k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

To the extent you can argue they are real, we can see a change in the human mind and in human behavior.

---

See what I mean? Is something not real if it can't be empirically verified? This is a troublesome approach for me.

---

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying every single example you gave of the metaphysical was related to the duality of man metaphysically and it's specifically postulated as related to the mind. Your examples for objects all related to perception. There is no example you gave of something with a metaphysical counterpart with no purpose, no interaction at all with the physical world.

In short, there is nothing in your description of metaphysical wine that isn't made up hand waving. Nothing. You can tell me what the metaphysical wine was, what that means what it's purpose was, and what changed and what that means. This is a very empty claim.

Quote:

---

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying every single example you gave of the metaphysical was related to the duality of man metaphysically and it's specifically postulated as related to the mind.

---

I am not sure I understand. Do you think that baptism is two separate but unison actions - a physical one where water acts on a human body, and a metaphysical one that acts on the soul? Is that what you mean by "as related to the mind"? I don't think of baptism like this at all, and I certainly don't think of it as related to the mind or intellect.

Quote:

---

Your examples for objects all related to perception.

---

They related to perception by necessity. How else would we interact with the metaphysical but with our own metaphysical agency?

Quote:

---

There is no example you gave of something with a metaphysical counterpart with no purpose, no interaction at all with the physical world.

---

I'm not sure I follow or understand why this is a problem, and I still don't really understand this "metaphysical counterpart". It's as if your view can't tolerate something to be both physical and metaphysical simultaneously in its own self, versus two distinct and separate realities. I think there is reality which is both physical and metaphysical, and everything that is real subsists in reality.

To me, this is sort of like taking the three dimensions of physical volume and divorcing them from time, or suggesting that an object exists physically somehow separately from its temporal existence. They're interrelated.

Quote:

---

In short, there is nothing in your description of metaphysical wine that isn't made up hand waving. Nothing. You can tell me what the metaphysical wine was, what that means what it's purpose was, and what changed and what that means. This is a very empty claim.

---

What is metaphysical wine? I want some! (sorry, been watching Elf too much).

The Eucharist isn't metaphysical wine. It's real, physical wine, made from grapes grown in actual dirt and rain and sunshine, poured into a chalice from a bottle.

When I spoke of something having a metaphysical existence, this isn't separate somehow from the physical - to reiterate, I'm not talking about something like Plato's or even Aristotle's view of forms. Things exist in reality, and this means they exist both physically and metaphysically in what they are. If you somehow stripped either mode or form of existence from them they would no longer be what they were, and that's just as true for the physical as well as the metaphysical.

Similarly we can think of the classical definition of essence - that which makes a thing what it is. If look at this as purely physical, a physical essence is whatever would fundamentally change a thing to something else if changed. You could also make physical changes which are non-essential. But if we extend that a thing's essence is not strictly limited to its physical existence but the combination of its physical and metaphysical existence, it is not difficult to see that you can change something in a purely metaphysical way both non-essentially (it changes but remains what it is) and essentially (it changes and becomes something else altogether). This is simply a thought exercise, again, and I'm not really talking about the Eucharist here.

Quote:

---

You seem to be negating Aquinas simply because he cites Aristotle. Moreover you have not provided anything to counter it other than a "nah". This is especially true since you are essentially implying a form a materialism that suggests that any metaphysical/spiritual change must also change the material in order for it to be valid.

---

Aquinas fails because he's making a bad argument in and of itself. Look on this thread for details:

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2633232/3

Quote:

---

Is k2Aggie07 points out, there is a spiritual change that happens at baptism, matrimony, etc. but those do not involve physical changes.

---

And as I pointed out to him, assigning a metaphysical duality to man is a different animal than to an inanimate object

Quote:

---

Even if we reject Aristotle, his terminology correctly describes what happens to the Eucharist, in metaphysical terms. Is that mere coincidence?

---

His terminology has been rejected in modern times for good reason.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Shrug. And at one point he said it was all straw.

I don't think theology is provable by logic. I think logic is a tool to safely express experience of God without error, but - and this is a quote of a Roman Catholic theologian - it is "a saying and an unsaying to positive effect." Christian theology is fundamentally paradox, and paradox is anathema to most systems.

I don't think our faith is irrational or sub rational. But that doesn't mean that rational arguments can express the fullness of the faith. This is why I think the Greek "symbol" is so much better than "creed". Creed is just from the first words - "I believe" and this is fine, it is what we believe. But symbol means that which implies the other. The symbol of faith isn't our faith, but it correctly represents it.

Theology is a fence around the truth, but it isn't the truth.

---

But even the Apostles engaged in theological debate. For the apostles, the primary object of faith is God, who reveals himself in Jesus Christ - but it is not as if God revealed himself in Jesus without revealing any truth that cant be explicated theologically. Heck, Jesus himself debated Torah with the Pharisees.

For the Early Church Fathers, the truth of the Councils was the truth of the Apostles, and was the truth taught by Jesus Christ, not added to, but explained in a more explicit way, using theology.

The Apostles proclaimed Christ as God come in the flesh, and didn't xplain with theological treatises, in how we view theology today, what that meant. But that doesn't mean that it can't be, or shouldn't be, explained.

