Transubstantiation and logic

[mcq72]

Yet, that wasn’t your claim – it was “sons of Abraham.” I’ll stick with “Son of God”…

Lol, who also was a son of Abraham!

 

[Gorgias]

Lol, who also was a son of Abraham!

LOL!

Nice try, but… Jesus is a son of Abraham, but not all sons of Abraham are God.

I’ll still stick with the things that the one divine ‘son of Abraham’ instituted…

 

[mcq72]

I’ll still stick with the things that the one divine ‘son of Abraham’ instituted

Spoken like a Protestant.lol

 

[Gorgias]

Spoken like a Protestant.lol

Protestants say, “I’ll stick with what Jesus instituted – like, His Church!”…?

 

[Richca]

The eucharist is not substantially the body and blood of Christ and bread and wine simultaneously. The eucharist is substantially the body and blood of Christ with the accidents of the bread and wine remaining which do not inhere in the body and blood of Christ. After the consecration of the bread and wine at Mass, the bread and wine are no longer substantially bread and wine. The substances of the bread and wine have been replaced with the substances of Christ’s body and blood with the appearances or accidents of the bread and wine remaining by divine power.

The idea of a logical impossibility such as a square circle is like something being substantially and simultaneously a square and a circle at the same time. The mathematical nature of a circle and a square are two different concepts so it doesn’t make sense that something can be both simultaneously and substantially or naturally a square and a circle. This would be like thinking of the eucharist as being both substantially bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ at the same time or like something being substantially both a tiger and a giraffe at the same time. The eucharist is not substantially or has the nature of both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ simultaneously.

 

[JimG]

God can’t do “anything.” He can’t, for example, will himself out of existence. He can’t make a contradiction in terms, because a contradiction in terms, such as a four-sided triangle, is not a something. It is a nothing. And nothing IS impossible to God.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

God can do anything that is logically possible. You cannot create a square circle because that is nonsense.

A square is not a circle and a circle is not a square. a square circle is a nonsense concept created by people who don’t understand fundamental logic, or who want to try to show that God is either irrational, or not omnipotent. They think that by claiming He can’t do something that is literally impossible, they can somehow show He’s not omnipotent.

A square circle. A married bachelor. An eight-sided triangle. These things are all nonsense. They’re strings of words that don’t mean anything.

 

[Fauken]

He can’t make a square circle because that violates what a square and a circle are. If a shape has four sides of equal length and four 90° angles, it’s a square. A circle will never be a square because it fails to have the very properties that make a square a square. It’s not a limit necessarily on God – it’s a limit on God’s ordering of creation. God made squares to be a certain way. It’s the same reason why Marriage requires a man and a woman, or Holy Orders requires a man, or the Eucharist some amount of wheat bread, and so on.

 

[Gab123]

If it argued that God cannot make a square circle, how is that any different than Him making a bread body?

God is the author of nature, thus His work is supernatural.

However transubstantiation requires that something is two distinct things simultaneously

Jesus is both God and Man.

 

[Isearch]

If you think about it, a square-circle is a cylinder.

 

[Vico]

we understand that the two things are not one, wine is wine and water is water

So by things you do not mean essence but appearances then, for in Transubstantiation the substance means the essence or nature. There is a change of essence.

An other example is that of a the Holy Spirit that appeared as a dove, yet the Holy Spirit does not have a dove nature.

Catechism

252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity …

 

[Isearch]

Jesus is both God and Man.

This isn’t a contradiction. To be truly human is simply to have a human body and a human soul (and nous if you are Eastern Orthodox) in his or her person. To be God is to have the Divine Nature and all the Divine attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and many more.

 

[Gab123]

This isn’t a contradiction

Neither is bread and wine being transformed into the body and blood of Christ, or God bringing something out of nothing; as author of time and matter, God is outside of time and matter and outside of nature.