Transubstantiation

[jeremyp]

This story might be more suitable for Entertainment because it is quite funny. However, it does talk about the theme of transubstantiation.

http://gallusrostromegalus.tumblr.com/post/169723347468/the-1969-easter-mass-incident

[jeremyp]

Hilarious!

The idea that the bread and wine actually change into the body and blood of Jesus is absolutely crazy. How anyone can believe that to be true beggars belief. I wonder what AB has to say on this topic?

And the idea of baking a life sized crucified Jesus and allowing people to tear pieces off throws the gruesomeness of the belief into sharp relief.

[Robbie]

Many people believe in transubstantiation, not quite as described. Alan undoubtedly does, maybe one or two others - Humph perhaps? The Orthodox do believe something similar as do 'High Anglicans'. There's also Consubstantiation. It means a great deal to them but I've never seen anyone on this forum try to push it onto anyone. So no need, surely, to be quite so scathing.

I did think the article was quite funny.

,

Hilarious!

The idea that the bread and wine actually change into the body and blood of Jesus is absolutely crazy. How anyone can believe that to be true beggars belief. I wonder what AB has to say on this topic?

You'll certainly find out soon.

[Alan Burns]

Hilarious!

The idea that the bread and wine actually change into the body and blood of Jesus is absolutely crazy. How anyone can believe that to be true beggars belief. I wonder what AB has to say on this topic?

Transubstantiation is absolutely central to my faith.
I know it can seem odd to people outside the faith, or even to some of those inside, but it is what God's church does in order to follow what Jesus asked of us when He says "Do this in commemoration of me" at the last supper.

[Robbie]

I read a bit about it earlier & it seems that at the consecretion of the elements (bread and wine) Jesus is present but the elements do not change physically.

in other traditions Communion is considered to be a holy occasion, where Christ is with the congregants but without him being present in the bread and wine.

In all, everyone present is in communication not only with Jesus but with eachother. A reverent time.

I can see the attraction for believers & why it is so important to them.

Anyone who is not part of a faith group will see their practices as 'odd',  but nobody has to do it so I fail to understand why it is laughable to some.

Consubstantiation is slightly different and various traditions practice it, anyone interested can google as I did. The doctrine is basically that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

I'm to bed now.

[ProfessorDavey]

But AB it is easily proved that the bread and wine don't change their nature.

Depends whether you consider the change to be symbolic or actual. If the latter then it is easy to prove that no change has taken place. If symbolic, well that depends entirely on your belief - if someone wants to argue that their is a symbolic change that is important to them, well fine by me. If they want to argue that there is an actual change from bread/wine to flesh/blood then they are wrong.

[Harrowby Hall]

According to Wikipedia:

The doctrine of transubstantiation is the result of a theological dispute started in the 11th century, when Berengar of Tours denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic Presence, thereby provoking a considerable stir.  Berengar's position was never diametrically opposed to that of his critics, and he was probably never excommunicated, but the controversies that he aroused (see Stercoranism) forced people to clarify the doctrine of the Eucharist. The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century. By the end of the 12th century the term was in widespread use.

The Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood". It was only later in the 13th century that Aristotelian metaphysics was accepted and a philosophical elaboration in line with that metaphysics was developed, which found classic formulation in the teaching of Thomas Aquinas."

So, the idea of transubstantiation is essentially one of metaphysics. Where is Vlad when you need him?

[Alan Burns]

But AB it is easily proved that the bread and wine don't change their nature.

I know there is no change in nature or appearance, but we believe that Jesus is physically present in the bread and wine after the moment of consecration.  It is re enacting what Jesus did and said at the last supper.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know there is no change in nature or appearance, but we believe that Jesus is physically present in the bread and wine after the moment of consecration.  It is re enacting what Jesus did and said at the last supper.

physically present or symbolically present. If the former surely there would be some physical change which would be detectable.

[Alan Burns]

physically present or symbolically present. If the former surely there would be some physical change which would be detectable.

I have read that there is a value placed on the consecrated host by devil worshippers who pay for it in order to perform ritual abuse on the host.  And apparently these devil worshippers can tell whether the host has been consecrated.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have read that there is a value placed on the consecrated host by devil worshippers who pay for it in order to perform ritual abuse on the host.  And apparently these devil worshippers can tell whether the host has been consecrated.

You aren't answering the question Alan.

