In response, I asked for identification and clarification of the offending words. I cannot now find a response to that request.
I have no difficulty objecting to the style and certain expressions in the quote.
Neither those expressions nor the style impinge directly on the dogma. As far as I can see, only one active interlocutor has questioned the nature of substance. (He has my respect and my gratitude, not least because I am putting the Summa Contra Gentiles on my reading list, but mostly because he raised a good objection.) The Al-Ghazali wing has hinted at an infernal odor to the technical vocabulary. This is offered as an argument?
Isaiah 28 mentions those who take refuge in lies. I have found the links to the relevant section of the Summa. In coming up with them I have read in the Summa Contra Gentiles and other parts of the Summa. I also went to Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics to see if I was getting it wrong, to clarify my own thinking, and to see if I could find better analogies and examples.
I even made a "meta" criticism of Aquinas, not for the first time on this or any stage, that He uses "Sacramental" as his drop back and punt word. And what is the response?
Insistence, from those who do not consult Aquinas and who cherry pick conciliar quotes, that our formal, magisterial, teaching is not what we say it is, that they know better what we teach and intend to teach, that our fatigue and boredom under this barrage is in fact a sort of remorse we are hiding from ourselves.
Refuge in lies
One person, between dire predictions of doom and contempt for those who does not think as he does, complains that on a precise question of the meaning of "substance" I do not refer enough to Scripture!
Note, however, that the article of the OP refers to an alleged attribute of the human body without appeal to Scripture. Where is my assailant then?
Oh, This one is good. I maintain that the contemporary, popular meaning of the word "substance" is very different from its meaning in theology. Here's the response:
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[204]
Evidently some Protestants consider it persuasive, logical, and reasonable to repeat something in colors. It is beyond me HOW this quote is going to show that the meaning of "substance" is what one side says and the other denies. SEE? They used the word SUBSTANCE! Therefore substance means what I say it means and not what YOU say it means! She might as well have stamped her foot and said, "Is TOO!" for all the good this did in advancing the discussion or clarifying the question.
I make a mild claim to a certain reliability on the question of Catholic dogma in this matter, and somebody -- was it you? -- makes irrelevant remarks about whether GOD cares about grades. I devoutly trust not! EXCEPT that, since I have a certain facility in this area, I suspect that God would like it and take it as a gesture of pious gratitude for me to use the gift.
The most attractive explanation (though it is distressing) for this kind of thing is that the OP was made to attract people who would, foolishly -- considering the quality of conversation here, address the points in it. And then the usual suspects would appear with the usual bullying nonsense and think that they had defended Truth by changing the subject, printing things in color, and indulging in sophistries
This is beneath adult human dignity. And it's why I retired from frequent involvement in FR some years ago. I learned that the most vocal of the opponents had weak understanding of the Incarnation, Human Nature, the Salvific work of Christ, God's relationship to space and time, and reason itself. In dealing with this stuff, however hostile the expression, my own understanding was deepened. I got considerable, though obviously unintended, good out of the conversations.
But now I am accused, by someone who keeps careful note of implied insults, of avoiding questions, while others stamp their feet and repeat themselves.
Very well.
Catholic dogma isn’t scripture. It isn’t God’s word. It is man’s made up pagan religion. So while you would prefer Catholic dogma we prefer God’s word found in scripture.
While some *Protestants* post Scripture in color so as to distinguish it easily, so that it's clear what is Scripture and what are their own words.
I'm sure you've heard of the red letter version of the Bible.
Don't over analyze things and attribute motive without knowing for sure.
Did I miss the answer to if the “substance” is physical or spiritual