Moreover false claims of truth (heresy) were contradicted with truthful claims in the same manner. So when Arius denied God come in the flesh by denying his divinity, or the Docetists denied God come in the flesh by denying the reality of his humanity, or Apollinaris denied Christ come in the flesh by denying the completeness of his humanity, or Nestorius denied Christ come in the flesh by denying the fullness of his incarnation, the Church contradicted them, and explained how they had erred and what the truth was in a manner meant to be understood in theological and philosophical ways. It's how we get terms like "Trinity", "Theotokos" "Homoousion" etc.

Quote:

---

I don't think of baptism like this at all, and I certainly don't think of it as related to the mind or intellect.

---

What do you think of baptism is and how does it relate to the wine/bread.

Quote:

---

related to perception by necessity. How else would we interact with the metaphysical but with our own metaphysical agency?

---

Sure, and that's just the thing, you've now added in something that's a characteristic of wine that's indiscernible to the senses.

Quote:

---

It's as if your view can't tolerate something to be both physical and metaphysical simultaneously in its own self, versus two distinct and separate realities. I think there is reality which is both physical and metaphysical, and everything that is real subsists in reality.

---

I have no problem with that if you can come up with a coherent idea of what that means. Ok, How are they related?

Quote:

---

To me, this is sort of like taking the three dimensions of physical volume and divorcing them from time, or suggesting that an object exists physically somehow separately from its temporal existence. They're interrelated.

---

This is exactly my point. They should be interrelated but you are specifically claiming in this instance they are not. The wine doesn't change.

Quote:

---

The Eucharist isn't metaphysical wine. It's real, physical wine, made from grapes grown in actual dirt and rain and sunshine, poured into a chalice from a bottle.

---

Yup and it stays that way. But you are saying that wine also exists somehow in some fashion metaphysically but offer nothing more.

Quote:

---

When I spoke of something having a metaphysical existence, this isn't separate somehow from the physical - to reiterate, I'm not talking about something like Plato's or even Aristotle's view of forms. Things exist in reality, and this means they exist both physically and metaphysically in what they are. If you somehow stripped either mode or form of existence from them they would no longer be what they were, and that's just as true for the physical as well as the metaphysical.

---

But you have offered nothing in regards to what their metaphysical existence is or what that means or how if at all it relates to their physical existence.

Quote:

---

Similarly we can think of the classical definition of essence - that which makes a thing what it is. If look at this as purely physical, a physical essence is whatever would fundamentally change a thing to something else if changed.

---

Yea this is a highly subjective idea rooted in personal perception and subject to the whims of anyone as to how broadly we categorize when it comes to essence.

Quote:

---

You could also make physical changes which are non-essential. But if we extend that a thing's essence is not strictly limited to its physical existence but the combination of its physical and metaphysical existence, it is not difficult to see that you can change something in a purely metaphysical way both non-essentially (it changes but remains what it is) and essentially (it changes and becomes something else altogether). This is simply a thought exercise, again, and I'm not really talking about the Eucharist here.

---

I don't see those things as directly comparable or reversible as one is merely a description of the perception of the other. Give an example of something changing metaphysically without physical changes outside of this ad hoc instance.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Quote:

---

You seem to be negating Aquinas simply because he cites Aristotle. Moreover you have not provided anything to counter it other than a "nah". This is especially true since you are essentially implying a form a materialism that suggests that any metaphysical/spiritual change must also change the material in order for it to be valid.

---

Aquinas fails because he's making a bad argument in and of itself. Look on this thread for details:

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2633232/3

Quote:

---

Is k2Aggie07 points out, there is a spiritual change that happens at baptism, matrimony, etc. but those do not involve physical changes.

---

And as I pointed out to him, assigning a metaphysical duality to man is a different animal than to an inanimate object

Quote:

---

Even if we reject Aristotle, his terminology correctly describes what happens to the Eucharist, in metaphysical terms. Is that mere coincidence?

---

His terminology has been rejected in modern times for good reason.

---

To be fair, the object in question, has become Jesus, so it is no longer an "Inanimate object".

But even beyond that, on its face, your argument falls apart in the dismissive way you speak of what makes a chair a chair. I meant materially you are not really any different than any other living creature. DNA wise especially. So what makes Aggrad08 fundamentally Aggrad08? What makes you unique.

Fundamentally your issue seems to be that it's "complicated" and difficult to explain. Moreover, your arguments against Aquinas seems to rest more on a cantankerous incredulity that fundamentally denies a spiritual/metaphysical change that does not necessarily have to denote a physical change.


In short, in attempting to deny transubstantiation, you have instead embraces an almost atheistic materialism and blunt fideism that could never withstand any intellectual inquiry. Meaning it cedes rationality to atheism.

Quote:

---

To be fair, the object in question, has become Jesus, so it is no longer an "Inanimate object".

---

It was before, so there must be some analogous inanimate thing that changed that you cannot name or describe.

Quote:

---

I meant materially you are not really any different than any other living creature. DNA wise especially. So what makes Aggrad08 fundamentally Aggrad08? What makes you unique.

