Do modern Roman Catholics still believe in Transubstantiation?

LordSutch

Well, do you?

I am curious to know if many modern RC's still believe in transubstantiation, or do they tend to take the more Protestant view which has always said that the sacrements are taken in a symbolic way, rather than a literal way (real blood, and real flesh)! Is Rome's teaching still gospel in the RC Church, or has RC teaching become more Protestant in its thinking? Personally I think of the sacrements as purely symbolic, but I respect fully those RCs who truly believe in transubstantiation, for that is their belief which must be respected 100%.

The Quadratic Equation

Yes we do.

Only the physical properties of the bread and wine remain, in all other respects, including the metaphysical, it is the body and blood of Christ.

For us, The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life"

By this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body

The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection. It is the Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering.



http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIa

From the Gospel of John, Chapter 6

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him

tommy2bad

Good question LordSutch,

Is Rome's teaching still gospel in the RC Church,

Well yes thats why it called the roman catholic church.
And yes Transubstantiation is still the official teaching, not much dissension their.
How well its understood or subscribed to by the avg RC in the pews, is another matter.
I for one adopt a 'take em at their word' attitude, if their right, great! and if wrong so what?
It's not anything that affects real life anyway. Unlike some teachings, you know the ones I mean and lets not go their, this one is a matter of belief, no evidence is ever going to be possible.

Only the physical properties of the bread and wine remain, in all other respects, including the metaphysical, it is the body and blood of Christ

Apart from the metaphysical in what other respects can it change?

kelly1

Yes!!!

Onesimus

Here are some recent miracles of the Eucharist.

tommy2bad

Onesimus wrote: »

Here are some recent miracles of the Eucharist.

With jam, yum yum.
Eh, care to give a bit more than the pics which are nice enough but not that informative.
BTW did they use that host?

Spacedog

tommy2bad wrote: »

With jam, yum yum.
Eh, care to give a bit more than the pics which are nice enough but not that informative.
BTW did they use that host?

ugh, hope not, probably get Hep C off it or something!

tommy2bad

I duno that their would be holy blood, might cure rather than kill.
I have no idea where those pics come from but google fu comes up with this interesting snippet.

The church of Carmel was formed by Eugene Vintras, the foreman of a cardboard box factory Tillysur-Seulles. In 1839 Vintras said he received a letter from the archangel Michael, followed by visions, of the archangel, the holy ghost, St.Joseph and the virgin Mary. He was informed that he was the reincarnated prophet Elijah, and he was to found a new religious order and proclaim the coming of the age of the holy ghost. The true king of France, he was told, was one Charles Naundorf.

Vintras went about the countryside preaching this news and acquiring followers, including priests. Masses were celebrated that included visions of empty chalices filled with blood stains on the Eucharist. By 1848 the church of Carmel, as the movement was known, was condemned by the pope. In 1851 Vintras was accused by a former disciple of conducting black masses in the nude, homosexuality and masturbating while praying at the alter.

Shattered Dreamer

I was raised RC but I've always found Transubstantiation was a hard pill to swallow (pardon the pun). I've always thought even from an early age that the bread & wine were meant to be symbolic of the body & blood of Jesus Christ, & a very power symbol at that. I have similar problems with Jesus ascending to heaven body & soul. Tends to contradict the whole Jesus was a God in human form idea.

Those pictures gross number 1 & number 2 it looks like jam. That makes me a doubting Thomas as my Mother would say :pac:

tommy2bad

Tends to contradict the whole Jesus was a God in human form idea.

Its more Jesus was human and God rather than God in disguise.

Shattered Dreamer

tommy2bad wrote: »

Its more Jesus was human and God rather than God in disguise.

But a human leaves behind a corpse. I don't get why finding the remains of Christ would be such a deal breaker for most Christians. Jesus was a great man who thought mankind a great deal & even though I don't practice Catholicism any more Christ's teaching have still had a very positive influence on my life.

tommy2bad

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

But a human leaves behind a corpse. I don't get why finding the remains of Christ would be such a deal breaker for most Christians. Jesus was a great man who thought mankind a great deal & even though I don't practice Catholicism any more Christ's teaching have still had a very positive influence on my life.

Thats fine, for me it would be the deal breaker.
If Christ didn't rise from the dead the whole house of cards tumbles.
I might as well follow John Lennon or Ghandi or any number of others who gave the same message "all you need is love"

LordSutch

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

I was raised RC but I've always found Transubstantiation was a hard pill to swallow (pardon the pun). I've always thought even from an early age that the bread & wine were meant to be symbolic of the body & blood of Jesus Christ, & a very power symbol at that.

So, as a RC you were taught that the communion was purely symbolic (ala Protestant teaching)! This I find very interresting because as far as I am aware, this whole question is one of the fundamental differences between the two branches of the Christian Church. Rome teaches that the bread & wine actually become real blood & real flesh during communion, while the Protestant Churches say that the sacraments are to be taken symbolically, so can you really be a RC and not believe in transubstantiation?

tommy2bad

so can you really be a RC and not believe in transubstantiation?

