

The reason we use symbols is because of the absence of the reality.

 

Well, in that your church does not share in the Apostolic Succession, you are right. They would be symbols because of the absence of the reality.

That's why I ask, why putter around the edges when you can meet our Lord in the flesh in the Church?

 

By the way, accepting the symbolicity of the bread and wine, in no way dimishes the power of the message, or the power of God to work in your life.

Believing in transubstantiation is believing in myth!

 

Well, in that your church does not share in the Apostolic Succession, you are right. They would be symbols because of the absence of the reality.

That's why I ask, why putter around the edges when you can meet our Lord in the flesh in the Church? </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus lives in me! I abide in HIM and HE in me. How much closer do you think the Catholic church can get me to Jesus?

 

How much closer?

In the Eucharist, Jesus will abide in you in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Flesh and Spirit.

Ron

 

there is nothing to explain... it does not change

 

How much closer?

In the Eucharist, Jesus will abide in you in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Flesh and Spirit.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]What do you suppose I meant when I said "Jesus lives in me! I abide in HIM and HE in me?" Jesus living in me requires no substitute substances, the Real Jesus resides in Me and I in Him. I have devoured the Bread of Life, and he is living in me!

The Catholic Church cannot improve on that! It is the perfect union of God and man!

 

Is Jesus Christ God, or man AND God? So when you say you have Jesus Christ in you, do you have his flesh and blood in you, which are inseparable from His divine nature?

God bless,

Grant