---

I am literally materially different. Similar sure, but different. Even if we take two perfect copies of a thing there are different in a location within the universe. Surely you have a stronger point than this as it poses no difficulty? Small physical changes can make for dramatic changes in other ways.

Quote:

---

Fundamentally your issue seems to be that it's "complicated" and difficult to explain.

---

No, my issue is that you are hand waving and not actually explaining anything.

Quote:

---

Moreover, your arguments against Aquinas seems to rest more on a cantankerous incredulity that fundamentally denies a spiritual/metaphysical change that does not necessarily have to denote a physical change.

---

Then you didn't comprehend the argument. I'm denying the idea of a substance as coherent and objective, rather than highly subjective.

Quote:

---

In short, in attempting to deny transubstantiation, you have instead embraces an almost atheistic materialism and blunt fideism that could never withstand any intellectual inquiry. Meaning it cedes rationality to atheism.

---

The weakness of the argument for substance stands on its own, and you've done nothing to support it. It's an inherently subjective notion that lacks coherency of definition. It's ridiculous to say that anyone theist or not must accept this bad argument.

We need to be careful here. Yes - Christ Jesus and the apostles engaged in theological debate, but not for it's own sake. It was always as a part of the gospel to correct errors, to reprove people in love, to bring heretics and pagans to knowledge of truth. This is the only reason to express theology - to bring people closer to Christ. St Maximos expressed this clearly:

Quote:

---

Unless curbed by the fear of God that accompanies the practice of the virtues spiritual knowledge leads to vanity; for it encourages the person puffed up by it to regard as his own what has merely been lent to him, and to use his borrowed intelligence to win praise for himself. But when his practice of the virtues increases concomitantly with his longing for God, and he does not arrogate to himself more spiritual knowledge than is needed for the task at hand, then he is made humble, reduced to himself by principles which are beyond his capacity.

---

So we should always ask ourselves - I should always ask myself - what is the task at hand? And if we look, every example you provided - the ecumenical councils, the polemical writings of the fathers - they weren't just done to be done. It was dialogue with others. Which is why I ask - what error does transubstantiation correct? Was somehow the teaching and understanding of the Church through the centuries lacking in some dialogue with a heretic or nonbeliever, or a person who had an error in their thought? You see what I'm getting at? It's a solution in search of a problem, in my opinion.

k2aggie07 said:

---

So we should always ask ourselves - I should always ask myself - what is the task at hand? And if we look, every example you provided - the ecumenical councils, the polemical writings of the fathers - they weren't just done to be done. It was dialogue with others. Which is why I ask - what error does transubstantiation correct? Was somehow the teaching and understanding of the Church through the centuries lacking in some dialogue with a heretic or nonbeliever, or a person who had an error in their thought? You see what I'm getting at? It's a solution in search of a problem, in my opinion.

---

Transubstantiation predated Aquinas. And it was addressed on several occasions due to lack of belief in the Eucharist. Heck, its still debated today. So an explication of the Eucharist, using philosophy as a means of describing a reality that already exists, may not convince you, but it helped convince me. This is why we often say the same things in 8 different ways. Like when a teacher uses different methods to teach the same concept to their students.

Moreover the Summa was literally written as a theological text book. It's why Aquinas specifically will cite scripture, Augustine, etc.

I think our impasse is at how we understand or view reality itself.

One thing I am utterly convinced of - and I believe is self-evident - is that we under-experience reality. We perceive reality through models based on our capacity to perceive which is, I think, both sensory and nonsensory.

I think it is an error to suggest that "physical" and "metaphysical" are somehow real, distinct, concrete, true categories or modes of existence based on how we perceive them (sensory, intelligible, whatever). I think as models they are useful ways to communicate the type of reality we're talking about, but no further. "All models are wrong, some are useful."

For example, what once may have been thought of as metaphysical is now considered physical, and there's no reason to think this won't happen again. Which could lead you to an understanding that physical reality is all it is, but then in my mind we're merely extending the label of "physical" to include "all of reality". This is a bit tautological, because then you turn around and ask "what is physical?" and the definition must surely be what can be empirically derived. If that's the case, then "reality" changes with our understanding, it is fundamentally a function of the human field of knowledge. I think this is not correct - reality subsists, we exist in it, and we create categories and models to help us interact and predict the behavior of reality, and to communicate this to each other.

So having said that, when you ask how baptism relates to the wine and bread, these are both examples of God's grace - which is metaphysical but certainly real - being conveyed on us. A person doesn't weigh any differently before and after baptism, no fundamental physical change occurs, but I believe they have changed. You hold out your judgment based on some outcome-oriented experience - did their behavior change? But this is a kind of post-facto ratification of change, not a perception or even a characterization of the change itself. Does that follow?

You mention that something is indiscernible to the senses. Most of reality is indiscernible to our senses. I think your mistake is saying that if something changes, that change must be sensible in order to be real. But most change that occurs around us is beyond our sense perception.

You asked for an example of metaphysical change, and aside from actions of grace, I believe that love is metaphysical. Understanding is metaphysical. Nothing changes physically with these things. You say - well, I can measure behavior before and after - but again, that's characterization of the outcome. It isn't an understanding of the change itself.