No. But

Fr Ted; "That's the great thing about Catholicism - it's very vague and no-one knows what its really all about."

lmaopml

I think very many Catholics understand the real presence as opposed to a symbolic supper LordSutch - which are perhaps more commonly understood terms.

I agree that the term 'Transubstantiation' can sound very imposing, there are other terms that Christians use too 'Consubstantiation' for instance to explain the real presence in Christianity

It's not really as hard to understand as one may first think - there are some very good explanations of the Mass and also of the miracle of the Eucharist, for Catholics to understand, or indeed anybody who is left wondering what the heck transubstantiation means..lol...

I found this one helpful, for anybody not quite sure what Mass is about from a Catholic perspective...and why Catholics hold the very real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as something pretty special...

http://catholicism.org/eucharist-mysteries.html

Peregrinus

In Catholic understanding, a sacrament both symbolizes, and makes real that which it symbolizes.

So, for Catholics, does the Eucharist symbolize the body and blood of Jesus? Yes, but it doesn’t just symbolize them; it also makes them real.

Do Catholics believe in transubstantiation? Well, most of them probably don’t understand transubstantiation. And who would blame them? The teaching on transubstantiation, which was formally defined in the late 16th century but which is, of course, much older than that, seeks to explain the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist employing philosophical concepts borrowed from Aristotle. Aristotle used these concepts to consider the nature of things generally, and at one time this language was pretty much the state of the art as far as natural philosophy went.

However, in the four hundred years or so since then, we have ceased to use these concepts. Scientists and philosophers no longer find them useful as tools with which to examine the nature of things.

The result is that to explain the Real Presence in terms of transubstantiation is at best unhelpful, since this is to explain the Real Presence in terms which most people are not familiar with, have never seen used in any other context, and therefore have great difficulty in understanding. In fact, it’s often worse than unhelpful; it’s positively misleading, since it employs terms like “substance” which we do[\i] use today - but with a completely different meaning. So, while it’s true to say that the Catholic church teaches that Christ is “substantially” present in the Eucharist, in the sense that Aristotle used the term “substantial”, it doesn’t teach that Christ is “substantially” present in the Eucharist, in the very different in which modern English speakers use the term “substantial”. You can see how this can give rise to confusion.

So, do Catholics believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist? Yes, absolutely. (Or, at least, the Catholic church definitely teaches that. Obviously there could be Catholics who don’t accept it.) But that’s not a physical reality. Apart from the Aristotelian language of transubstantiation, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is authoritatively described by the church as “spiritual” or “sacramental”, but never as “physical” because, physically, the Eucharist bread and wine are, well, bread and wine.

What Catholicism is really claiming here is that there is a reality which is deeper and more profound that the merely physical reality, and it’s at that deeper level that we really encounter Christ in the eucharist. That’s a pretty challenging assertion to the modern mind which views molecules and atoms and subatomic particles as the fundamental reality of all material things.

Shattered Dreamer

Peregrinus wrote: »

What Catholicism is really claiming here is that there is a reality which is deeper and more profound that the merely physical reality, and it’s at that deeper level that we really encounter Christ in the eucharist. That’s a pretty challenging assertion to the modern mind which views molecules and atoms and subatomic particles as the fundamental reality of all material things.

So basically it's still symbolic only at a deeper more meaningful level then what Protestants believe is basically what you're saying when you remove the whole Catholic vagueness.

To though in fairness I think it's not what you believe happens during the Eucharist but it is that you appreciate the symbol of "taking in" for want of a better phrase, a piece of Jesus Christ into yourself. It really is a very beautiful piece of Christian symbolism & makes me think what a sham it is my faith in the Catholic church is almost 100% gone

I still have faith in Christ because as my grandmother, Lord have mercy on her, used to say "People who do not believe in our Lord live an empty life"

Peregrinus

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

So basically it's still symbolic only at a deeper more meaningful level then what Protestants believe is basically what you're saying when you remove the whole Catholic vagueness.

No, it's not just symbolic. It doesn't just point to the body and blood of Christ; it really is the body and blood of Christ. But at a deeper, more meaningful level of reality than the merely physical.

The issue here is what you think “real” means. In the modern world, we share an unspoken and unexamined (and unproven) assumption that the ultimate reality is physical and that, ultimately, what a thing is is determined by the atom and molecules and so forth to which it can be reduced. But there is no reason why we should believe this (and certainly no scientific reason). We could also take the view that, ultimately, what a thing is determined by what it does (its function) or what it is for (its purpose) or what it signifies (its meaning), or that all of these and more need to be taken into account to understand the reality of a thing. What Catholicism asserts here is that things have a deeper reality which underlies the purely physical reality. You may not accept that, but it’s not accurate to reduce it to symbolism.

FISMA

LordSutch wrote: »

I am curious to know if many modern RC's still believe in transubstantiation

Yes.

LordSutch wrote: »

or do they tend to take the more Protestant view.

No.

LordSutch wrote: »

(real blood, and real flesh)!

If you tell what it is to be "real," I will tell you whether transubstantiation is real or not.

Here's my way of thinking.

Once upon a time there was a lad name Einstein who said

E = mc²

"c" is just the speed of light, it is a constant. In mathematics, you can remove a constant and the equal sign and replace the two with a proportionality sign "" - the fish like symbol.

