It may have been; so far as I am aware, however, it’s not a definitive item of belief required for all Catholics. So if a particular person wants to believe in an indestructible hymen, he certainly can, but that’s not the Church’s position.
But there is consecrated bread on the premises, because it’s distributed during the service. I would genuflect with that in mind. I would certainly leave in silence without genuflecting at the end of the service.
NP-Complete?
Nothing in the way of evidence that you can accept, no.
Now, as I hinted earlier, I have had experiences that I know you’re not privy to.
As an analogy, I just saw an ad for “Journey to the Center of the Earth.” If I understand the film’s plot correctly, it postulates a habitable area inside the Earth’s core, with plant and animal life. If someone asserted that there was really such an area, I’d certainly want some sort of solid (no pun intended) evidence that it was so.
But suppose my Center-of-the-Earth friend took me on a journey to this area, and I saw it myself. Now I’m returned to the surface, with no way to repeat the journey I just experienced.
It seems to me that I might simply insist that the Center-of-the-Earth business (hereinafter CotE) was true, because I had seen it, and inveigh against you for not believing me. But that would be ridiculous – after all, you haven’t had the same experience I had. I know it to be true, but my knowledge comes from a source I cannot get you to experience.
So a reasonable position for me to take would be: “Look, I’ve seen it. I know you haven’t, and since I can’t share my experience with you, your position of skepticism on CotE is correct for you to take. But it’s not correct for me to take, because I have additional evidence.”
So – I accept the fact of transubstantiation because I have had an experience that leads me to believe it’s true. But that experience isn’t something you’ve had, and I cannot point to any factual, non-controversial examples of consecration that would be clear to you.
It makes perfect sense for you to say it’s not likely. It isn’t likely to be true, based on your experience. That’s an absolutely correct thing to say.
So…when I said that I couldn’t think of any other religion (other than Catholic/Orthodox) that believes the host IS God, then I wasn’t wrong?
I’ve never been good at understanding these kinds of metaphysical points of doctrine.
Not even close. NP complete refers to algorithmic complexity. Perhaps you mean whether P = NP, but that is certainly falsifiable.
In your room example, say the kid’s parents have just decided, unknown to him, to switch his room with his brother’s. His statement about the room would be false, though this could not be falsified by examining the room.
It is certainly true that claims about the wafer cannot be falsified by examination of the wafer, but if someone invented a time machine and discovered either that Jesus did not exist, or that he was not resurrected, or that he was not the result of a Virgin Birth, etc., wouldn’t that falsify the claim about the wafer?
When I spoke of falsifiability, I meant things that were possible in the real world to accomplish. Yes – if someone invented a time machine and could show that the Last Supper never happened, I agree that such showing would falsify the Church’s claim about the Eucharist.
Which means what, exactly?
Your hypothetical host-flusher can be safely beaten without compunction or further moral and/or legal consequence? Yes or no?
What action, if any, is justified?
(This was the subject of disagreement between me and my extremely-Catholic girlfriend. She was mortally offended by the incident, and tried to defend the goons who attacked the host thief. When I challenged her, she said, no, they don’t have the right to physically attack the guy, but don’t you see how serious this is? I said, I understand they have strong feelings about it, but I return to the original question, what, if any, physical response is justified on their part? And she repeated, well, don’t you see how insulting it is? So it never went anywhere. Which is why I’m asking.)
The problems with that are, it’s a single data point, and Jesus had rather unique standing. There’s really nothing in that story that says when, if ever, it would be appropriate for us to take such level of offense on His behalf.
Catholic doctrine may address this question, and this debate is, AFAIAC, taking RCC doctrine as a given. You’d know more about that than I. But if there is no settled doctrine about this episode as guidance for the faithful, I’d have to say there’s none to be drawn.
In my view, it’s simply a matter of competing harms. Insult shouldn’t be a reason for physical attack.
So – it would be justified to tell him, strongly, he’s doing the wrong thing, but no beating.
It’s threads like this one that make me realize that even though I come from a Catholic culture – I’m not religious myself – and even though I’ve studied in a Catholic high school and had to take religious education classes, I, as well as the people around me, know very little about many points of Catholic doctrine. So I have a few questions, which I guess are more on the GQ side.
