Transubstantiation

[JJ50]

The definition of transubstantiation is the miraculous change by which, according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines, the Eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine.

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can be daft enough to believe the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of the long dead Jesus. It is easy to prove beyond all doubt this is not the case. Besides which, the whole idea is revolting anyway.

[Kenisaw]

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can be daft enough to believe the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of the long dead Jesus. It is easy to prove beyond all doubt this is not the case.

This comment suggests some confusion on your part about what the doctrine of transubstantiation actually states.

How can you "prove beyond all doubt" that the metaphysical substance of the bread and wine hasn't changed?

Test it after mass. If it still comes up as "bread" and "wine" then I think you've pretty much covered it at that point...

[historia]

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can be daft enough to believe the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of the long dead Jesus. It is easy to prove beyond all doubt this is not the case.

This comment suggests some confusion on your part about what the doctrine of transubstantiation actually states.

How can you "prove beyond all doubt" that the metaphysical substance of the bread and wine hasn't changed?

Test it after mass. If it still comes up as "bread" and "wine" then I think you've pretty much covered it at that point...

How does one test whether the metaphysical substance of something has changed?

[Kenisaw]

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can be daft enough to believe the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of the long dead Jesus. It is easy to prove beyond all doubt this is not the case.

This comment suggests some confusion on your part about what the doctrine of transubstantiation actually states.

How can you "prove beyond all doubt" that the metaphysical substance of the bread and wine hasn't changed?

Test it after mass. If it still comes up as "bread" and "wine" then I think you've pretty much covered it at that point...

How does one test whether the metaphysical substance of something has changed?

I suppose one might first want to show that there actually is something "after physics" that is a property of a wafer or an alcoholic liquid, before we try to decide if such a change is testable.

Can you provide me with something along those lines? Any rational reason for me to accept such a concept?

[historia]

I suppose one might first want to show that there actually is something "after physics" that is a property of a wafer or an alcoholic liquid, before we try to decide if such a change is testable.

Metaphysics doesn't mean "after physics," so I'm not sure what you're asking for here.

[historia]

Doesn't it actually make more sense as a metaphor?

That's not the question under consideration.

Also, doesn't it seem strange that Christian apologists spend 99% of their time arguing that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally and that everything should be interpreted as some sort of metaphor, but then when it comes to something like this they start demanding a quite literal meaning for it?

Why the need to suddenly become hardcore fundamentalists on this point whilst demanding that everything else should be taken as a wildly abstract metaphor that doesn't even remotely resemble what the literal text actually states?

These questions assume that Christians believe everything in the Bible should be taken metaphorically (they don't) and that all Christians share the same beliefs concerning the Eucharist (they don't). So any conclusion you might draw from these erroneous premises is ill-founded.

[Kenisaw]

I suppose one might first want to show that there actually is something "after physics" that is a property of a wafer or an alcoholic liquid, before we try to decide if such a change is testable.

Metaphysics doesn't mean "after physics," so I'm not sure what you're asking for here.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˌmedəˈfiziks/
Word Origin
mid 16th century: representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics,’ referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural.’

Perhaps it would help both of us if you would explain what you meant by metaphysical change, and we can go from there.

[Divine Insight]

These questions assume that Christians believe everything in the Bible should be taken metaphorically (they don't) and that all Christians share the same beliefs concerning the Eucharist (they don't). So any conclusion you might draw from these erroneous premises is ill-founded.

No, my question didn't assume that Christians believe everything in the Bible should be taken metaphorically. I simply pointed out that they are quick to demand metaphorical interpretations to avoid the need to take things literally, so why should they focus on transubstantiation as something that should never be taken metaphorically?

Also, the question of this thread wouldn't concern all Christians. It would only concern those who take transubstantiation literally. If a Christian already takes this as a "metaphysical" or "metaphorical" event, then they are already side-stepping any literal transubstantiation. So they would no longer need to defend a literal transubstantiation.

Apparently the vast bulk of Protestants take transubstantiation metaphysically or metaphorically. Because the issue of transubstantiation is typically associated with the Catholic church and seldom bought up in a Protestant context.

As I had said in a previous post, as a Protestant I always view this tradition as being metaphorically symbolic.

Also, for me, "Christ's Blood" was never meant to refer to any literal blood. This reference itself has always been nothing more than a metaphor for the sacrifice of Christ's life to pay for our sins. So the entire "Blood" thing is a metaphor from the get go. The idea that anyone, at any time in history, would actually be required to physically drink the actual blood of Jesus's physical body would never make any sense to me.

Similarly, "Christ's Body", was never meant to refer to the actual physical body of Jesus. This is a also just a metaphor, that represents basically two things. The first being the irrelevance of our earthly existence (i.e. Christ willing to die from his human form), and it also represents his return back into life via the resurrection of his physical body. But the idea that we would actually need to eat the flesh of Jesus' actual physical body would never make sense. At least not to me. Obviously, for some reason, these strict physical interpretations became important to the Catholic Church for some reason. Protestant sects probably not so much.

But if a person doesn't believe in a literal transubstantiation, then this question wouldn't even apply to them. I don't see where speaking of this in terms of "metaphysics" is much different than speaking of it in terms of "metaphorical".

What would be the difference?

And why would it be important to physically (or even metaphysically) drink the actual blood of Jesus' body, or eat his flesh?

For me, before a theologian gets too lost in trying to argue that transubstantiation actually occurs, they would need to first explain to me why they feel so strongly that this would even be necessary.

[historia]

met·a·phys·ics

. . .

meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural.’

Right, this more closely reflects what the term means. The etymology of this word is obviously accidental to its actual meaning.

Perhaps it would help both of us if you would explain what you meant by metaphysical change, and we can go from there.

I'm simply observing that, according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the change that takes place in the Eucharist is in the metaphysical substance of the bread and wine, and not in its physical properties, or accidents, to use the Aristotelian categories employed by Aquinas and subsequent Roman Catholic councils.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 18 by historia]

That's a neat observation, Historia. I'm curious. What do you think happens to the bread and wine?

[Kenisaw]

met·a·phys·ics

. . .

meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural.’

Right, this more closely reflects what the term means. The etymology of this word is obviously accidental to its actual meaning.

The origin of the word meant "‘the things after the Physics". Sounds pretty darn close to the definition you want to use, but if you want to quibble over that, go ahead.

Perhaps it would help both of us if you would explain what you meant by metaphysical change, and we can go from there.

I'm simply observing that, according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the change that takes place in the Eucharist is in the metaphysical substance of the bread and wine, and not in its physical properties, or accidents, to use the Aristotelian categories employed by Aquinas and subsequent Roman Catholic councils.

So the bread and wine have a soul, eh?

I guess I'm simply observing that there is no plausible reason to think anything has an essence.