Thus,

E m

Einstein and the Physics community will be quick to point out the mass - energy equivalence herein.

That's the way I look at transubstantiation, not from a mass perspective, but from that of energy.

You're viewing Jesus from a classical standpoint, Physics wise, as just a particle(s), not energy, or a wave.

Any relativistic physicist or quantum physicist will lecture you on the difficulty of getting mass from A to B. But energy, that's a whole other story. It's literally, out of this word!:D

Kind of makes you wonder if Jesus meant it a bit more literal when he said;

I am the light of this world.

:rolleyes:

Shattered Dreamer

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it's not just symbolic. It doesn't just point to the body and blood of Christ; it really is the body and blood of Christ. But at a deeper, more meaningful level of reality than the merely physical.

The issue here is what you think “real” means. In the modern world, we share an unspoken and unexamined (and unproven) assumption that the ultimate reality is physical and that, ultimately, what a thing is is determined by the atom and molecules and so forth to which it can be reduced. But there is no reason why we should believe this (and certainly no scientific reason). We could also take the view that, ultimately, what a thing is determined by what it does (its function) or what it is for (its purpose) or what it signifies (its meaning), or that all of these and more need to be taken into account to understand the reality of a thing. What Catholicism asserts here is that things have a deeper reality which underlies the purely physical reality. You may not accept that, but it’s not accurate to reduce it to symbolism.

You're talking about "heaven" when you refer to a reality beyond our own right? There is far too much in this world science cannot explain for there not to be a higher plan of existence. I don't see the problem with the Eucharist just being a symbol, symbols have been a very power medium to the mankind as a whole for a long time.

Oh & FISMA, Einstein is irrelevant at this point, he's been proven wrong!

Peregrinus

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

You're talking about "heaven" when you refer to a reality beyond our own right?

No, wrong. Reread my stuff; I don't talk about "a reality beyond our own" at all. I talk about a reality beyond the physical.

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

There is far too much in this world science cannot explain for there not to be a higher plan of existence. I don't see the problem with the Eucharist just being a symbol, symbols have been a very power medium to the mankind as a whole for a long time.

You understand the eucharist as just being a symbol. I get that, and that's fine. I have no desire to change your mind.

All I'm saying is that the Catholic view, which is what the OP asks about, is definitely that the eucharist is not just a symbol. It is absolutely and fundamentally real.

Shattered Dreamer

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, wrong. Reread my stuff; I don't talk about "a reality beyond our own" at all. I talk about a reality beyond the physical.

Is a reality beyond our own not the same as a reality beyond the physical? Sorry I'm confused

Peregrinus wrote: »

You understand the eucharist as just being a symbol. I get that, and that's fine. I have no desire to change your mind.

All I'm saying is that the Catholic view, which is what the OP asks about, is definitely that the eucharist is not just a symbol. It is absolutely and fundamentally real.

I appreciate you're not trying to change my opinion I'm just curious about this whole the Eucharist being beyond a symbol to being absolutely and fundamentally real. I've always found difficult to wrap my mind around as in the story from the Bible I think having heard the story a lot is that Christ was just being metaphorical & meant the Eucharist to be a powerful spiritual symbol but the Jews thought he was advocating cannibalism & blaspheming against God & had Jesus crucified (although I get that the crucifixion was all part of God's wider plan).

tommy2bad

Einstein is irrelevant at this point, he's been proven wrong!

Wouldn't bet on that.

Is a reality beyond our own not the same as a reality beyond the physical? Sorry I'm confused

Not beyond the physical, part of the physical beyond our comprehension.
The physical is the perceptive part of the 'thing' What the 'thing' is, is defined as much by what it dose, what it means and what it symbolizes. Change an attribute and you change the 'thing' in reality.

Shattered Dreamer

tommy2bad wrote: »

Wouldn't bet on that.

Cern got the same result from the experiment a second time & a group of Japanese scientist are about to attempt same. If they get the same results as Cern did then Einstein's theory goes out the window.


Not beyond the physical, part of the physical beyond our comprehension.
The physical is the perceptive part of the 'thing' What the 'thing' is, is defined as much by what it dose, what it means and what it symbolizes. Change an attribute and you change the 'thing' in reality.[/QUOTE]

Ah okay thanks:)

tommy2bad

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

Cern got the same result from the experiment a second time & a group of Japanese scientist are about to attempt same. If they get the same results as Cern did then Einstein's theory goes out the window.


Not beyond the physical, part of the physical beyond our comprehension.
The physical is the perceptive part of the 'thing' What the 'thing' is, is defined as much by what it dose, what it means and what it symbolizes. Change an attribute and you change the 'thing' in reality.

Ah okay thanks:)[/QUOTE]

Glad I helped, Its a concept thats hard to grasp and harder to accept. but I think its a nice way to look at things and dose no harm.

Want to put some money on the neutrino thing?
Might want to read this first though.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

Peregrinus

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

Is a reality beyond our own not the same as a reality beyond the physical?

No, not necessarily. Look at it this way.