Quote:

---

It was before, so there must be some analogous inanimate thing that changed that you cannot name or describe.

.......No, my issue is that you are hand waving and not actually explaining anything.

---

So is your contention that the Eucharist "IS" Jesus, or that the Jesus is just "symbolically present". Does the bread and wine truly change? You have yet to define that except to say the Aquinas's way of explaining it is incoherent and "hand waving". I mean you seem to dislike hand waving but are "shrugs" ok, theologically speaking? Because, again, you seem to be denying an actual change in what makes the Eucharist more than just bread.

Quote:

---

I am literally materially different. Similar sure, but different. Even if we take two perfect copies of a thing there are different in a location within the universe.

---

The problem is that your viewpoint is a straight line to a material monism or that we are merely ghosts in the machine. It seems more like a hyper dualism without the "material is evil" bent of Gnosticism.

I don't necessarily have an issue with transubstantiation. I think it is a theologoumenon. If a person has a different understanding, that's ok. If a person disagrees, that may well be OK too, because this teaching isn't the truth. No teaching is the truth, they represent the truth. So that means that disagreement with teaching is not necessarily false. It could be false, and if it is false, then it should be rejected. For example, a person who says the Eucharist is only a symbol is false. But a person who says it is truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and beyond that it is a mystery, is not asserting a falsehood.

The doctrines of the Church are not True. This is extremely important! They are safe ways to express ineffable realities. They are safe because they are not false. But they witness to realities - they are not the realities themselves. This is why the fathers use apophatic theology as the "higher" way. You can come to knowledge of truth without a strict dogmatic exposition, and you can digest a strict dogmatic exposition and gain no knowledge.

Quote:

---

One thing I am utterly convinced of - and I believe is self-evident - is that we under-experience reality. We perceive reality through models based on our capacity to perceive which is, I think, both sensory and nonsensory.

---

I do think we under-experience reality as well, I don't see how that's terribly relevant.

Quote:

---

I think it is an error to suggest that "physical" and "metaphysical" are somehow real, distinct, concrete, true categories or modes of existence based on how we perceive them (sensory, intelligible, whatever). I think as models they are useful ways to communicate the type of reality we're talking about, but no further. "All models are wrong, some are useful."

---

But you aren't offering a coherent or useful model. That's what I'm getting at.

Quote:

---

If that's the case, then "reality" changes with our understanding, it is fundamentally a function of the human field of knowledge. I think this is not correct - reality subsists, we exist in it, and we create categories and models to help us interact and predict the behavior of reality, and to communicate this to each other.

---

No, I think we exist within reality, and what we think we know changes based on our empirical understanding. Reality can, has, and will exist without us.

Quote:

---

So having said that, when you ask how baptism relates to the wine and bread, these are both examples of God's grace - which is metaphysical but certainly real - being conveyed on us. A person doesn't weigh any differently before and after baptism, no fundamental physical change occurs, but I believe they have changed. You hold out your judgment based on some outcome-oriented experience - did their behavior change? But this is a kind of post-facto ratification of change, not a perception or even a characterization of the change itself. Does that follow?

---

Only if you actually describe what changed. God's grace is typically defined as unmerited favor. So god is showing you favor, that's a coherent concept at least.

Quote:

---

Most of reality is indiscernible to our senses. I think your mistake is saying that if something changes, that change must be sensible in order to be real. But most change that occurs around us is beyond our sense perception.

---

I'm not limiting it to mere human capacity. I'm saying a change that actually manifests in physical reality. As you said, there are no physical changes to the wine.

Quote:

---

You asked for an example of metaphysical change, and aside from actions of grace, I believe that love is metaphysical. Understanding is metaphysical. Nothing changes physically with these things. You say - well, I can measure behavior before and after - but again, that's characterization of the outcome. It isn't an understanding of the change itself.

---

We have brains, there is a physical change in the brain that can define these.

Quote:

---

So is your contention that the Eucharist "IS" Jesus, or that the Jesus is just "symbolically present". Does the bread and wine truly change? You have yet to define that except to say the Aquinas's way of explaining it is incoherent and "hand waving". I mean you seem to dislike hand waving but are "shrugs" ok, theologically speaking? Because, again, you seem to be denying an actual change in what makes the Eucharist more than just bread.

---

I'm not arguing anything theological. I don't care if you take a symbolic protestant view or an orthodox view and call it a mystery. What I'm saying is that the argument made by Aquinas is weak in and of itself. And this isn't hard to demonstrate. Which is why you aren't defending it. But merely saying you don't like the alternatives.

Quote:

---

The problem is that your viewpoint is a straight line to a material monism or that we are merely ghosts in the machine. It seems more like a hyper dualism without the "material is evil" bent of Gnosticism.

---

There is nothing that forces any theory of mind-body one way or another by understanding the weakness of the aquinas argument. Nothing at all. Again, you are merely saying you dislike the consequences of aquinas having a weak argument rather than defending the argument.

Its relevant because you're limiting what you accept as "real" and "change" and "physical" to things that are measurable and sensible. But we both agree that these things are moving targets. So then we must have the ability to put some limits to what we're willing to describe as "physical" and what we understand as "change".

I think its both coherent and useful.

