That the bread has a substance, a “breadiness” that exists in a non-measureable way, and “accidents” which are observeable, physical properties of bread;
That after consecration, the substance of the bread is no longer “breadiness,” but the real body and blood of Christ, while the “accidents” remain identical bread.
No. Because even the most spiritually attuned priests can’t detect the true substance of anything, only its accidents.
As I explained above, there is NO test that will prove or disprove this claim. This is why the claim is properly classified as not falsifiable.
Actually as I understand it he’s designated “Catholics believe this” to be The Truth, not transubstantiation itself. The claim “Catholics believe in transubstantiation, and it takes this form” isn’t vaguely defined, is pretty well supported and taking their word for it (for once) excellent evidence.
Presumably Bricker does believe that transubstantiation, as he knows it, is The Truth. But he’s not asking us to agree with him on that - he’s just asking us to agree that Catholics believe it to be so.
I’m not so sure that’s a good analogy. While people do venerate the flag, i’m not sure anyone would claim that the flag itself is the US in anything other than a metaphorical way. I would say that that flag-burning is more akin to someone burning a cross; it’s destroying something that’s representative of a group or figure, but not the actual group or figure itself.
No. Mathematical claims begin with postulates, certain assumptions which we wimply hold to be true. Further claims build upon those postulates, essentially saying, “If X is true, then Y must also be true.”
Now, the postulates are unfalsifiable, yes. But they nontheless have a more objective basis: they describe a useful model of the world. Euclid postulated that a straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points. That’s accepted without proof, because we can see that it’s a useful model of the world as we understand it. All of Euclidean geometry can be derived from five basic postulates. If they’re true, all of geometry is true, and we assume they are true because we cannot find any counter-examples and because assuming they are true matches all our observations.
Mathematical claims do not belong in the same discussion. It’s true some are non-falsifiable, but there the resemblence ends.
Yeah, I thought of that, but I couldn’t think of anything that really would be analagous. I can’t think of any other religion has something that they believe to literally be God. Not just something that is “sacred,” the Catholics have other such things, but the Eucharist is a whole different level. And I figure it doesn’t really matter, because no one but the Catholics believe the host to be God, anyway. (And people have a very hard time grasping the fact that this really IS what a lot of Catholics believe.) So I thought it was still a good way to try to explain why someone might feel any desecration of the Host is offensive. Putting aside the “true” meaning of the Host…even if it is seen it as only symbolic…it’s going to be insulting to people if it’s harmed. (And of course, add the additional layer on that people really DO think it is literally God, you can imagine how much more passionate those folks might feel.)
Distinguo, my friend. While I am pretty sure you didn’t intend to do so, this post conflates two distinct dogmas.
The Virgin Birth, substantiated by Scriptural passages, says that at the time of Jesus’ birth, and hence all her previous life, Mary had not "known man’, i.e., had sexual relations with anyone. This doctrine is held by traditionalist, orthodox elements in almost every denomination, and underscores in a very poignant way Jesus’s teachings of the First Person of the Trinity as His Father and by adoption ours as well.
The Perpetual Virginity, to which you refer, says that Mary never had sexual relations with anyone during her entire life. It’s held by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Final point, re the Immaculate Conception: I’m pretty sure that Catholic teaching avers that Jesus is Mary’s Savior, same as everyone else’s – but the mode in which He saved her from sin was retroactive, reaching back before his own birth or hers to her conception. God is God – He’s not bothered by prohibitions of ex post facto acts nor by violating temporal causality.
A couple of things - [ul][li]Welcome back, Sarahfeena. I actually know the difference between the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception. Just a pet peeve of mine[/ul][/li]
I don’t know what the difference between “metaphorical” and “the accidents don’t change but it has become the Body and Blood” is.
Lutherans say there is a Real Presence “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. Is that the same thing as transubstantiation? Apparently not, but I could not define the difference. It’s like arguments about the nature of the Trinity - I found out a long time ago that my understanding of the Trinity (Modal Monarchianism, if it matters) was condemned as a heresy in the seventh century AD or thereabouts. But I never figured out what the difference was between that and orthodoxy was, either.