What makes, say, a pebble a pebble is the fact that it’s made of granite (or limestone, or whatever), rounded by (usually) friction from other pebbles caused by the action of flowing water. Now, that’s a purely physical account of a pebble – the physical material, the physical process - which seems to us to be quite sufficient.

But what makes a tin opener a tin opener? It’s very difficult to give a meaningful, useful, accurate account of what a tin opener really is without mentioning that its purpose is to open tins. The reality of “tin opener”, therefore, for us includes not only what it’s made of – aluminium, typically – and its shape, but also its purpose. And that suggests that a purely physical account of reality isn’t always good enough for us; we find it incomplete.

Similarly, a purely physical account of the Mona Lisa, describing the canvas, the layers of paint, etc strikes us as incomplete unless it also mentions what the Mona Lisa means. You need to say that it’s a painting of a woman – when we see it, we see the face of a woman. And calling it the painting of a woman also makes a statement about the intention or purpose of the creator of the work. So, even more clearly, in the Mona Lisa we have a thing whose reality cannot be fully accounted for in purely physical terms; we have to discuss meaning and intention as well.

And then ask yourself about the reality of something completely abstract – truth, say, or love, or dignity. Now, you could deny that truth has any reality, and in fact some people do say exactly this. But others will say that the mere fact that it’s abstract doesn’t prevent truth from being a real thing. And if you’re going to offer an account of what truth (or love, or dignity, or justice, or fairness, or malice, or . . .) really is, it’ll obviously have to be an entirely non-physical account, since none of these things have any physical reality at all.

Once we get that far, we’ve already accepted that there are things that are real, but not physically real (or only partly physically real). And note that we’ve got this far without invoking any theistic, or religious, or supernatural assumptions or beliefs. None of these are realities “beyond our own”. The reality of a tin opener, or a painting, or an idea, is reality of the kind that we all experience every day.

Right. Now imagine Christians (and members of a number of other religions) thinking about what reality is. Christians belief that everything that exists was intentionally created by God, and for a purpose, so that for anything a full account of reality has to embrace the reason why, and the purpose for which, that thing was created and is held in existence. If you don’t include this, then you only have a partial account of the reality of that thing.

So, in the Eucharist, in the Catholic view, the physical reality of bread and wine is not changed at all, but that doesn’t mean that other aspects of its reality are also unchanged. Traditionally Catholics have focussed very strongly on the purpose or destiny of a thing as an important part of what it really is, and you can see the Eucharist as the bread and wine being called to a new destiny by God (the new destiny being incorporation into the Body of Christ) and therefore given a new reality and a lot of theologians – including the present pope – have said something along these lines.

But in fact formal Catholic teaching is not specific about this; the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is officially described as “spiritual”, “sacramental” and even “mysterious”. And the last word there is probably key. Authoritative Catholic teaching asserts that there is a real change in the bread and wine and even asserts that, if Aristotelian language is used, this can be called a “substantial” change. But it doesn’t go any further than that. So, in the end, Catholic teaching isn’t specific and exhaustive about how the reality of the bread and wine is changed; it merely states that it definitely is changed.

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

I appreciate you're not trying to change my opinion I'm just curious about this whole the Eucharist being beyond a symbol to being absolutely and fundamentally real. I've always found difficult to wrap my mind around as in the story from the Bible I think having heard the story a lot is that Christ was just being metaphorical & meant the Eucharist to be a powerful spiritual symbol but the Jews thought he was advocating cannibalism & blaspheming against God & had Jesus crucified (although I get that the crucifixion was all part of God's wider plan).

There’s nothing in the gospels, or the New Testament, to suggest that Christ, or his followers, understood the eucharist to be just a symbol. There is evidence that at least some of the Jews he spoke to misunderstood what he meant (or simply couldn’t understand it but definitely didn’t like the sound of it). But (a) I don’t think that particular misunderstanding played much role in his crucifixion; it was more his claims about who he himself was that got him into trouble. And (b) if they did misunderstand him about the eucharist, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he intended that the eucharist be purely symbolic.

The early Christian church seems to have taken the eucharist extremely seriously, and pretty much as soon as they began to articulate a theological understanding of what they were doing when they celebrated the eucharist, they professed a belief in the real presence. The “purely symbolic” understanding seems to be a distinctly modern one, arising only with the Protestant reformation, and – no surprise here – it arises at the same time as the typically modern view that physical reality is the ultimate reality.

tommy2bad

arising only with the Protestant reformation, and – no surprise here – it arises at the same time as the typically modern view that physical reality is the ultimate reality.

Indeed, do you suppose that as we move past the Newtonian view of reality we might see a more mystical protestantism or will it all become new age hand wavey spiritualism ?

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can see how this can give rise to confusion.

And if your interpretation of the teachings of the Church is correct it is not a small number of people thus confused either. When PZ Myers instigated the "crackergate" incident the comments on his blog and the emails he and his college received for months afterwards... and to a certain lower extent still do... suggest they believe in a very real change.

Some recent stories in the media also suggest that a number of such people think that, if dropped, these bits of bread can be injured and bleed.