My ability or inability to describe change doesn't prove or disprove anything. Consider, for example, that if there is reality beyond the created order (i.e., a transcendent God) then anything used by us to describe this is necessarily an analog and therefore false. Every concept, everything we see is in some way related to a tangible thing. I readily agree that my ability to make communicable assertions is limited to shared experience, and with most people that means mutually agreed concepts based on physical analogs.

But, in Orthodox theology the grace of God is not merely favor. We consider God as existing beyond our concept of existence and non-existence - because again these are concepts that are knowable in physical reality - in His essence, but we also know that He interacts with us in a way we can perceive and know, if not intellectually understand. We call these auras, attributes, activities, workings His energies, and since they are eternally proper to God they are also God. God is Love because He always loves. When we experience the love of God, we experience God. This is what Orthodox mean by grace. Grace is God's activity (which is what energeia means, comes from ergon, to work) which is eternal and metaphysical, but can also act temporally on, by, through, in, into the created order both physically and metaphysically.

When you ask me "what changed?" in any mystery, I say the person partook of the divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4). You ask "how does this manifest in physical reality" and I say - why does it need to? I didn't say there was no physical change to the wine. I just said it still tastes like wine. Again, most of this is a thought exercise, I have very little desire to speak to the Eucharist beyond my own experience. I don't claim to understand it beyond what I have experienced.

Quote:

---

We have brains, there is a physical change in the brain that can define these.

---

They can under-define these. You can't prove they're complete characterizations or even that the physical changes are not consequences rather than the change itself. You're making a kind of assumption error.

I'm not sure what this thread turned into but Brash is some good stuff.

Love going over there and playing 80's arcade games while drinking Milk The Venom

Quote:

---

I'm not arguing anything theological. I don't care if you take a symbolic protestant view or an orthodox view and call it a mystery. What I'm saying is that the argument made by Aquinas is weak in and of itself. And this isn't hard to demonstrate. Which is why you aren't defending it. But merely saying you don't like the alternatives.

---

uhhh. I have defended it. As I have pointed out the implication of your claim is atheistic materialism. Moroever, your lack of a counter claim make clear that you have no viable alternative rather than a claim that denies scripture and embraces atheistic materialism. Given the choice between Aquinas and atheistic materialism, or gnosticesque hyper dualism, the choice is abundantly clear. At worst it could be said that Aquinas cedes the Eucharist to a non-biblical concept.

Also, again, since you don't seem to "care" if the Eucharist is actually Christ or merely symbolic plays an important role in how this is discussed. If the Eucharist is merely symbolic, and the sacraments are merely symbolic, etc etc. Then were drifting into an implication of the incarnation being merely symbolic. So your particular view matters on this subject as it is cogent to your contention.

Aquinas' and other arguments as I have limited understanding of, merely suppose a way of reasoning through transubstantiation by way of acknowledging the metaphysical and limits of perception. If you believe that Almighty God was incarnate as a man, at some point it's probably helpful to acknowledge that you are going to run up against limits of explanation and perception.

The appeal to metaphysics and the super-rational has to happen way before you get into the minutiae of precisely what Christ meant in any one passage of scripture.

Whether you rely on a view of inerrant scripture or inerrant interpreter of scripture and tradition combined, it still has to come through our own thick skulls that already accepted things that can not be proven in the first place.

Depending on science without a perfected understanding of the highest astrophysics and subatomic particle theory remains an act of faith in any case.

It will all remain compelling to discuss because something will remain beyond our understanding. Would be a shame if it were otherwise. How dull would it be if science satisfactorily explained love, poetry and beauty like a math equation.

Quote:

---

uhhh. I have defended it. As I have pointed out the implication of your claim is atheistic materialism.

---

No it isn't. You merely claimed it with no argument or evidence. Logically demonstrate this. The point is you cannot demonstrate a lack of subjectivity.

Quote:

---

Moroever, your lack of a counter claim make clear that you have no viable alternative rather than a claim that denies scripture and embraces atheistic materialism.

---

Why must there be a viable alternative for me to demonstrate Aquinas is incorrect? That doesn't follow at all.

Quote:

---

. If the Eucharist is merely symbolic, and the sacraments are merely symbolic, etc etc. Then were drifting into an implication of the incarnation being merely symbolic. So your particular view matters on this subject as it is cogent to your contention.

---

My contention is only that Aquinas falls flat by making a subjective thing into an objective reality. Call it mystery call it whatever you want. Aquinas has a weak argument.

This is a very strange use of subjective and objective. It seems to beg the question.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what this thread turned into but Brash is some good stuff.

Love going over there and playing 80's arcade games while drinking Milk The Venom

---

The more I've thought about this, the more I blame the TST rather than the brewery.

it's certainly kitschy for the brewery, but if it's good, it's good.

Quote:

---

I think its both coherent and useful.

---

Then why can't you tell me anything about it?

Quote:

---

My ability or inability to describe change doesn't prove or disprove anything.

---

It demonstrate the hand waving and ad hoc nature of your argument.