[ippy]

Transubstantiation is absolutely central to my faith.
I know it can seem odd to people outside the faith, or even to some of those inside, but it is what God's church does in order to follow what Jesus asked of us when He says "Do this in commemoration of me".

Sad

[Gordon]

It sounds like a symbolic ritual that has become ingrained through tradition and authority, possibly because it involves 'doing something' that reinforces the core beliefs. No doubt those who buy into the tradition find it gives them a warm and cozy feeling.

Of course ritual behaviour isn't just confined to religions: for example some sports seems riven with ritual, for instance golf with its special clothes and special words, and where golf enthusiasts (and I;ve met a few) would be bereft without all the flummery that they seem to think is essential in order to hit a wee white ball with a stick in the general direction of a hole in the ground.   

[ippy]

I have read that there is a value placed on the consecrated host by devil worshippers who pay for it in order to perform ritual abuse on the host.  And apparently these devil worshippers can tell whether the host has been consecrated.

Now, is it the Klingons or the Vulcans that have a belief similar to this one of yours Alan?

Even more necessarily kind regards to you Alan, ippy

[Robbie]

I've also read the same, Alan, but that only proves the consecrated blood and wine have great significance to the devil worshippers. Personally I do not believe those people would be able to tell, unless they nicked the same from the place where consecrated hosts are kept.

My understanding (which I've already said) is that, to those who believe, transubstantiation means Christ is actually present but the elements still have the appearance of bread and wine - you wouldn't know from looking or putting under a microscope. All a matter of faith.

Some traditions believe that Christ is spiritually present at the time of consecration and while people are taking communion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've also read the same, Alan, but that only proves the consecrated blood and wine have great significance to the devil worshippers. Personally I do not believe those people would be able to tell, unless they nicked the same from the place where consecrated hosts are kept.

My understanding (which I've already said) is that, to those who believe, transubstantiation means Christ is actually present but the elements still have the appearance of bread and wine - you wouldn't know from looking or putting under a microscope. All a matter of faith.

Some traditions believe that Christ is spiritually present at the time of consecration and while people are taking communion.

I did hear of a prison vicar who noted a quite different reaction and reception to himself from the inmate body when he went with communion wafers and when he never and decided to experiment with hidden wafers.

[jeremyp]

So no need, surely, to be quite so scathing.

So when did the rule come in that you can only be scathing when there are people on the forum who believe in the  thing?

[ProfessorDavey]

I did hear of a prison vicar who noted a quite different reaction and reception to himself from the inmate body when he went with communion wafers and when he never and decided to experiment with hidden wafers.

All that would do is test inmate side psychological alteration in behaviour. It would address the issue which is a more credible explanation if there was a change in behaviour. Namely that the vicar changed his behaviour towards the inmates (and therefore received a different response in return) when he was carrying wafers and not. Give that the vicar is likely the be the person 'in the room' most bought into the significance of the wafers, then the alteration in behaviour is much more likely to be on his side.

But hey I'm just a scientist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All that would do is test inmate side psychological alteration in behaviour. It would address the issue which is a more credible explanation if there was a change in behaviour. Namely that the vicar changed his behaviour towards the inmates (and therefore received a different response in return) when he was carrying wafers and not. Give that the vicar is likely the be the person 'in the room' most bought into the significance of the wafers, then the alteration in behaviour is much more likely to be on his side.

But hey I'm just a scientist.

No one is disputing that Professor or your suggestion of a methodology.
What is a bit dubious is an advocacy of a particular outcome of your methodology.
He could of course have arranged for someone to drop a wafer into a pocket unannounced.
Of course we don't know the nature or methodology of his experiment.

[ProfessorDavey]

No one is disputing that Professor or your suggestion of a methodology.
What is a bit dubious is an advocacy of a particular outcome of your methodology.
He could of course have arranged for someone to drop a wafer into a pocket unannounced.
Of course we don't know the nature or methodology of his experiment.

I think the point being, firstly that (as I mentioned before) the vicar is probably the person most bought into the significance of the wafers as a priest, compared to a bunch of inmates. Secondly that he (rather than the inmates) is the only person reporting a change in behaviour, so it could be purely that to be his subjective perception, rather than an objective observation.

And in science we develop hypotheses, which are exactly what you complain of - in other words an expected outcome, that is tested and proven to stand up to the testing or rejected.

So it is perfectly reasonable to have a hypothesis that claims that 'carrying communion wafers alters the manner in which the vicar interacts with inmates' with secondary hypotheses that:

'the inmates alter their behaviour too' or alternatively 'that the vicar perceives an alteration in their behaviour due to his altered psychological state.