I myself currently posses quite a number of both consecrated and not versions and have experimented on them to try and falsify the claims of those who think there is a very real change in them. I have ripped, torn, burned, punctured, melted, eaten, dissolved, decayed, dropped, catapulted, electrocuted and more crackers of both types and documented all the results in papers that now sit gathering dust on my bedroom wall at home in Dublin, and can report literally no detectable difference whatsoever between the groups.

But I also get emails and messages from people who act like I not just have some bits of bread, but to them I have a literal piece of their lord. I get emails asking how I would feel if they "kidnapped my mother" showing they literally think the actions equivalent.... that of my current possession of a drawer of these things... and that of detaining a citizen forcefully and illegally against their will. Nor is the history of what has been done to people or groups accused of Host Desecration being a pleasant or proud set of moments for our species.

So whatever the actual teachings are of the church, they probably should be doing a greater work at clarifying that. I know if I was running a club and a relatively large % of my members were misunderstanding the rules, I would spend an equally relatively large amount of time trying to educate them otherwise. Yet when I have had cause to be in a church I do not hear the priest espousing what the change actually is, nor do I see mention of it in the parish newsletters, nor do I find information pamphlets on the subject standing inside the door. What issues of "Messanger" magazine which shows up in our porch in Dublin on occasion I have read have not mentioned it either (but of course I have not read every issue so maybe someone can point to something I have missed).

One is moved to wonder if there is some material or tactical advantage in allowing the confusion on the issue to continue which prevents them being clearer on it.

sbsquarepants

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

. I know if I was running a club and a relatively large % of my members were misunderstanding the rules, I would spend an equally relatively large amount of time trying to educate them otherwise. .

But if by explaining the rules, you caused the majority of your club members to realise they had no business being in your club in the first place, and therefore they better start paying their membership fees to a rival club, you possibly wouldn't be so quick to explain!

Shattered Dreamer

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But if by explaining the rules, you caused the majority of your club members to realise they had no business being in your club in the first place, and therefore they better start paying their membership fees to a rival club, you possibly wouldn't be so quick to explain!

Believing in something but not understanding what you believe in is stupid. Blind devotion to something gets you no where!

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And if your interpretation of the teachings of the Church is correct it is not a small number of people thus confused either. When PZ Myers instigated the "crackergate" incident the comments on his blog and the emails he and his college received for months afterwards... and to a certain lower extent still do... suggest they believe in a very real change.

Yes. But, as I have been emphasising, the Catholic church does teach that there is a very real change.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Some recent stories in the media also suggest that a number of such people think that, if dropped, these bits of bread can be injured and bleed.

Some people do think that. But I think most Catholics know from their own experience that this is not the case.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I myself currently posses quite a number of both consecrated and not versions and have experimented on them to try and falsify the claims of those who think there is a very real change in them. I have ripped, torn, burned, punctured, melted, eaten, dissolved, decayed, dropped, catapulted, electrocuted and more crackers of both types and documented all the results in papers that now sit gathering dust on my bedroom wall at home in Dublin, and can report literally no detectable difference whatsoever between the groups.

Tactful as ever, nozz. But I think these experiments are of little value. You are using physical processes to look for physical change, and not finding any. Catholic teaching is that there is no physical change. If the outcome of your experiment establishes anything at all, it confirms Catholic teaching.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I also get emails and messages from people who act like I not just have some bits of bread, but to them I have a literal piece of their lord. I get emails asking how I would feel if they "kidnapped my mother" showing they literally think the actions equivalent.... that of my current possession of a drawer of these things... and that of detaining a citizen forcefully and illegally against their will. Nor is the history of what has been done to people or groups accused of Host Desecration being a pleasant or proud set of moments for our species.

Obviously I can’t account for the people who send you these e-mails.

But I could hazard a guess.

You’ll be aware, I think, that people who believe in these eucharistic miracles regard them as, well, miraculous. That is to say, they see them as exceptional supernatural interventions into what would otherwise be the course of events. One of the characteristics of these miracles is that they do not occur reliably or predictably. They don’t observe natural laws because they are not natural events.

Even the slow-witted can see that this makes your experiments, at best, pointless. If these miracles don’t occur predictably, then nothing can be deduced from their failure to occur under controlled conditions. This outcome is equally consistent with the eucharistic miracles occurring as claimed, and with their not occurring at all, ever. The fundamental silliness of attempting to use the techniques of natural science to test postulates about the supernatural is as evident to everyone else as it is to you.

And this, I fear, may give rise to the unworthy suspicion that your experiments are not in truth designed to increase the sum of human knowledge but simply to give gratuitous offence. And that suspicion can only be increased by the ingenious variety of destructive techniques you have employed to such little purpose, and perhaps even by your choice of the word “cracker” when someone genuinely seeking to display the impartiality and open-mindedness of the scientist would employ a more value-neutral (and indeed accurate) term such as “wafer”.

You can understand, I imagine, how such a perception on the part of your correspondents might colour the tone of their e-mails to you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So whatever the actual teachings are of the church, they probably should be doing a greater work at clarifying that. I know if I was running a club and a relatively large % of my members were misunderstanding the rules, I would spend an equally relatively large amount of time trying to educate them otherwise. Yet when I have had cause to be in a church I do not hear the priest espousing what the change actually is, nor do I see mention of it in the parish newsletters, nor do I find information pamphlets on the subject standing inside the door. What issues of "Messanger" magazine which shows up in our porch in Dublin on occasion I have read have not mentioned it either (but of course I have not read every issue so maybe someone can point to something I have missed).

