Has Anbody Read "The Godless Delusion" yet?

[tonyrey]

The fact that God sustains everything means that He can choose to be present in consecrated bread and wine in a unique way which nourishes us spiritually. It is His glorified body and blood that are present, fulfilling His promise that He would be with us until the end of the world.

You are making the mistake of equating the bread with its qualities. The bread is not bread because of its colour, size, shape, taste, weight or density. It is bread because of an arrangement of subatomic particles sustained in existence by their Creator. Without His presence they wouldn’t exist because things need not exist.

this is obvious when you consider that no human could tell the difference between bread that has under gone this transubstantiation and bread that has not. like in those old folgers commercials, if someone secretly substituted unconsecrated bread for the consecrated bread or vice versa, no one could possibly tell. right?

Of course we cannot detect the difference because we cannot detect any mode of God’s presence in anything anyway. That is how Jesus is spiritually present in the bread and wine while it retains the characteristics of bread.

you can say that the accidents are left unchanged but the fundamental essence has changed, but if so, and if we know what it is we are talking about, then we could tell the difference if the fundamental essence was changed. otherwise, it would mean that we never knew what we were talking about when we talked about the fundamental essence of bread to begin with. we were talking nonsense. this fundamental essence for all intents and purposes does not exist. for what intent or purpose could the essence of bread be said to actually exist?

What you call the essence is simply God’s presence in a particular way. Your mind would not exist without God. It is not composed of atomic particles like material things but it is just as real as they are. In fact you know yourself far better than you know the outside world. God is present in you even though you are unaware of the fact! Jesus is present in those who believe in Him and receive the Blessed Sacrament in a more personal way because of one factor you haven’t taken into account. It is the answer to your question: “for what intent or purpose could the essence of bread be said to actually exist?” I leave you to guess what it is but I shall give you a clue. It is more important than anything else in life…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

you can say that the accidents are left unchanged but the fundamental essence has changed, but if so, and if we know what it is we are talking about, then we could tell the difference if the fundamental essence was changed. otherwise, it would mean that we never knew what we were talking about when we talked about the fundamental essence of bread to begin with. we were talking nonsense. this fundamental essence for all intense and purposes does not exist. for what intent or purpose could the essence of bread be said to actually exist?

Well, the problem is, no one presented a scientific proof, and this is because it is only possible for science to measure the accidents by which we differentiate between substantial instances. It never directly measures the substance of a thing in and of itself. If one were to do so, then they would point to a perceptible change in the accidents (accidents being that qualitative attribute by which we can differentiate and understand that a “natural being” - that is the substantial act of a thing - is this or that particular thing as opposed to something else) which we perceive with the senses. They are pointing to a fundamental change which doesn’t effect the accidental nature of what we perceive as bread and wine; but nonetheless a spiritual non-physical transformation has taken place, a transformation that is not percipient by the senses and thus must be taken on faith. Nobody can objectively prove that some spiritual change has occurred in the nature of the bread and wine. But you claim, that because you cannot understand it, that therefore it is meaningless.

However, although I can certainly understand your difficulty in grasping this subject matter, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that it is quite possible that a thing can look and taste like bread and at the same time be substantially different to what it was in the past. Here is an example (although perhaps a bit imperfect). We have all had dreams or strong memories or imaginings or phantoms of either seeing or tasting bread or even wine, and yet the substantial nature by which we experience bread and wine in these instances is not in fact the same substance as we understand it objectively, despite having the same accidental quality. The substantial mode of that experience is an idea, an abstract representation, and yet it is through this substance (which is a concept or idea) that we experience the qualitative nature of bread and wine. It is just a dream, a thought, an idea, but still we cannot deny that we had the qualitative experience by which we identify the nature we call bread and wine. It is for this reason that I can rationally say that I dreamt about eating bread and drinking wine, simply because qualitative experiences are not necessarily intrinsic to an underlying substance; otherwise I could never experience wine or bread apart from their objective instances. Thus the mind is at least one example by which a quality can be known and experienced wholly apart from substantial instances which exist outside the mind; (through phantoms, ideas, imaginings, etcetra).

Thus I can see that it is at least conceivable in a meaningful sense, even if we don’t understand how it is possible.

But lets say that I am mistaken for arguments sake; Are you therefore saying that if we don’t understand how something works that therefore it is nonsense and is therefore not worthy of belief; as in we should not consider it a rational possibility that we can have faith in?

 

[Anselm33]

Well, the problem is, no one presented a scientific proof. If one were to do so, then they would point to a perceptible change in the accidents (accidents being that qualitative attribute by which we can differentiate and understand that a “natural being” - that is the substantial act of a thing - is this or that particular thing as opposed to something else) which we perceive with the senses. They are pointing to a fundamental change which doesn’t effect the accidental nature of what we perceive as bread and wine; but nonetheless a spiritual non-physical transformation has taken place, a transformation that is not percipient by the senses and thus must be taken on faith. Nobody can objectively prove that some spiritual change has occurred in the nature of the bread and wine. But you claim, that because you cannot understand it, that therefore it is meaningless.