Quote:

---

Consider, for example, that if there is reality beyond the created order (i.e., a transcendent God) then anything used by us to describe this is necessarily an analog and therefore false. Every concept, everything we see is in some way related to a tangible thing. I readily agree that my ability to make communicable assertions is limited to shared experience, and with most people that means mutually agreed concepts based on physical analogs

---

This is not an issue, we do this with our physical reality all the same. But you cannot even attempt it because this notion is so ad hoc and contrived.

Quote:

---

When we experience the love of God, we experience God. This is what Orthodox mean by grace. Grace is God's activity (which is what energeia means, comes from ergon, to work) which is eternal and metaphysical, but can also act temporally on, by, through, in, into the created order both physically and metaphysically.

---

Again, you are taking a concept "experience love" that acts physically and using it as an anology to the wine but it doesn't work, as we have stated, it only acts metaphysically whatever that means.

Quote:

---

When you ask me "what changed?" in any mystery, I say the person partook of the divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4). You ask "how does this manifest in physical reality" and I say - why does it need to? I didn't say there was no physical change to the wine. I just said it still tastes like wine.

---

What physical change is there? It tastes like wine because it still is. And It would need to change as a metaphysical change to wine with no physical counterpart seems an incoherent and meaningless ad hoc concept. Which is why you haven't been able to explain anything regarding what this might mean.

Quote:

---

They can under-define these. You can't prove they're complete characterizations or even that the physical changes are not consequences rather than the change itself. You're making a kind of assumption error.

---

You can't prove they aren't which is the foundation of your argument here and the evidence isn't wanting for something further nor is there evidence that they are the result of some other changes or how that mechanism might work and why that mechanism would be unobservable.

k2aggie07 said:

---

This is a very strange use of subjective and objective. It seems to beg the question.

---

The substance in this instance is nothing more than an individual perception, which varies considerably from person to person. Not an innate characteristic of a thing.

"The bread that you see on the altar is the Body of Christ as soon as it is sanctified by God's word. The chalice, or better what is contained in the chalice, is the Blood of Christ as soon as it is sanctified by God's word,"

Quote:

---

- St. Augustine

---

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible. -St. Thomas Aquinas



"He is The Bread sown in the virgin, leavened in the Flesh, molded in His Passion, baked in the furnace of the Sepulchre, placed in the Churches, and set upon the Altars, which daily supplies Heavenly Food to the faithful."

Quote:

---

- St. Peter Chrysologus (400-450)

---

"Do you realize that Jesus is there in the tabernacle expressly for you - for you alone? He burns with the desire to come into your heart...don't listen to the demon, laugh at him, and go without fear to receive the Jesus of peace and love...
"Receive Communion often, very often...there you have the sole remedy, if you want to be cured. Jesus has not put this attraction in your heart for nothing..."
"The guest of our soul knows our misery; He comes to find an empty tent within us - that is all He asks."

Quote:

---

- St. Therese of Lisieux

---

I don't know what "it" means throughout this post. When you asking me to tell you about "it" what is "it"? I've tried to describe for you the interpretive framework I'm coming from when I think about things which exist doing so simultaneously and unchangably both metaphysical and physical, and how they may change in either category of being (which again I think is a notional or descriptive category, not a real distinction).

When you say I can't attempt "it" what do you mean? Attempt what? To explain the Eucharist as meas of receiving grace?

Why do you think experiencing love is something that "acts physically"? Again, you have a starting premise of a materialistic view that you're imposing onto the discussion. You can't demonstrate that love is only a physical thing, but you turn around and expect me to demonstrate that its metaphysical.

To be clear, I was not using love as an analogy to the Eucharist. it was an example of an action of God that we receive, and an explanation of this as an example of grace within the theological nomenclature of the Orthodox Church. Grace is often taken to mean the working of God in all ways in which we participate.

Quote:

---

What physical change is there? It tastes like wine because it still is. And It would need to change as a metaphysical change to wine with no physical counterpart seems an incoherent and meaningless ad hoc concept. Which is why you haven't been able to explain anything regarding what this might mean.

---

Here's the crux, and it is an interesting one. You speak in an absolute term without really saying anything. In your subjective understanding a "need" for a metaphysical change without a physical one is "incoherent and meaningless" and "ad hoc".

But this was never the framing of the argument to begin with. We say, the receipt of the Eucharist is life, it is receipt of grace, it is receipt of God. It is also bread and wine. By the very nature of the claim there are two identities on the gifts - body and bread, blood and wine. It isn't "ad hoc" in the sense of, we just decided to make up this claim. It's ad hoc - as needed - because the inquiry has been made along the lines of, how do you understand and explain these two identity relationships which seem to be mutually exclusive?

The simple answer: we understand and explain that this happens by a change caused by the work of God, which we term grace. God, and His activity grace, is metaphysical in nature, but we also understand that He and it works on and in and through the created order, material things. It doesn't "need" to change absent of a physical one - a metaphysical action is occurring, and a metaphysical change happens accordingly. In other words, you need to express why a metaphysical action by necessity should produce a physical change at all. In this respect you have it precisely backwards.

Quote:

---

You can't prove they aren't which is the foundation of your argument here and the evidence isn't wanting for something further nor is there evidence that they are the result of some other changes or how that mechanism might work and why that mechanism would be unobservable.