One is moved to wonder if there is some material or tactical advantage in allowing the confusion on the issue to continue which prevents them being clearer on it.

I doubt that, to be honest. A claim that there is a physical change in the bread and wine is evidently preposterous to most people of ordinary powers of observation, and this can only be a barrier to their acceptance of Catholicism. Indeed, Catholic eucharistic teaching is so regularly parodied by atheists and others in precisely these terms that it’s very hard to see it conferring any competitive advantage on the church.

Peregrinus

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed, do you suppose that as we move past the Newtonian view of reality we might see a more mystical protestantism or will it all become new age hand wavey spiritualism ?

I think you could make a good case that we're already seeing both of these things.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But, as I have been emphasising, the Catholic church does teach that there is a very real change.

Some people do think that. But I think most Catholics know from their own experience that this is not the case.

YOU have been emphasizing that but I am not talking about you. I am talking about the number of people who, if your claims are correct about what the actual teaching is, are clearly very confused. I think it is more than you give credit for too. I would like to see some results of actual studies done on it to be sure but am not aware of any. I think we will both be surprised by how many people actually think there is a real physical change and certainly there appears to be no attempts made to divest them of such notions.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tactful as ever, nozz. But I think these experiments are of little value. You are using physical processes to look for physical change, and not finding any.

I am not sure what tact has to do with the evaluating of claims, nor where my post had any, lacked any or required any. My point is tact neutral, or are you just trying to get a personal dig in unwarranted?

Also since I made it very clear in the post that my experiments were directed at those who claim there is an actual physical change, it is a bit poor to dismiss the experiments for only dealing with physical changes is it not? That is exactly what they were designed for. They were specifically targeted at those people (not you apparently) who actually do think there is a very real physical literal change here.

If you read the link too you would have found that I very clearly said in it "I limit my inquiry only to those who claim a literal transformation."

Though I did do a few experiments, some but not all of them mentioned in the link, on non-physical things such as changes in luck, mood or priest abilities to detect differences between the two.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the outcome of your experiment establishes anything at all, it confirms Catholic teaching.

I am not sure how given the catholic teaching you are claiming is essentially saying nothing at all. It is a bit hand wavey and saying essentially "I am going to change this by not changing anything at all and it is going to seem in every way exactly the same as before... but rest assured it is changed.... honest."

Vague non-claims of THAT sort are not confirmable (a price they are likely willing to pay) and entirely un-falsifiable (a price I imagine they very much are happy with). It reminds me of Rev. Brian D'arcy saying of the plans for reducing alcohol limits for driving "I don't like to use the word wine, as it is Christ's blood in the Eucharist -- but it still has all the characteristics of wine when in the blood stream."

tommy2bad

Vague non-claims of THAT sort are not confirmable (a price they are likely willing to pay) and entirely un-falsifiable (a price I imagine they very much are happy with).

Thats why it called faith.

but it still has all the characteristics of wine when in the blood stream.

Its a relationship thing. Your wifes wedding ring is pawnable for 50 quid before and after the wedding but would she see the same value on a ring you gave her on your wedding day and the exact same ring if you never had been married?

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thats why it called faith.

Not sure that clarifies anything but thanks anyway.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Its a relationship thing. Your wifes wedding ring is pawnable for 50 quid before and after the wedding but would she see the same value on a ring you gave her on your wedding day and the exact same ring if you never had been married?

You are talking about symbolic value which is entirely different. I am talking about those who think there has been an ACTUAL change to the object in question. The value in your analogy is merely a change in personal perspective and the symbolic value of the object. The change being talked about on this thread by some is a lot more than symbolic.

If the change being claimed was simply symbolic I would never have posted at all, despite being asked in PM to come and comment on this thread by someone. It is clear however that many claim an actual real change, and a sub set of them think it is a physical change which if they were right should be detectable.

Also if it was purely symbolic then the people writing to me would not be comparing my possession of such object to kidnapping and my experimenting on such objects to torture, which although I can only ask you to take my word for it which you are welcome not to do, people very much are mailing me periodically and saying.... and if you read the PZ Myers "Crackergate" thread you will see in the comments people there do too.

tommy2bad

You are talking about symbolic value which is entirely different.

No i was using symbolism to try to articulate the depth of feeling people have for something that seems the same but also seems different. Whos to say that the difference is symbolic i.e. only of value for what it represents, a sign post. Or that the difference is real i.e. the thing itself is now different from what it was before.
You accept that the change cant be measured physically but then insist on physical proof or that we change the claim to restrict it to what can be proven physically.
I chose the marriage symbolism because it not just about hard physics, faith is a relationship. More than the hard measurable facts are involved and need expression.
Hand wavie as that may be.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

No i was using symbolism to try to articulate the depth of feeling people have for something that seems the same but also seems different.

