The Not-so-elephant In The Room

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, just saying "it changes into Jesus without changing" isn't very convincing.

[KevinM1]

Question: do the faithful who engage in the Eucharist actually notice the transubstantiation? Because whenever I engaged in the ritual (remember, I grew up in a barely practicing Catholic household) it all tasted like a crappy stale wafer and wine, and I didn't feel blessed or energized or content afterward. Then again, I was one of those kids who just kind of went through the motions because it's what my elders expected of me and I didn't want to get into trouble. I never actually believed, even back then.

So, what do the faithful experience when they do it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

You clearly didn't have the spirit, Kevin.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Question: do the faithful who engage in the Eucharist actually notice the transubstantiation?  Because whenever I engaged in the ritual (remember, I grew up in a barely practicing Catholic household) it all tasted like a crappy stale wafer and wine, and I didn't feel blessed or energized or content afterward.  Then again, I was one of those kids who just kind of went through the motions because it's what my elders expected of me and I didn't want to get into trouble.  I never actually believed, even back then.

So, what do the faithful experience when they do it?

The wafer, which is protected by armed guards in the Vatican against those who would desecrate it (e.g. the Satanists in their mocking Black Masses) tastes so bad that I doubt most would know the difference if it really was a dried piece of corpse skin.   Maybe that's what it really is - and poor single mothers think their Catholic charities are taking in the babies which they were forced to have for adoption!

[Catholic_Lady]

Here's some info on the belief:



They are still in the shape of bread and wine, but we do believe that Jesus is present within them.

Well, that's not what the Catechism says.  It says that there is a change in the substance -- "transubstantiation". Your quote cites CCC 1736 as if it's relevant, but it isn't, if you'll do yourself the favor of reading it.

This quote compares the doctrine of wine changing into blood -- physically, according to Catechism -- to a child changing into an adult.  The comparison is clearly faulty, for while children, so long as they are nurtured indeed grow into adults, wine, no matter how long it is prayed-over, will never change into the blood of a man. You appeal to a meaningless spirituo-theological definition of "substance" in this special pleading of yours, but the fact is, your Catholic Catechism makes no such claim, distinguishes no such nuance. It simply states that the wafers turn into the substance of flesh -- they take on that material form. The wine turns to blood.

The quote you've provided is a combination of semantics and appeals to authority that carry no weight. These bishops can redefine substance as "deepest reality" (whatever that horseshit means!), but the fact is, they did not write the Catechism. The authors of the Catechism left no doubt in their words that they thought of transubstantiation as a physical thing.

I don't know what else to tell you. The Catechism uses the term "substance matter." What I posted above explains exactly what is meant by "substance matter." The Catechism and the link to the Conference of Catholic Bishops are not at all in opposition. It just doesn't happen to be what you think is meant by it. Here is where it specifically addresses substance matter and what the Church means by it:

 In the Church's traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the "substance" of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the "substance" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the "accidents" or appearances of bread and wine remain. "Substance" and "accident" are here used as philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents" or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of "substance" or deepest reality).

[Catholic_Lady]

Question: do the faithful who engage in the Eucharist actually notice the transubstantiation?  Because whenever I engaged in the ritual (remember, I grew up in a barely practicing Catholic household) it all tasted like a crappy stale wafer and wine, and I didn't feel blessed or energized or content afterward.  Then again, I was one of those kids who just kind of went through the motions because it's what my elders expected of me and I didn't want to get into trouble.  I never actually believed, even back then.

So, what do the faithful experience when they do it?

No, it still looks/feels/tastes like bread and wine.

[KevinM1]

Question: do the faithful who engage in the Eucharist actually notice the transubstantiation?  Because whenever I engaged in the ritual (remember, I grew up in a barely practicing Catholic household) it all tasted like a crappy stale wafer and wine, and I didn't feel blessed or energized or content afterward.  Then again, I was one of those kids who just kind of went through the motions because it's what my elders expected of me and I didn't want to get into trouble.  I never actually believed, even back then.

So, what do the faithful experience when they do it?

No, it still looks/feels/tastes like bread and wine.

What about the second part of my question?  Do you feel different/better/changed/blessed when you take it?

[Whateverist]

Their view of "not hurting anyone" may be different depending on their beliefs. That's the problem. Everyone thinks they are the good guys. If you're Catholic, then perhaps abortion is a good example to use. If Catholicism is correct, then abortion could be a terrible atrocity on par with or exceeding the Holocaust*. This would make atheists who support abortion very harmful people indeed, although they believe what they are doing is good. On the other hand, if atheism is true then aborting an insentient blob of cells (leaving later term abortions alone for now) is completely harmless, and all Christians who make this problem central to their lives are wasting enormous amounts of time which could be spent far more productively.

We could think of many more examples like this.

*As a side note, I always felt that if Christianity were true aborting an embryo or fetus would be doing it the favor of sending it directly to heaven. I wish I would have been aborted, if that's the case. But this is beside the point.

In what way am I making the world a worst place?

Well all that forcible vajay sucking for one.  Forced oral copulation is just your way to feel power over others.

[Whateverist]

---

 j/k

---

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't have children yet, but when I do I fully intend on raising them within the faith, which is the same way my parents raised me. However, once they start growing up I would hope the do their own "soul searching" to see if this is really what they believe. And if not, I will love them and accept them regardless.

Once you've raised them within your own faith, don't you think that will necessarily constrict their search?

I didn't raise my son to think a particular way. I didn't lie about my atheism, nor did I denigrate his mother's beliefs; but I did teach him to question everything, including my own statements, and taught him the use of reason as a tool.

I didn't program him what to think. I taught him reasoning and let him program himself.