However, although I can certainly understand your difficulty in grasping this subject matter, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that it is quite possible that a thing can look and taste like bread and at the same time be substantially different to what it was in the past. Here is an example (although perhaps a bit imperfect). We have all had dreams or strong memories or imaginings or phantoms of either seeing or tasting bread or even wine, and yet the substantial nature by which we experience bread and wine in these instances is not in fact the same substance as we understand it objectively, despite having the same accidental quality. The substantial mode of that experience is an idea, an abstract representation, and yet it is through this substance (which is a concept or idea) that we experience the qualitative nature of bread and wine. It is just a dream, a thought, an idea, but still we cannot deny that we had the qualitative experience by which we identify the nature we call bread and wine. It is for this reason that I can rationally say that I dreamt about eating bread and drinking wine, because the qualitative experience is not necessarily intrinsic to an underlying substance; otherwise I could never experience wine or bread apart from their objective instances. Thus the mind is at least one example by which a quality can be known and experienced apart from substantial instances which exist outside the mind; (through phantoms, ideas, imaginings, etcetra).

Thus I can see that it is at least conceivable in a meaningful sense, even if we don’t understand how it is possible.

But lets say that I am mistaken for arguments sake; Are you therefore saying that if we don’t understand how something works that therefore it is nonsense and is therefore not worthy of belief; as in we should not consider it a rational possibility that we can have faith in?

I mentioned above a crude example to show the difference between substand and essence that I had used for RCIA and prison ministry classes: a $20 bill. The accidents, color, feel, etc. of the bill are different from what the paper money actually is, or can do, its substance as legal tender. Now consider the following example: let’s go Germany in the 1920’s, or some other country where hyper-inflation occurred. A piece of paper money early on would represent certain purchasing power; a short time later, nothing.
The accidents have remained essentially the same, but the substance has changed.

The objector to transubstantiation and the concepts of substance and accident evidently doesn’t want to educate himself/herself on these concepts.

There are mysteries associated with our Catholic Faith. We don’t need to defend them from someone who is trying to make us doubt it. It seems to me the person who is trying to raise doubts about transubstantiation and the Real Presence is only trying to cast doubt on a fundamental item of Catholic faith, and it might be best not to feed the troll.
Please see
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=509550

 

[Anselm33]

Well, the problem is, no one presented a scientific proof, and this is because it is only possible for science to measure the accidents by which we differentiate between substantial instances. It never directly measures the substance of a thing in and of itself. If one were to do so, then they would point to a perceptible change in the accidents (accidents being that qualitative attribute by which we can differentiate and understand that a “natural being” - that is the substantial act of a thing - is this or that particular thing as opposed to something else) which we perceive with the senses. They are pointing to a fundamental change which doesn’t effect the accidental nature of what we perceive as bread and wine; but nonetheless a spiritual non-physical transformation has taken place, a transformation that is not percipient by the senses and thus must be taken on faith. Nobody can objectively prove that some spiritual change has occurred in the nature of the bread and wine. But you claim, that because you cannot understand it, that therefore it is meaningless.

However, although I can certainly understand your difficulty in grasping this subject matter, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that it is quite possible that a thing can look and taste like bread and at the same time be substantially different to what it was in the past. Here is an example (although perhaps a bit imperfect). We have all had dreams or strong memories or imaginings or phantoms of either seeing or tasting bread or even wine, and yet the substantial nature by which we experience bread and wine in these instances is not in fact the same substance as we understand it objectively, despite having the same accidental quality. The substantial mode of that experience is an idea, an abstract representation, and yet it is through this substance (which is a concept or idea) that we experience the qualitative nature of bread and wine. It is just a dream, a thought, an idea, but still we cannot deny that we had the qualitative experience by which we identify the nature we call bread and wine. It is for this reason that I can rationally say that I dreamt about eating bread and drinking wine, simply because qualitative experiences are not necessarily intrinsic to an underlying substance; otherwise I could never experience wine or bread apart from their objective instances. Thus the mind is at least one example by which a quality can be known and experienced wholly apart from substantial instances which exist outside the mind; (through phantoms, ideas, imaginings, etcetra).

Thus I can see that it is at least conceivable in a meaningful sense, even if we don’t understand how it is possible.

But lets say that I am mistaken for arguments sake; Are you therefore saying that if we don’t understand how something works that therefore it is nonsense and is therefore not worthy of belief; as in we should not consider it a rational possibility that we can have faith in?

:thumbsup:Let me add–you’ve done a fine apologetics job.

 

[BlueShadow123]

That must have almost been a response to richard dawkin’s the god delusion.
ha thats funny.

 

[Rocinante]

I mentioned above a crude example to show the difference between substand and essence that I had used for RCIA and prison ministry classes: a $20 bill. The accidents, color, feel, etc. of the bill are different from what the paper money actually is, or can do, its substance as legal tender. Now consider the following example: let’s go Germany in the 1920’s, or some other country where hyper-inflation occurred. A piece of paper money early on would represent certain purchasing power; a short time later, nothing.
The accidents have remained essentially the same, but the substance has changed.