But again that is nothing to do with what I am talking about. The ring SEEMS different, yes. The claim here is that the food and drink not just seems different but IS different.

tommy2bad wrote: »

You accept that the change cant be measured physically but then insist on physical proof or that we change the claim to restrict it to what can be proven physically.

Not sure where I insisted on any such thing? Can you quote where I said it? I never once insisted anything be changed. I insisted that they clarify what they mean to the number of people who according to Peregrinus have misunderstood it.

tommy2bad

Not sure where I insisted on any such thing? Can you quote where I said it? I never once insisted anything be changed.

Ahhh misrepresented this then, my bad as the kids say.

Vague non-claims of THAT sort are not confirmable (a price they are likely willing to pay) and entirely un-falsifiable (a price I imagine they very much are happy with).

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ahhh misrepresented this then, my bad as the kids say.

Not a problem.

sbsquarepants

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

Believing in something but not understanding what you believe in is stupid. Blind devotion to something gets you no where!

Couldn't agree more. The truth is probably the majority of the worlds population that claim to be of any specific religion, couldn't really tell you what the exact teachings of that religion are on a whole host of subjects. The majority of so called catholics, i would say, don't even know what transubstantiation is. They just know they're catholic, not protestant!
You gotta love irony!

nozzferrahhtoo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. The truth is probably the majority of the worlds population that claim to be of any specific religion, couldn't really tell you what the exact teachings of that religion are on a whole host of subjects. The majority of so called catholics, i would say, don't even know what transubstantiation is. They just know they're catholic, not protestant!
You gotta love irony!

I would expect you to be right in this given a lot of what I have read and experienced. It seems many people who claim to be of a religion know very little about said religion.

The bible is a great example of this. I am constantly aghast at the number of people who claim they think there is a god and the Bible is the book written and/or endorsed by this god... yet they have not even bothered to read it once, let alone study it.

This coupled with the fact Atheist Ireland were moved to start a "Read the Bible Campaign" and studies recently mentioned on these very forums showing atheists know more about things like the Bible than do the actual theists.

My own experience is no less comical, when I show the bible to some theists they are shocked at how big it is. They have heard the same select hand picked stories over and over in church and school so often they were convinced they had heard the whole book, it was only about 100 pages long, and there was no need to read it for themselves because they have had it all read to them over and over before. The relative monstrous size of it when compared to their preconceptions is literally shocking to some of them.

So although I do not know enough about the actual CC teachings on the subject of this thread to know if Peregrinus is right... or whether he is just another believer espousing what HE thinks it is all about but is just as wrong as the next man.... I would not be surprised at all to find out he is on the money and many many other people are horrifically confused on the topic.... or have not bothered to find out either way.

Shocking to me that if one really thinks there is a god that powerful, with that much say in where you will end up for eternity.... one would expect one would actually attempt to learn a few things about it.

All I know is that I have seen through PZ Myers and my own Blog entry about my study of the bread in question that there are a not insignificant number of people out there who really do think there is a material change there, even in the face of my inability to measure a single one.

Benny_Cake

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My own experience is no less comical, when I show the bible to some theists they are shocked at how big it is. They have heard the same select hand picked stories over and over in church and school so often they were convinced they had heard the whole book, it was only about 100 pages long, and there was no need to read it for themselves because they have had it all read to them over and over before. The relative monstrous size of it when compared to their preconceptions is literally shocking to some of them.

I'd agree with you on this, I went to a Catholic primary school and if I heard the story about Zacchaeus climbing the tree once I heard it 100 times.

The Quadratic Equation

lmaopml wrote: »

I found this one helpful, for anybody not quite sure what Mass is about from a Catholic perspective...and why Catholics hold the very real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as something pretty special...

http://catholicism.org/eucharist-mysteries.html

Thanks for sharing that lmaopml, that really is an excellent and inspiring article.

soterpisc

LordSutch wrote: »

Well, do you?

I am curious to know if many modern RC's still believe in transubstantiation, or do they tend to take the more Protestant view which has always said that the sacrements are taken in a symbolic way, rather than a literal way (real blood, and real flesh)! Is Rome's teaching still gospel in the RC Church, or has RC teaching become more Protestant in its thinking? Personally I think of the sacrements as purely symbolic, but I respect fully those RCs who truly believe in transubstantiation, for that is their belief which must be respected 100%.

Well +1 here!!. Its fundamental central part of our Faith and that of most Christians for that matter (east and west/ Catholic and Orthodox)

It was never "romes" teaching. It was always the Church's teaching

LordSutch

soterpisc wrote: »

Well +1 here!!. Its fundamental central part of our Faith and that of most Christians for that matter (east and west/ Catholic and Orthodox)

It was never "romes" teaching. It was always the Church's teaching

Yes indeed, the Church of Rome^

Anglicans do not believe in Transubstantiation, but they do respect those Christians who do, 'however' this issue is one of the main differences between the two Christian traditions, and this thread is just testing the waters to see if there is any change among RC beliefs in recent years.

tommy2bad

Anglicans do not believe in Transubstantiation

So how did that come about? as I understand it the Church of England didn't change that much at the time of Henry VIII

LordSutch

tommy2bad wrote: »

So how did that come about? as I understand it the Church of England didn't change that much at the time of Henry VIII

Many things changed after the Reformation . . . . .

soterpisc

LordSutch wrote: »

Yes indeed, the Church of Rome^

Anglicans do not believe in Transubstantiation, but they do respect those Christians who do, 'however' this issue is one of the main differences between the two Christian traditions, and this thread is just testing the waters to see if there is any change among RC beliefs in recent years.

