Pope Francis says atheists can be good

[grumbler]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament is literally, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but in actual reality as well,[1][2] changed into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the physical[citation needed] appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.[7][8] What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.[10]
The Eastern Ort

It actually changes without seeming to change. Both physical and spiritual.

If the best source you can find is "some guy on the internet," like the author of a wikipedia article, best not to press the case.

[Martinus]

How about the Aquinas?

I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.

Or still not good enough for you?

[grumbler]

The "essence" changes but to our senses (i.e. physically) it remains the same. It's really a highly abstract difference.

And this miraculous change to the "essence" comes as the result of the speaking of specific words by a designated and empowered priest, does it not?  How does this differ from casting a spell, except by being a miracle?

I don't think Otto's position that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in commonly-occurring miracles is tenable, unless the Eucharist is changed by a magical spell cast by the priest.

[Valmy]

Really?  You've never heard of him?  His case is probably the best-known case of the church rejecting empirical evidence. 

Um yes I was amused you used an example because I know nothing about it

But I guess you just think I am easily amused and that is fair enough.

It was so wrapped up in the hilarious fun of renaissance Italian politics, essentially he was a big wheel whose enemies got control of the Papacy, and with the Church being so married to Aristotle I thought it was funny you used that as an example of the Church blindly persecuting based on the Bible.

[The Minsky Moment]

The "essence" changes but to our senses (i.e. physically) it remains the same. It's really a highly abstract difference.

No it is not an abstract difference, unless one approaches the question from an empiricist philosophical framework, in which case the entire doctrine is at best gibberish.  It is a very real and critical difference.  It means the after the consecration, the bread and the wine are not there; they have really been replaced by the blood and body.  It just does not appear that way to senses.

[The Minsky Moment]

How about the Aquinas?

Read on further:

It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament. For it was said  that Christ's entire body is contained under every part of the consecrated host. But no dimensive quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be there. . . I answer that . . .the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away.    Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament. . . . Since, then, the substance of Christ's body is present on the altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole, and the whole in every part. 

Christ's body is really there in all of its parts and dimensions but it is not perceived as being there.
Which is consistent with the other passage.

[Tamas]

Next topic of discussion: Big Foot's digestive system

[Viking]

Basically something very important and significant happens to the cracker, but... nothing you can do to observe or measure it will show this and no effect of this will be measured nor will it have any observable or measurable effect until, in keynes speak, the long run has passed and we are all dead.

[OttoVonBismarck]

During transubstantiation the Church teaches that the substance of the bread and the wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ, but not the physical form and appearance. It's akin to if a block of lead was turned to gold but in a way that no human could detect it was anything other than lead. Transubstantiation is often talked about too much by non-theists who lack appropriate theological understanding of the issue, the real importance of the Eucharist is the presence of Christ himself during the ritual, which is what allows it to happen.

This core religious ritual is very different from what I'm talking about from Protestants, who instead believe that any person for any reason can basically summon magical powers from God to achieve worldly concerns. The Eucharist is a strictly spiritual thing, whereas many American Protestants believe you can use the power of God to protect you from the venom of a snake, or if you pray enough you can expect God to solve major life problems for you.

[Tamas]

[OttoVonBismarck]

I actually wonder how many here have sat in on a American Protestant religious service. A grandmother on my father's side was Presbyterian, a mainline Protestant denomination and their services are very normal and non-crazy to me. But I've heard Southern Baptist and Pentecostal sermons and in between the mixture of craziness, speaking in tongues and other insanity the core message of all of their sermons I've ever heard have been either of two possible things: 1) if you do not do exactly what the Bible says you will burn forever in Hell and can most likely expect horrible things to happen to you in the material world as well, 2) any problem in life can be and should be first resolved by devotion to God and prayer, you should pray for anyone who is having a problem because God will answer those prayers and solve those problems for you, any concern at all with matters of the world is innately sinful and wrong.

[The Minsky Moment]

During transubstantiation the Church teaches that the substance of the bread and the wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ, but not the physical form and appearance.

The form does change, but not the appearance.

Transubstantiation is often talked about too much by non-theists who lack appropriate theological understanding of the issue . . . The Eucharist is a strictly spiritual thing

It's not a question of purely theological understanding; there is a clear philosophical underpinning using the categories and elements of classic Greek philosophy.  It is not "strictly spiritual" - that is what "Real Presence" means.  Strictly spiritual would be closer to Lutheran doctrine.

[grumbler]

Um yes I was amused you used an example because I know nothing about it

But I guess you just think I am easily amused and that is fair enough.

It was so wrapped up in the hilarious fun of renaissance Italian politics, essentially he was a big wheel whose enemies got control of the Papacy, and with the Church being so married to Aristotle I thought it was funny you used that as an example of the Church blindly persecuting based on the Bible.

Interesting.  So, you think that the whole heliocentric debate was a cover for Italian Renaissance politics, and the Church just maintained the Index's ban on heliocentric works until the Eighteenth century as an oversight?  I think this looks like as amusing a case of rejecting empiricism in favor of doctrine as what the church pulled.  Giordano Bruno would be amused.

[The Minsky Moment]

Basically something very important and significant happens to the cracker, but... nothing you can do to observe or measure it will show this and no effect of this will be measured nor will it have any observable or measurable effect until, in keynes speak, the long run has passed and we are all dead.

From an empiricist perspective, it is quite literally gibberish, like saying 0=1 or "The red thing is not red"
It depends on having a concept of substance or essence that can be separated from its perceptible manifestations, so e.g. you could have a horse that doesn't have any of the particulars that we associate with a horse (and perhaps has other particulars like those of a dog or a motorboat), or alternatively you could have something that appears to be a horse and actually has all of the particulars or accidents of a horse but in fact is something else entirely.
The theological component is postulating the existence of an omnipotent God who could cause this separation to occur through a miracle.
But before you get to the theology, you have to have a philosophical underpinning that makes the very notion coherent and possible, even for a omnipotent Being.  In the empiricist framework, the entire concept is incoherent and so the theology is irrelevant.

[Viking]

OVB

- arguing that American Protestants are worse is a Red Herring, I'm happy to condemn them too, but in this case saying they are worse does not support your case

- arguing that only that only believers can understand it is special pleading atheist theologians as well as atheist former catholics do understand the issue

the thing about bible believing protestants (we have them in scandinavia as well) is that they actually do have a rational internally consistent view based on the assumption that the bible is the word of god. This is what makes them seem crazy. They actually believe what they say they believe.