Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Reclaiming the Mind Credo House ^ | March 8, 2013 | C Michael Patton

[Mad Dawg]

Read the relevant section of the Summa. You can't criticize the teaching coherently because — if you're going to call substance “literal figurative” — you aren't talking about the dogma but about a misunderstanding of it.

ST, 3rd Part, Questions 73-83 (but 80-83 are not as relevant, focus on 75-77)

Transubstantiation

[verga]

He was the author of the Old Testament.

And the one that instituted the New Covenant, in His Blood.

[verga]

You need to make a copy of this to bring back when the anti-Catholics bring this tropic up again, and again, and again, well you get the idea.

[verga]

I reiterate, John 6 CANNOT be a discussion of the eucharist, its was years before the Last Supper, when the sacrament was instituted.

Then nothing in the Old Testament can be a prelude to Christ since it was years before the incarnation.

[verga]

Most everything he posts is a joke, or at least he seems to think so.

[MHGinTN]

ping to #259

[MHGinTN]

All that to miss the point of the lessons in John 6. It was the ones who walked away from the Mission who focused upon eating flash and drinking blood. I forgot to ping you to #259, so ((((ping))))

[MHGinTN]

((((ping)))) For after Church

[cuban leaf]

Is this a foundational teaching—doctrine—of His command(s), one of His principal Ordinances?

---

Regarding the latter, the phrase “principal ordinances” is subjective. i.e. it depends on what you mean by that. Regarding the former, yes (Matthew 26: 26-27)

[cuban leaf]

Is this an observance conducted in His Name (that is, commanded and authorized by Him)? Should others imitate it also?

---

Yes.

[cuban leaf]

With all due respect, in what sense is this an authorized meeting of the totality in a locality of all the regenerated individual disciple-believers summoned together—assembled, congregated—for the teaching and watchfully preserving without change whatsoever He has commanded?

---

I’m not understanding what you are talking about. I’m talking about taking communion. And here is the big part of it to me:

The old testament is about God’s relationship with a nation called Israel. The new testament is about Jesus relationship with me, personally.

[verga]

Many of the non-Catholics have proved very adept at twisting the meaning of words over the years to the point that "is" doesn't mean "is." When we ask you for your definition of the word it is so we don't speak past each other.

So the real question is are the non-Catholics here to debate or to throw stones?

[verga]

My wife is trying to minister to him, but since we’re not Catholic, it’s difficult.

I will pray that he continues to ignore your "ministering" and stays true to his faith.

[Resettozero]

So the real question is are the non-Catholics here to debate or to throw stones?

Speaking for myself, verga, my answer is...neither.

[Mad Dawg]

Thank you very much for the effort.

Again, probably, short of reading Aristotle, I don't see how a serious inquirer can avoid reading the relevant parts of the Summa. I linked to transubstantiation in post to metmom above.

Strangely, what TA (as we affectionately call him) has to say about angels is a fun way to get into the relationship of substance to matter. (ST, First Part, Q. 50 ff)

It is interesting, in my decrepitude, to have it suggested that I may have a vested interest in Aristotle/Thomas. I came to them kicking and screaming! I cordially loathed Aristotle (except for the cordial part) in college. I liked Thomas, but mostly because of his combination of reasonableness and chutzpah. (”Hold my beer and watch this. I will now explain everything. Pay attention.)

The closest I came to a sort of passionate interest was Dante, whom I first encountered in the epigraph to Eliot's. Prufrock.

S’io credesse che mia risposta fosse
A persona che mai tornasse al mondo,
Questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse.
Ma perciocche giammai di questo fondo
Non torno vivo alcun, s’i’odo il vero,
Senza tema d’infamia ti rispondo.

As to that lady euch site, that's the sort of thing that gets me to checking the action on my AR. I've heard priests say it. But they often say silly things.

Articles 5 and 6 of Q 75 talk about substance, form, species, and matter. I see the section from which you quoted considers a range of "substances" from God himself (" ... that Substance, whose very being is His essence") down to ... for my following exercise ... a marble and, of course, lower still.

(winging it here.)

A marble is spherical and hard. As objects intended to be marbles vary in those aspects, we have good or bad marbles. A cubic object would be a bad marble. A dodecahedron would be better, an icosahedron better still. A pancake would be so bad we wouldn't say it qualified as a marble at all.

A foam rubber sphere wouldn't do, Styrofoam wouldn't either. An unfired clay sphere might qualify, ceteris paribus. But good strong glass or, um, marble (!) or agate would work. IF, therefore, there is a "substance" called marble, matter would seem to be an aspect of it. An incorporeal marble? Can't be, can it? The whole idea of a marble is that you can hold it, shoot it, hit other marbles with it. On the other hand, except perhaps in the "minds" of God and the angels, the idea would be empty if there weren't some small, roundish, hard things.

We can get lost in the weeds pretty easily here!

BUT you can't hold, shoot, or hit other marbles with the IDEA of a marble! Nor can glass, marble, or agate in any old shape work as the marble we need so that Johnny down the street can take all of ours and leave us dejected. You need "matter" chosen and formed to approximate a shape, density, and other "species" -- or "appearances."

When we consider the human body (or that of other "higher") animals), As I said above, we encounter a range of shapes and characteristics from the one celled zygote to the adult in his or her prime. So can't we say that while the idea of body requires instantiation, and that instantiation requires "matter" (as Aristotle and the Scholastics -- Hey! That would be a great name for a rock band! Okay, maybe not -- would use the word) clearly neither curly-hair, green eyes, nor limbs nor organs -- are of the esse of human body.

So, sacramentally at least, we HAVE a material instantiation. To all the normal instantiations a miracle gives us another. SO, to the extent that the "substance" of human body, by definition, requires hyle or matter, that requirement is satisfied in the Sacrament.

(But, of course, the Resurrection muddies up the question of whether the human body requires "matter", especially as modern empiricists and materialists use the term. But"normally" human bodies need some "stuff".)

Wow.This is too long! In any case, as Aquinas says, the "presence" we are discussing is a very special case. You can see him virtually throwing up his hands in the reply to Objection 3, Article 1, Q. 75.

Enough!

[verga]

I want you on my team for the next debate.

[Mad Dawg]

Who’s bringing the whiskey?

;-)

[verga]

If it was NOT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL body of Christ... it was spiritual ... Not the real actual physical body

The Spirit of Christ now lives in me.. I do not need a cracker

Take a deep breath. It appears you are somewhat agitated. The RM has stated that these types of discussion are not for every one.

[verga]

Mgh is playing games with post 171, that quote has not been authenticated yet. The author may be quoting someone else or engaging in hyperbole.

[verga]

Still playing games with a quote that has not been authenticated or verified yet I see.