Between which 2 Christian Traditions? Up to the reformation all the Church believed in the Eucharist real presence of Christ Body and blood.

The east may not like the latin word "Transubstantiation", but if you ask them is Christ real present Body and blood in the Bread of the Eucharist they are at one with what Catholics believe. Its not a symbol.

PatricaMcKay2

LordSutch wrote: »

Yes indeed, the Church of Rome^

Anglicans do not believe in Transubstantiation, but they do respect those Christians who do, 'however' this issue is one of the main differences between the two Christian traditions, and this thread is just testing the waters to see if there is any change among RC beliefs in recent years.

Globally, but not necessarily in Ireland, most Anglicans believe in consubstanition which fits in with the council of Chalcedon- that said a good few of the early Fathers believed in a purely spiritual presence in the Eucharist.

Consubstantion isnt that different from transubtantion.

PatricaMcKay2

soterpisc wrote: »

Between which 2 Christian Traditions? Up to the reformation all the Church believed in the Eucharist real presence of Christ Body and blood.

The east may not like the latin word "Transubstantiation", but if you ask them is Christ real present Body and blood in the Bread of the Eucharist they are at one with what Catholics believe. Its not a symbol.

No there is not Patristic consensus on the nature of the Real Presence.

Only the extreme fringes of the Reformation believe that it is purely a symbol.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

YOU have been emphasizing that but I am not talking about you. I am talking about the number of people who, if your claims are correct about what the actual teaching is, are clearly very confused. I think it is more than you give credit for too. I would like to see some results of actual studies done on it to be sure but am not aware of any. I think we will both be surprised by how many people actually think there is a real physical change and certainly there appears to be no attempts made to divest them of such notions.

Well, there could be a degree of selection bias going on here, nozz. You notice the people who believe that consecration involves a physical change; you don’t notice the ones who don’t.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Also since I made it very clear in the post that my experiments were directed at those who claim there is an actual physical change, it is a bit poor to dismiss the experiments for only dealing with physical changes is it not? That is exactly what they were designed for. They were specifically targeted at those people (not you apparently) who actually do think there is a very real physical literal change here.

If you read the link too you would have found that I very clearly said in it "I limit my inquiry only to those who claim a literal transformation."

And this could partly explain why your perception is that lots of people believe in a physical change; your own thinking, or at least your own language, on this subject seems rather confused. You bandy about the terms “real change”, “physical change”, “real physical change” and even “literal transformation” as though you think they all mean the same thing. If people believe in any of these things, you seem to think they believe in physical change.

Your scientific method is extremely poor, nozz. You now concede that your tests could detect only physical changes in the eucharist, but nowhere in your report do you say that you were testing for physical changes; instead you claim to have been testing for “literal transformation”.

The primary meaning of “literal”, of course, is “having to do with letters”, a meaning which in the context of your report makes no sense at all. There is a secondary meaning, “free from metaphor and allegory” - a meaning which is, ironically, itself metaphorical - and I think this is probably the one you intended.

Anyone charged with instructing you in the elements of the scientific method, nozz, would criticize you heavily for employing metaphorical language in your report, most especially when setting out the hypothesis you were supposedly testing. You should state this plainly, and not through the use of metaphor.

So, if we correct for your inapropriate use of metaphor, we find that your stated objective is to test the claim that the eucharist is changed in a way which is not simply metaphorical or allegorical. Yet in the event you test only for physical changes (or, at least, you only report on tests for physical changes). The not unreasonable inference is that you share the simplistic beliefs of those you criticize; that all change, if it is not metaphorical or allegorical, must be physical.

I don’t think you can conclude that all the people who sent you e-mails of protest were believers in physical change; some of them may have been, but many of them could have had a more nuanced understanding of the question that you seem to, and all the evidence suggests that you wouldn’t have noticed if they had. People who believe in real, but not physical change, could find your experiments highly offensive. (In fact, they’re more likely to find your experiments highly offensive, since they know that your experiments do not test what they claim to test (“literal transformation”) and that the conclusions you drew (there is no literal transformation) did not in fact flow from the evidence you found. They might suspect that you knew this too, and might therefore conclude more readily than others that your true intent was to parody and offend. If they misjudged you in that, try to be charitable in your assessment of them. Their mistake was to overestimate your understanding.)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure how given the catholic teaching you are claiming is essentially saying nothing at all. It is a bit hand wavey and saying essentially "I am going to change this by not changing anything at all and it is going to seem in every way exactly the same as before... but rest assured it is changed.... honest."

Vague non-claims of THAT sort are not confirmable . . . and entirely un-falsifiable . . .

Exactly. Your experiments could not test Catholic claims at all. Which is why reasonable people who assume - perhaps wrongly - that you knew this all along might reasonably suppose that your purpose in conducting them was mainly to give offence.