View Single Post
Old 12-07-2011, 06:27 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Of course. That is the belief. It isn't real though. That is my point.
If someone says "Catholic belief X is wacky" it's not a good defense (nor one likely to be appreciated by Catholics) to say "Catholic belief X is not true, so it can't be wacky." Nor is it a good defense to say Catholics say they believe X but they really believe Y and Y isn't wacky.

If transubstantiation is a weird belief, you can't argue against that claim by saying that of course it's not true. It's still a weird belief. (I have no problem with it, personally, weirdness aside.)

I find the Catholic church appealing as a cultural institution. If the beliefs of Catholics are necessary to continue producing the outcomes I prefer, then I will defend their beliefs.
It's not really a defense to say "well, of course this is nonsense, but it's socially beneficial nonsense." The Catholic Church wouldn't say you should believe its teachings regardless of truth. Obviously, the Catholic Church claims Catholicism is true. Now, from your POV, I'd say it's a fair defense to say that it's not sensible in your mind, but you don't think the objections in question are fair ones.

It is imaginary to me.
Sure, but again that doesn't affect the claim, which was that Catholics believe weird things, not that they somehow make those weird things to be true in the minds of nonbelievers. Specifically, it was that Catholics believe in cannibalism, which I wouldn't say is accurate (depends on how one defines cannibalism, I suppose) or particularly interesting, but it's not a false claim simply because you, as a nonbeliever, don't believe in the Real Presence.

Even congregants these days accept that transubstantiation is a spiritual matter, not a practical, real thing which would allow an allusion to cannibalism. I doubt anyone actually ever felt otherwise.
Again, it sounds as if you are claiming that Catholics don't really believe in transubstantiation, or perhaps in the Real Presence at all. Obviously some don't (many, although the Church likes to blame inadequate catechesis), but if you are denying what is a fundamental argument between Catholicism and much of Protestantism, that's not really a defense.

As far as how people felt, I'm not sure what you are saying, but I'd recommend investigating Corpus Christi miracles.

That used to be pagan slander.
Right, but that it was getting at a particular understanding of the teaching from the earliest days is actually a common argument used now to respond to the more Reformed or fundamentalist (since they are the ones who usually bother arguing) claim that it should be taken as not real, just a memory.

Last edited by stephanie; 12-07-2011 at 06:30 PM..
Reply With Quote