by leavingwt 64 Replies latest jw friends
It would seem that the physical reality of this doctrine would be a very easy thing to prove through scientific examination...once it is proved that the wine does not really turn to blood, then the doctrinaires would logically say that it is a symbolic transubstantiation -
Which brings you full circle back to what they want to believe in the first place, and makes the argument pointless.
That's a little present-ist, isn't it? We can be reasonably certain that the Christians of the primitive Church were quite aware that the bread and wine, since they do not taste like blood and flesh, were not transformed in a way perceptable to the senses. So, your modern scientific test would tell us exactly what everybody already knew. The claim is one of spiritual reality.
The claim is one of spiritual reality.
Exactly my point - so why dont the Transubstantiationers say so in the first place? Why insist that it is physically true?
The claim is that the elements are truly changed in essence, but exist to the senses as bread and wine. Nobody says there is a physical change, if by the term you are referring to a change that is observable to the senses.
The claim is that the elements are truly changed in essence, but exist to the senses as bread and wine. Nobody says there is a physical change, if by the term you are referring to a change that is observable to the senses.
Physical change is what is understood by practically everybody that believes in this doctrine. I just read of a famous physicist (Fred Hoyle, IIRC) who went to the effort (as a boy) of saving some of the eucharist in his mouth to take home and examine by microscope to compare with living samples. He was, of course, dissappointed to find that it was not transubstantiated physically.
I'm late to this thread, so maybe this has been covered, but...
IF, that is, IF...
...the actual wine and cracker turned to Christ's blood and flesh, wouldn't it have run out a long time ago? There's only so much Jesus meat to go 'round, ya know...
...and wouldn't this be a form or cannabalism?
The body of christ.
...and wouldn't this be a form or cannabalism?
Another very basic problem that MANY people have with this teaching...
Physical change is what is understood by practically everybody that believes in this doctrine. I just read of a famous physicist (Fred Hoyle, IIRC) who went to the effort (as a boy) of saving some of the eucharist in his mouth to take home and examine by microscope to compare with living samples. He was, of course, dissappointed to find that it was not transubstantiated physically.
Couldn't tell you what the Catholic on the street thinks, any more than you can, I guess. It is a substantial presence which is a technical term requiring some grounding in Aristotle, Aquinas, and the rest to get a handle on. It is not surprising that there is confusion about this teaching.
...and wouldn't this be a form or cannabalism?
Well, that was clearly the problem the Jews had when Jesus talked about it, as the Gospel of John says. It was also a problem for the Romans in the second century, according to the apology by Justin Martyr. It's one of those weird, impossible things the Christians have always taught, like that a man could rise from the dead.
Indeed, Romans and others despised Christians for incest (calling each other brother and sister) and cannibalism. The early church let only baptized members stay for communion. The need for secrecy seemed to confirm the worst fears and rumors of what actually happened. I don't know why presence at communion was so restrictive. When I first heard what pagans believed, I thought those crazy pagans. When I found out about the great secrecy, it is easy to see their logical leap. Elaine Pagels wrote that soon Christians purposefully stayed behind during plagues to nurse people. Their reputation soared.