Maybe I can ask my brother-in-law. I found out this morning that he is going to be made a bishop, so that should be authority enough there.
Sarah, after my horrible actions a month or so ago, I hesitate to take issue with you.
However, let me point out that a lot more Christians than just Catholics believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and sweeping comments like “Only Catholics believe that…” are dismissive of their very real faith.
The only thing I meant was that one should be careful not to overrate scientific verifiability/falsifiability because some things are beyond its scope and do not claim to be anything else.
I’m sorry, this is complete ignorance on my part. As far as I have always known, no other religion understands this doctrine the same way as the Catholics. I apologize if this is not so, and I certainly do not mean to dismiss their faith in any way. (Perhaps you could explain more about that? My Lutheran friends have explained the “through, with, and under” to me, but at the same time held that this does NOT equal the “Real Presence” as the Catholics understand it.)
As I understand it, at a minimum, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Orthodox Churches, and the Polish National Church all share the same belief in the Real Presence that the Catholic Church does, with valid apostolic succession and valid orders as well.
I’m glad we agree on that. (I’d say a fairly rudimentary awareness should suffice, but YMMV.)
But by treating the two as comparable, you’re essentially lumping Christianity in with all the other forms of tribalism. If a guy punches out someone who insults his mother, nothing contradictory is going on there. But in the case of someone getting violent to prevent an indignity to a symbol of someone who said to love your enemies, to turn the other cheek, etc. - that is completely antithetical. One can fight to protect innocents from evildoers, but fighting strictly for Christ is waaaaaaaaaay into does-not-compute territory. A Christianity where that isn’t fairly obvious is a Christianity that’s dangerously close to tribalism with vestments.
Let me add, too, that I never meant to imply that, for a non-Catholic, desecrating the Host is or should be a “worse” crime than desecrating any other sacred object. I personally think it would be equally bad for a person to desecrate, say, a Torah scroll. The point I was trying to make was that to someone who doesn’t believe in it anyway, they are desecrating it as a symbol, so to them, whether they smash a statue of a saint, burn a cross, flush the Host down the toilet, it doesn’t matter, it’s all the same message.
Ah, right right right. I usually think of the Orthodox Churches as under the “Catholic” umbrella when I’m talking about this kind of thing, not just “Roman Catholic.” Sorry for the confusion.
The problem with that judgment is that there’s a nuance to Christian belief that’s a bit more complicated than simply, “Turn the other cheek.” The classic example, of course, is Jesus Himself:
There are clearly, then, times when it’s appropriate to NOT turn the other cheek, but to rise up in physical action – and Jesus did this to those who were profaning a physical building, the Temple.
The difference is ***in ***vs is. After transubstantiation, the bread is the body, but simply appears to be bread.
Consubstantiation and sacramental union hold that the bread is still there, but that the Real Presence is interspersed within it. It is both bread and body.
As for the differences between consubstantiation and sacramental union, despite my crack earlier in the thread and my Lutheranism, I’m not sure what the exact difference is. It’s rather subtle.
Communion as symbolism is generally held in the Baptist and Evangelical denominations.
Remember, “substantive” is the opposite of “symbolic”.
That after consecration, the substance of the bread is no longer “breadiness,” but the real body and blood of Christ, while the “accidents” remain identical bread.
[/quote]
But how is “real body and blood of Christ” defined? How is “consecration” defined and how does it function as a process? On what grounds can the substance be declared as no longer bready when all available tests indicate that its substantive breadiness remains 100% intact? Are there any factual, non-controversial examples of consecraton to compare it to? After all, even whacked-out conspiracy theorists can point to certain actual conpiracies as exaples of how such a thing can be real.
What do we call claims that are non-testable and non-falsifiable?
It’s also the truth that the claim is probably not true.