---

Prove? What is the standard of proof and how would we achieve it? Why is it on me to prove anything here? We've already agreed that reality is underexperienced by us, so a categorization of "physical" as "sense-perceptible" is untenable. So you're asking me to prove something that we both agree - that imperceptible change can occur? Or prove that something happens we can't measure? Or prove a thought exercise about categorizations of modes of existence? This is a bit silly.

Even sillier is to say - prove physically something that happens metaphysically. You're asking for physical evidence of non-physical activity. It's like saying, prove to me that when you change temperature mass should change. There's no reason they should be interrelated at all, and in fact in some way they are exclusively not related by the basic premise of the concept.

Quote:

---

When you say I can't attempt "it" what do you mean? Attempt what? To explain the Eucharist as meas of receiving grace?

---

You cannot define what the metaphysical aspect of the wine was before, what it's function and meaning are and what it means to have changed into jesus blood.

Quote:

---

Why do you think experiencing love is something that "acts physically"? Again, you have a starting premise of a materialistic view that you're imposing onto the discussion.

---

It happens within the brain.

Quote:

---

You can't demonstrate that love is only a physical thing, but you turn around and expect me to demonstrate that its metaphysical.

---

You are the one claiming that a physical explanation is somehow wanting without articulating how or why. Nor demonstrating any reason to suspect something metaphysical

Quote:

---

To be clear, I was not using love as an analogy to the Eucharist. it was an example of an action of God that we receive, and an explanation of this as an example of grace within the theological nomenclature of the Orthodox Church. Grace is often taken to mean the working of God in all ways in which we participate.

---

You've yet to use any workable analogy to the Eucharist. That's what I'm getting at, you were trying at first to use this as analogous if it's not analogous what are you bringing it up for?

.

Quote:

---

Here's the crux, and it is an interesting one. You speak in an absolute term without really saying anything. In your subjective understanding a "need" for a metaphysical change without a physical one is "incoherent and meaningless" and "ad hoc".

---

You have offered nothing coherent. You cannot say what is happening, you cannot describe it. In what way is this not hand waving. You are making an assertion of a metaphysical change to something you do not understand and cannot describe other than to state that it exists.

Quote:

---

But this was never the framing of the argument to begin with. We say, the receipt of the Eucharist is life, it is receipt of grace, it is receipt of God. It is also bread and wine. By the very nature of the claim there are two identities on the gifts - body and bread, blood and wine. It isn't "ad hoc" in the sense of, we just decided to make up this claim. It's ad hoc - as needed - because the inquiry has been made along the lines of, how do you understand and explain these two identity relationships which seem to be mutually exclusive?

---

I never said it was made up on a whim. I'm quite aware its ad hoc to try an explain away what appears an obvious contradiction.

Quote:

---

The simple answer: we understand and explain that this happens by a change caused by the work of God, which we term grace. God, and His activity grace, is metaphysical in nature, but we also understand that He and it works on and in and through the created order, material things.

---

There is a difference between understand and blindly claim. That's what I'm getting at. You do not appear to understand really anything about it.

Quote:

---

It doesn't "need" to change absent of a physical one - a metaphysical action is occurring, and a metaphysical change happens accordingly. In other words, you need to express why a metaphysical action by necessity should produce a physical change at all. In this respect you have it precisely backwards.

---

You are unable to articulate a purpose, function or meaning to the metaphysical change you are asserting takes place. To be manifest physically in some manner is so far the ONLY way you've asserted any manner of metaphysical example that might exist. If you have something other by all means, but so far this is all you've offered.

Quote:

---

Prove? What is the standard of proof and how would we achieve it? Why is it on me to prove anything here? We've already agreed that reality is underexperienced by us, so a categorization of "physical" as "sense-perceptible" is untenable. So you're asking me to prove something that we both agree - that imperceptible change can occur? Or prove that something happens we can't measure? Or prove a thought exercise about categorizations of modes of existence? This is a bit silly.

---

Provide anything at all to support your claim. You are making a fact claim free of any argument and offer no reason to believe it.

Quote:

---

Even sillier is to say - prove physically something that happens metaphysically. You're asking for physical evidence of non-physical activity. It's like saying, prove to me that when you change temperature mass should change. There's no reason they should be interrelated at all, and in fact in some way they are exclusively not related by the basic premise of the concept.

---

I'm speaking of the assertion that the metaphysical affects the physical. This is absolutely a claim, an event which would be evidenced through the physical. Just like the claim that prayer has the power to heal could be evidenced physically. I wasn't speaking of proof in this instance, I'm speaking of evidence. And there is, in the instance of a "soul" reason to believe it would be linked to a mind, and it's trivial to say a mind and brain are linked.

Either you're not listening or I'm doing a bad job of explaining. Probably the latter. Either way, I'm not repeating myself again.

Aquinas's argument is that the Eucharist is substantially Jesus, even though the physical form is still bread. You have gone out of your way to reject this. It is clear that you have issues beyond his terminology and philosophical definitions of forms and being. This is even more made clear in the fact that you "don't care" if what Aquinas describes is actually true. Essentially your argument is "Regardless if what Thomas Aquinas describes is happening is true, I don't believe it because I reject Aristotelian metaphysics" It's basically contrarianism in order to make oneself appear to be be smarter than Aquinas.