How would you test - well it would need to be a double blinded independently observed study. So you could have an envelope that may or may not contain wafers - whether it does or not is not known by the vicar, the inmates or the observer. You would then need an independent person to observe the interactions (obviously not the vicar nor the inmates). What would be interesting too would be, following the independent observations, to have another researcher interview (or use a questionnaire etc) to determine whether the inmates perceived a difference in the response of the vicar to them or a response of themselves to the vicar. And to do the same for the vicar.

In order to assess psychological effects you would repeat the experiment under circumstances where you tell the vicar, the inmates or both whether or not the wafers are in the envelope - and you would do this in a random manner, so sometimes what you tell them is true sometime not.

That would be how you would go about the experiment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the point being, firstly that (as I mentioned before) the vicar is probably the person most bought into the significance of the wafers as a priest, compared to a bunch of inmates. Secondly that he (rather than the inmates) is the only person reporting a change in behaviour, so it could be purely that to be his subjective perception, rather than an objective observation.

And in science we develop hypotheses, which are exactly what you complain of - in other words an expected outcome, that is tested and proven to stand up to the testing or rejected.

So it is perfectly reasonable to have a hypothesis that claims that 'carrying communion wafers alters the manner in which the vicar interacts with inmates' with secondary hypotheses that:

'the inmates alter their behaviour too' or alternatively 'that the vicar perceives an alteration in their behaviour due to his altered psychological state.

How would you test - well it would need to be a double blinded independently observed study. So you could have an envelope that may or may not contain wafers - whether it does or not is not known by the vicar, the inmates or the observer. You would then need an independent person to observe the interactions (obviously not the vicar nor the inmates). What would be interesting too would be, following the independent observations, to have another researcher interview (or use a questionnaire etc) to determine whether the inmates perceived a difference in the response of the vicar to them or a response of themselves to the vicar. And to do the same for the vicar.

In order to assess psychological effects you would repeat the experiment under circumstances where you tell the vicar, the inmates or both whether or not the wafers are in the envelope - and you would do this in a random manner, so sometimes what you tell them is true sometime not.

That would be how you would go about the experiment.

No trouble on methodology. Could you expand on any significance of buying into the significance of the wafers. At present it seems like a bit of innuendo on your part at the moment designed to muddy waters.

[ProfessorDavey]

No trouble on methodology. Could you expand on any significance of buying into the significance of the wafers. At present it seems like a bit of innuendo on your part at the moment designed to muddy waters.

Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.

All I am proposing is a study (were anyone inclined to perform it) that would objectively assess whether the presence of wafers affected the interaction between the vicar and inmates. And were it to do whether it was due to a psychological effect and whether that was drive  by the response of the vicar, the inmates or both, possibly in a reciprocal manner.

But given that the basis of the study appears to be a single person, who is clearly not an objective observer, making an anecdotal claim, then I doubt any serious psychology researchers would be interested.

[SusanDoris]

I listened all the way through the link yesterday evening and thought it was very funny. I wrote to say so and, as so very often happens, I got the 'this page can't be displayed. Extremely annoying;

[ippy]

I did hear of a prison vicar who noted a quite different reaction and reception to himself from the inmate body when he went with communion wafers and when he never and decided to experiment with hidden wafers.

They were probably thinking to themselves, here comes that poor old silly sod again, best humour him and knowing this silly stuff he comes out with from time to time they couldn't help looking a bit stand off'ish to him.

A bit of a similar reaction most of us would have if we happened to associate with some of those people that think Elvis is still hanging around somewhere.

Regards ippy.

[Robbie]

So when did the rule come in that you can only be scathing when there are people on the forum who believe in the  thing?

I don't believe anyone should be scathing about anything that is posted. Disagree, discuss, find out why people believe what they do, see things from a different angle....that's what a forum like this is for, surely.

I did hear of a prison vicar who noted a quite different reaction and reception to himself from the inmate body when he went with communion wafers and when he never and decided to experiment with hidden wafers.

Intriguing Private Frazier, don't quite understand what you're saying in that one sentence. I'm mentally trying to put in commas but they might be in the wrong places. Perhaps you'd explain, describe the reaction and reception to himself and how he experimented with hidden wafers. Why were they hidden, did he pull them out from behind an inmate's ear or something? Prison church sounds quite entertaining  .