Transubstantiation and Celiac Disease

Hello Cathodox.
If Transubstantiation is true, why do people with celiac have allergic reactions to the Host?
Thanks.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's probably because the priest jizzed into the cup before serving it. You just know some of them probably did it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Christianity is an accident.
      [...]
      cope idolater

      No, it's a real miracle. Christianity is simply not true. People are right to ask questions.

      You're a wienersucker, but that hasn't stopped you either.

      >Le heckin zased internet atheists are at it again
      Go back to r/atheism, this board is not for the likes of you

      https://i.imgur.com/4cHKmKr.jpeg

      Choose Your Fighter!

      Is he holding a bread loaf slice?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I know a guy who acted like you do now. Defiant, spitting in the face of God, being shitty to everyone around him. After years of compounding drug and social issues, he tried to find God. He now lies on his side in pain 24 7 praying for the pain to go away. He told me he realized he was foolish for acting against God for all those years.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Skill issue

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the accidents of the bread remain.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So you believe in consubstantiation?
      It's still 100% bread but 100% Jesus?

      There's still the problem with promulgating that to be saved you have to consume something which will kill you.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >So you believe in consubstantiation?
        No, the substance changes, but the accidents remain. That's the definition of transubstantiation. You should really not be trying to argue against people's beliefs before you even understand them.
        >There's still the problem with promulgating that to be saved you have to consume something which will kill you.
        It's not necessary for salvation. And they can receive Communion under the species of the wine.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >No, the substance changes, but the accidents remain.
          But in practice it's 100% bread though, down to the molecular level, or else it wouldn't cause reactions in persons with celiac.

          >And they can receive Communion under the species of the wine.
          Some people are allergic to alcohol. And while I'm sure the odds of someone who both has celiac and an alcohol allergy are small enough such that no one currently has both, should you not at least pause to consider that nothing actually changes with either "species"?

          When Christ performed miracles the "accidents" actually changed. Have you considered that there are no such thing as "accidents"? At least how you define them?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But in practice it's 100% bread though, down to the molecular level
            Yeah, and all of that falls under the Aristotelian category of accidents.
            >Have you considered that there are no such thing as "accidents"?
            That's obviously false. The color of your hair, the fact that you occupy a certain location, the fact that you have a certain size and shape, etc.—all of these things are accidents. If you understood what the word meant, you wouldn't say something like that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is an example of substance?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, so everything about bread is accidents. What is substance?

            Any individual thing, like a chair. Any quality of the chair, like its color, would be an accident, as would its location, any relations it has to other things, etc.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you honestly believe that Aristotle, had he access to modern knowledge of chemistry, would have come to the same theory of "accidents" and "substances"?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't see why not.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            can you give examples from Aristotle of accidents and substances?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            From Aristotle's Categories:
            >Of things said without any combination, each signifies either substance or quantity or qualification or a relative or where or when or being-in-a-position or having or doing or being-affected. To give a rough idea, examples of substance are man, horse; of quantity: four-foot, five-foot; of qualification: white, grammatical; of a relative: double, half, larger; of where: in the Lyceum, in the market-place; of when: yesterday, last-year; of being-in-a-position: is-lying, is-sitting; of having: has-shoes-on, has-armour-on; of doing: cutting, burning; of being-affected:being-cut, being-burned.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Would Aristotle argue using these categories that a loaf of bread (or a wafer, etc.) isn't ACTUALLY bread? Especially if it retains all the QUALITIES of bread?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I doubt Aristotle would personally like transubstantiation. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I doubt Aristotle would personally like transubstantiation. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

            Aristotle is the inventor of terms "accidents" and "substance" whom Aquinas credits.
            Taking these terms and then redefining them specifically to suit a single argument you're trying to make may not be the most honest endeavor. no?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Aquinas doesn't redefine the terms. That's not what Aristotle would take issue with, I think. Typically what people point out as a departure from Aristotle on the part of Aquinas is that Aristotle would not like the idea of an accident being able to exist without inhering in a substance. But there are plausible examples of this that you can give. Alexander Pruss gives the examples that you can hear a lightning strike even after it's already over, or you can see the light from a distant star even after it's already died. Both of those are examples of accidents existing in the absence of a substance.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wouldn't the substance be "lightning" and "star"? You hear lightning after you see it because light travels faster than sound. I don't think Aristotelianism implies all objects have an infinite velocity.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Wouldn't the substance be "lightning" and "star"?
            Yeah, but the point of the examples is that even after the lightning and the star are gone, their accidents can still go on existing for a time. Just like the accidents of the bread exist even after the bread is gone.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Just like the accidents of the bread exist even after the bread is gone.
            the bread isnt gone though
            a photograph of bread would be an accident of the substance of bread.
            bread youre physically holding in your hands and/or having an allergic reaction to is not gone.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a photograph of bread would be an accident of the substance of bread.
            No, the photograph of the bread would be a distinct substance; the bread's property of having been photographed would be an accident of it.
            >bread youre physically holding in your hands and/or having an allergic reaction to is not gone
            What causes the allergic reaction is the accidents; the substance of the bread is gone.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is the substance of the bread?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The question kinda answers itself. The substance is the bread.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is bread?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what is bread?
            One of those questions for the ages

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >even after the lightning and the star are gone
            That's a category error, they are "gone" from your perspective

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's the wrong question. The right question is if Aristotle would agree with transubstantiation as an appropriate application of his metaphysics.