Moreover the Eucharist is not "subjective" it's an objective reality. Again, at worst you can say that Aquinas uses subjective, or even incorrect, terminology to explain an objective reality that is actually happening at consecration. Moreover, contrary to what modernism preaches, perception is not reality.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I've thought about this. If they really did go to all the trouble of securing consecrated hosts, that level of hatred is really depressing. I'm not terribly offended.. but Christ endured all that on the cross. They will do what they want and we are taught that people will always be there to spit and mock Christ and Christians. The world will hate us because we do not belong here.

I find it more offensive when Christians are lackadaisical when celebrating the Lord's Supper.

---

A to the men on the lackadaisical celebration. I am Catholic and I watch how some people approach the altar to receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and it both saddens and maddens me.

Aggrad08 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

This is a very strange use of subjective and objective. It seems to beg the question.

---

The substance in this instance is nothing more than an individual perception, which varies considerably from person to person. Not an innate characteristic of a thing.

---

Can there be an innate characteristic that is anything "more than an individual perception?"

Quote:

---

Aquinas's argument is that the Eucharist is substantially Jesus, even though the physical form is still bread. You have gone out of your way to reject this.

---

No. Aquinas's argument is to try to provide a logical foundation for this belief, not the belief itself which pre-existed him. I haven't gone out of my way, I simply pointed out the failure of his argument. one you never once tried to challenge.

Quote:

---

It is clear that you have issues beyond his terminology and philosophical definitions of forms and being.

---

You are projecting, I kept my argument limited to specifically his logical failures, again, I'm not taking issue with the belief, I'm taking issue with the logical argument.

Quote:

---

This is even more made clear in the fact that you "don't care" if what Aquinas describes is actually true.

---

It's actually the opposite. You haven't done anything but throw ad hom attacks at me, this is an incredibly weak challenge. Debate the logical argument or go away. I'm not interested in you trying to justify your faith in this argument by attacking me.

Quote:

---

Essentially your argument is "Regardless if what Thomas Aquinas describes is happening is true, I don't believe it because I reject Aristotelian metaphysics" It's basically contrarianism in order to make oneself appear to be be smarter than Aquinas.

---

No, my argument is regardless of what you believe about the Eucharist, Aquinas's use of Aristotelian metaphysics is logically flawed and fails to do what he tried to. And it's small-minded thinking to assert that disagreement is for the sake of "making oneself smarter than Aquinas". Aquinas is dead and had a pretty above average head on his shoulders that doesn't make him right.

Quote:

---

Moreover the Eucharist is not "subjective" it's an objective reality.

---

This is a matter of faith and not what I was discussing at all. You are incapable of discussing this logically and dispassionately which is why your argument has been anything, anything at all other than logically defending Aquinas argument.

Quote:

---

Again, at worst you can say that Aquinas uses subjective, or even incorrect, terminology to explain an objective reality that is actually happening at consecration. Moreover, contrary to what modernism preaches, perception is not reality.

---

I'm not telling you what you believe. Believe what you will and call it a mystery which is literally what I said at the beginning of this thread. Just don't use Aquinas's flawed argument to provide support for the idea. And that perception isn't reality is exactly the flaw in Aquinas's argument! Thank you for agreeing on the point.

XUSCR said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

This is a very strange use of subjective and objective. It seems to beg the question.

---

The substance in this instance is nothing more than an individual perception, which varies considerably from person to person. Not an innate characteristic of a thing.

---

Can there be an innate characteristic that is anything "more than an individual perception?"

---

Yes I'm not sure why you think otherwise?

Aggrad08 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

This is a very strange use of subjective and objective. It seems to beg the question.

---

The substance in this instance is nothing more than an individual perception, which varies considerably from person to person. Not an innate characteristic of a thing.

---

Can there be an innate characteristic that is anything "more than an individual perception?"

---

Yes I'm not sure why you think otherwise?

---

Thanks. I was poking at the concept that reality is perceived so any perception of an innate characteristic is inherently subjective.

That houston thread was a fun read.

The real Christians fighting with the fake Christians over transubstantiation

Stasco said:

---

Evidently a couple of weeks ago, Brash Brewing in Houston teamed up with the Houston Satanic Temple to host a black mass. I won't link their site here, but the details are very easy to find on your search engine of choice. Of course, a "legitimate" black mass requires the desecration of an actual Consecrated Host, and the organizers have played coy about whether or not they actually stole a Host from a Catholic parish somewhere.

In any case, the whole thing is bizarre as much as it is disgusting to me. Seems odd that a brewing company would go so far to piss off a substantial portion of their potential consumer base. I'm a big beer drinker (and sometimes homebrewer.) I don't think I've had Brash before, but I'd certainly heard of them. On closer inspection, it seems fairly obvious from their logo that they're big on satanic imagery, but I guess somehow I hadn't noticed.

Thoughts? I assume I'm way behind on discovering this, but just a PSA in case anyone else is shopping for a six pack and would prefer not to drink a beer involving the desecration of our Blessed Lord.

---

Not acceptable. Thanks for posting this even though I would never buy their product anyway.