The objector to transubstantiation and the concepts of substance and accident evidently doesn’t want to educate himself/herself on these concepts.

i do want to educate myself on these concepts. but your example of the essence of a dollar being its buying power doesn’t help. someone else gave an example of the essence of a coffee cup being its ability to hold coffee. in both of these examples, there is some way in the course of experience to know whether or not what you have has monetary value or is a coffee cup. yet there seems to be no way to know the difference between a consecrated host and a cracker. the proposed essential difference makes no difference if it is not experienced in any way as different. or is it? is the consecrated host experienced differently from an ordinary cracker? could you or anyone else tell the difference?

 

[davidv]

i do want to educate myself on these concepts. but your example of the essence of a dollar being its buying power doesn’t help. someone else gave an example of the essence of a coffee cup being its ability to hold coffee. in both of these examples, there is some way in the course of experience to know whether or not what you have has monetary value or is a coffee cup. yet there seems to be no way to know the difference between a consecrated host and a cracker. the proposed essential difference makes no difference if it is not experienced in any way as different. or is it?

Through the eyes of faith the difference is detectable.

is the consecrated host experienced differently from an ordinary cracker?

Only for those who see with eyes of faith.

could you or anyone else tell the difference?

Spiritually - yes.
Physically - no.

 

[Rocinante]

Well, the problem is, no one presented a scientific proof, and this is because it is only possible for science to measure the accidents by which we differentiate between substantial instances. It never directly measures the substance of a thing in and of itself. If one were to do so, then they would point to a perceptible change in the accidents (accidents being that qualitative attribute by which we can differentiate and understand that a “natural being” - that is the substantial act of a thing - is this or that particular thing as opposed to something else) which we perceive with the senses. They are pointing to a fundamental change which doesn’t effect the accidental nature of what we perceive as bread and wine; but nonetheless a spiritual non-physical transformation has taken place, a transformation that is not percipient by the senses and thus must be taken on faith. Nobody can objectively prove that some spiritual change has occurred in the nature of the bread and wine. But you claim, that because you cannot understand it, that therefore it is meaningless.

my claim is not that what i don’t understand doesn’t mean anything. my claim is that a difference, if it is a real difference, must make a difference somehow or in at least some way in the course of experience.

i guess the question comes down to what “meaningless” means. i think of it this way. if all actual and potential experiences would be exactly the same whether or not X is true, then it just doesn’t mean anything to assert that X is true or X is false. would you agree?

so, when we say that the substance of the wafer has changed, it means something to say so (i.e. the statement has truth-value) only if there is a difference in the experiences associated with a consecrated versus an unconsecrated host.

i’m wondering what the difference is if anything.
MindOverMatter2;7239708:

However, although I can certainly understand your difficulty in grasping this subject matter, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that it is quite possible that a thing can look and taste like bread and at the same time be substantially different to what it was in the past.

i agree in principle.

Here is an example (although perhaps a bit imperfect

). We have all had dreams or strong memories or imaginings or phantoms of either seeing or tasting bread or even wine, and yet the substantial nature by which we experience bread and wine in these instances is not in fact the same substance as we understand it objectively, despite having the same accidental quality. The substantial mode of that experience is an idea, an abstract representation, and yet it is through this substance (which is a concept or idea) that we experience the qualitative nature of bread and wine. It is just a dream, a thought, an idea, but still we cannot deny that we had the qualitative experience by which we identify the nature we call bread and wine. It is for this reason that I can rationally say that I dreamt about eating bread and drinking wine, simply because qualitative experiences are not necessarily intrinsic to an underlying substance; otherwise I could never experience wine or bread apart from their objective instances. Thus the mind is at least one example by which a quality can be known and experienced wholly apart from substantial instances which exist outside the mind; (through phantoms, ideas, imaginings, etcetra).

this example is a lot like the coffee cup and the money examples in that i agree that there is a change in substance though the accidents may remain unchanged, but we also know that there is an experiential difference between dreams and reality.

 

[WmJackP]

“Physically” speaking, the wine remains wine, and i doubt that any priest would tell you otherwise.

I suggest you study what they really mean when they say that the wine transforms in the blood of Christ. I have always understood it as a spiritual process, not a “physical one” that can be measured by science.

Like i said, “straw-man”

I am mystified by the transubstantiation claim. How would one ever know for certain if he were being duped? Even if your claim is correct and blood turns into wine, is it not possible that some renegade priest might purposely omit a necessary element of the ritual and the metamorphous not take place? How do you ever know whether you’re getting the real thing or may simply be a mark for some charlatan?

Or, even in the case of a well meaning priest, what if he neglected some intrinisically necessary incantation in the process, and, the metamorphous simply didn’t take? Even if one accepts these dogmas, doesn’t something inside of you cry out for validation, or, is reliance on evidence just not a relevant aspect of your belief system?