And exactly what is the difference between “they are not true” and “they are not objectively true?” Most people will read that as being the same intent.
Obviously there would have to be a significant difference between the two if you would go out of your way to remove the word “objectively”.
I’m not throwing out accusations at “people”. It’s you. And it isn’t a false accusation as it is based on the reality that you quoted my post and took a word out which would have otherwise made a significant difference. That’s being dishonest. And not only was it dishonest, it was uncharitable and uncalled for.
The Lord most certainly tells us that the bread is no longer bread and the wine no longer wine- THIS IS MY BODY, MY BLOOD… We have no reason to believe that whatever “THIS” referred to was not exactly what he said it was, because the Lord is Divine and his words true and when he said it, that is exactly what it was.
You are right. I misphrased. Clearly, in the Eucharist, it is his true body and blood. What I was referring to was Christ never says it is transubstantiated. So, in the miracle of the Eucharist bread and wine are His body and blood. It is a mystery.
But isn’t truth of its nature objective? Something is either true or not. Based on the facts, it can be believed but does not carry the obligation of belief (per Catholicism) if it does not form part of the deposit of faith. That doesn’t mean it’s only subjectively true- only that people are free to disagree with the assessment of facts given and to disbelieve it, without sinning.
Sounds good to me, I must be a sucker, myself, I believe it with the Catholic mystics, Hook, Line and Sinker. There’s a familiar, constant flow of conversation from the Saints which just becomes very recognizable after awhile of reading and listening to them. I find them profound.
My friend, with due respect, if the bread and wine become Christ, then the transubstantiation must be true, and is already believed by all who believe in the Eucharist, even if not called by that name. This idea that it takes away the mystery of the Eucharist or tries to explain it is another myth about Catholic theology.
Yes, my friend. I just finished a long, detailed, and I might add circular dialogue about the issue. What I’ve found over time is that, Catholics will always express the mystery in metaphysical terms - Transubstantiation. As Lutherans, we just don’t express it in metaphysical terms. So, here it is:My friend, with due respect, if the bread and wine become Christ, then the transubstantiation must be true, and is already believed by all who believe in the Eucharist, even if not called by that name. This idea that it takes away the mystery of the Eucharist or tries to explain it is another myth about Catholic theology.
What does Transunstantiation say, after all? Simply this- Even though we taste and sense with our physical senses what seems to be bread and wine, in reality it is not bread and wine any more, but Christ himself.
Consider this:
-Is that really bread and wine that we bring to the alter as gifts? Yes
-Does it remain bread and wine? Of course not!
-Does it still look, taste, smell, feel like bread and wine regardless of the fact that it is now Christ? Of course, it does! I dare any Christian who ever partook of the Eucharist to say they saw, tasted, smelled, felt, touched anything that appeared to be at all different from bread and wine.
Transubstantiation is an answer to this question by Heretics? But why does it not change (to our senses) if it’s really Christ? You people worship a piece of bread!
The church says in reply: To our senses only does the bread and wine appear to remain bread and wine, thus its accidents are somehow, mysteriously retained- But in reality (substance) the bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but Christ himself! That is simply a statement of faith that the Eucharist is really Christ despite what our senses tell us.
The mystery of it all- How exactly does the bread and wine become Christ? How does it still look and taste like wine and yet is really something else (Christ)? This Remains always, always a mystery; The church has NEVER attempted to speak about it except to express her faith in it.
No one who believes in the Eucharist can in good faith deny transubstantiation, unless they are not aware what it actually is.
Peace.
My friend, you’ll have to explain how that statement is not transubstantiation.
Sure. I’m making no statement regarding substance and accidents. All I know is that “This [bread] is my body”. How mere bread is His body is a mystery.My friend, you’ll have to explain how that statement is not transubstantiation.
But why do you think you’re not making that statement? Simply because you don’t use the phrases “accidents” and “substance”?
Aren’t you still making a statement on the reality of the Eucharist (Christ) regardless of what the senses perceive?That’s exactly the point. I am making a statement on the reality of the Eucharist (Christ), regardless of what the senses perceive, without using the metaphysical construct.But why do you think you’re not making that statement? Simply because you don’t use the phrases “accidents” and “substance”?
I’m sorry I seem so slow…I’m just not getting the big difference here- Is the metaphysical construct the words “substance” and “accidents”?
You’re not slow. You’re Catholic, and you understand the Eucharist in the terms you provide. I say that’s fine. You discern the truth of the RP, and if Transub. helps you in that way, God bless. It really isn’t an issue for me, and it certainly is not the reason I remain Lutheran.I’m sorry I seem so slow…I’m just not getting the big difference here- Is the metaphysical construct the words “substance” and “accidents”?
Because any statement about reality is metaphysical, whichever words you use.
Actually, Gary, I suspect that Corpus Christi processions would be quite rare among us, as we see the intention of it in the eating and drinking. OTOH, personally, it doesn’t offend, either.