-
Would you say that most Catholics in the United States know about and/or believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and other specifically Catholic doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception? How about other countries with a majority or minority of Catholics?
-
How did the doctrine of Transubstantiation develop? Who first had the idea that something that seems quite hard to grasp, even philosophically, must be true?
Well, as long as not having had this experience doesn’t land me in Hell. 
By the way, I’ve noticed that this is my 1134[sup]th[/sup] post. :eek:
Since we’re discussing about the Immaculate Conception, I’ve a question that bothered me for a long time :
Why is this doctrine important, exactly?
Apparently, it caused heated debates within the Catholic Church for a long time, and in particular during the 19th century. Rome thought it was important enough to engage the infallibility of the Pope on this issue, it was made an article of faith, and the virgin Mary herself seemed to be concerned enough to make an official statement when she appeared at Lourdes (which in my atheist view translates as : even barely literate teenagers in small French towns were well aware of the controversy and had an opinion on the matter)
Still, even though I understand why it would seem more suitable for Jesus to grow in a sinless womb, I fail to understand why it has been deemed so important. Does somebody have a clue?
Specifically, NP-Complete problems are those that we can’t verify if an answer is correct or not in a reasonable amount of time. They are also the fundamental NP problems. IE, all NP problems can be restated in terms of NP-Complete problems. So if we are ever able to verify solutions to NP-Complete problems in a reasonable amount of time, then we can do so for all NP problems…
I thought this was a rather clever analogy to the ‘testable’ nature of religion. We don’t know how to do it now, but if we can develop a single algorithm to verify a single answer that religion gives us, then maybe we can essentially verify them all.
I also liked it because it plays on the attitude that everything about science and math is testable. But it isn’t. There are lots of things that we feel reasonable certain about, but have no way of proving an answer, or even if an answer is exists…
But like they say, it’s a fine line between clever and stupid.
The root source is from the Gospels, Matthew 26:26 (and equivalent passages in the other gospels). If we assume that Jesus was speaking true (as, of course, Christians do), then this at least implies that, in some sense difficult for humans to understand, the bread and wine did in fact become the literal Body and Blood, on that occasion, at least. The Aristotelian distinction between “substance” and “accident” provides a philosophical framework for describing what happened at the Last Supper, but had that framework not already been developed by Aristotle, then the devout would have had to come up with some sort of similar philosophical framework.
If this applies, if you personally have had experiences that verify the meaty nature of transubstantiated bread, then isn’t it the case that that nature is falsifiable, by definition?
I mean, I can’t prove to you lot over the internet that my car exists. But I’m pretty sure that the existence of my car remains falsifiable nonetheless, objectively speaking.
Surely the same thing applies to your transubstantiated bread experiences - if you can know that the bread you’re given is transubstantiated, then surely a test could be made, even if it required you to be a part of it.
It’s hard to say.
A great many items that seem, at first blush, to be of relatively minor importance were nontheless a matter of heated debate and criss-crossing cries of heresy over the history of the Church. Was Jesus identical in substance to God the Father, or merely similar? Was the Holy Spirit divine? Equally divine? How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall?
No. My experience merely suggests that the story is true; it doesn’t bear directly on the issue. I can’t experience any differnce between concescrated Host and unconsecrated bread.
These are honest questions not meant to mock, but I’m not that familiar with the Catholic mass.
In no particular order:
When is the host raised in the service? By which I mean- is this done before the wafers are distributed/is the wafer consecrated when given to the person?
Is it important that the same (for lack of a better word and I mean no disrespect) “recipe” be used for the wafers? Should they always be made of flour/water? In, say, a military or siege situation where white flour isn’t available, could a priest consecrate a piece of light bread or a cookie even?
Do most modern Catholics believe in transubstantiation or do they believe it’s symbolic?
Is it true that “hocus pocus” comes from vernacularization of “hoc est corpus meum”?
Ah yes, this verse. I remember it being read at Mass, before Communion, but at the time I didn’t know that Catholics were supposed to believe that the bread actually becomes the body of Christ. I think I figured that out on the Internet, possibly even on this board. I guess it makes sense, though, if we take the Bible as literally and not only symbolically true. I must admit that “take this and eat it, for it is my body” is something very odd to say while serving food to friends, so if Jesus said it, it must have meant something.
Thanks!