            [...]
            Any individual thing, like a chair. Any quality of the chair, like its color, would be an accident, as would its location, any relations it has to other things, etc.

            When I think of a "chair", I think of a set of properties. For instance it may be made of wood, have legs, and a seat. At its most basic, it must be a thing designed for sitting. However, as you have it, all of its conceivable properties, such as being made of wood, or having legs, or having a seat, or being made for sitting, belong to its accidents, and its "substance" is left as a nebulous, empty category meaning nothing, like it's a blank slate to be filled with accidents. This entirely defeats the purpose of metaphysical realism, as the point in the first place was that there is absolutely such a thing as "chair", so that when I say "chair" I refer to an objective set of properties, but now when I say "chair" that in and of itself apparently refers to nothing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >When I think of a "chair", I think of a set of properties.
            Yeah, you can think that objects are just bundles of properties, but that's obviously not what people in the Aristotelian tradition have thought. And there are serious objections to that view. One problem with the bundle theory is that it obviously seems like things can undergo change, but a bundle can't acquire or lose properties without becoming a new bundle and thus a completely new thing. So, plausibly, things have to be more than just sets of properties.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are objects anything? I've yet to hear a single definition of "substance" that is not a mysterious blank slate. Maybe I contain the entire substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ; after all, that apparently doesn't mean anything in particular.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, and all of that falls under the Aristotelian category of accidents.
            And this is a real thing because?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Christianity is an accident.

      probably because they have some latent demons or something living in their GI tract

      cope idolater

    • 4 weeks ago
      Dirk

      A celiac patient eats an ordinary sandwich and has a reaction. Is he reacting to the substance or the accidents of gluten?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The accidents, because a thing's causal powers are among its accidents according to Aquinas.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, so everything about bread is accidents. What is substance?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the cracker is literally god's flesh, so much so that it can bleed
      >it still has gluten in it lol
      And Christians wonder why people think they're moronic

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And Cathodox wonder why people think they're moronic
        ftfy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Catholics aren't Christian

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Same as with trans women. The accidents are male but the substance is female.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But they didn’t say any magic words first, did they? If not, obviously it’s not valid.
        Maybe if troons gave a totally TRAD prayer in Latin or Greek they’d be acceptable.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Celiac is a mark of God's disfavour.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Celiac disease is a black magic curse

      probably because they have some latent demons or something living in their GI tract

      The funny thing is that I can't actually tell if you're being disingenuous.

      Because the accidents of the bread remain.

      If this what the "accidents" mean, then it's 100% still bread.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If this what the "accidents" mean, then it's 100% still bread.
        How so?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing physically changes. It's still bread.
          You can argue it's BOTH physically bread and (in a mystery) the flesh of Christ.
          But it is physically bread down to the molecules.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you believe in consubstantiation?
            It's still 100% bread but 100% Jesus?

            There's still the problem with promulgating that to be saved you have to consume something which will kill you.

            Accidents in this case means it still has all the physical characteristics of bread, but it is not really bread.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            is it physically bread or not?
            you do understand what a physical object is, right?

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Celiac disease is a black magic curse

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    probably because they have some latent demons or something living in their GI tract

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why doesn't God perform his vaunted eucharistic miracles to allow people with allergies to partake of the Holy Communion? Or you know, just cure those allergies in the faithful?

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Dirk

    OP is pointing out the absurdity of the doctrine: that bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, despite every indication to the contrary. Rank superstition.

    What I don't understand is how so-called Eucharistic miracles are meant to prove this doctrine. In one out of a million cases, the bread literally bleeds human blood (allegedly). How would this make me think that it always literally the flesh of Jesus? The same Jesus who already ascended, who retains his human nature in the resurrection?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Does it convince people? If yes, then it has done its job.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Dirk

        You are de facto admitting it's a con

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, it's a real miracle. Christianity is simply not true. People are right to ask questions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're an idiot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're a wienersucker, but that hasn't stopped you either.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Asking questions is the devils handiwork

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Apply the same level of skepticism to your own faith that you do to eucharistic miracles and maybe you'll get somewhere.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he doesnt have to believe that bread isnt bread though
        what is the equivalent thing that Dirk believes in?
        Personally I find that he's not 100% on some biblical doctrines but that's nowhere in the ballpark of saying
        >this bread that looks, tastes, acts, smells, like bread
        >and it retains every molecular quality of bread
        >is not actually bread lol
        >btw because Aristotle
        >oh btw Aristotle wouldnt even agree

        as I* have said; you COULD legitimately argue consubstantiation but I suspect that Catholicism insists on trans*substantiation as a way enforce group loyalty or something.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Papists have to believe in transubstantiation because the magisterium "infallibly" said it's true (see what happens when you deny sola scriptura?) they have no choice because they've sold out to Rome's false authority claims.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Dirk

        I do

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I cringed reading that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One needs to make a distinction between the scholastic thomistic doctrine of transsubstantiation (in which the substance of bread disappear), which is the papist doctrine and the simple doctrine of Christ of real presence without transsubtantiation (the mystery maintained in orthodoxy without the need for the false clarification of the transustantiation) who clearly said of the bread in the last supper that it is his flesh and about the wine that it is his blood,... The fact is Christ'd body doesn't deny that he can also be bread.
      God incarnated as a man, and adopted our flesh, he can also adopt bread, and us through our communion to his body, for it all to become his body, because God realized and manifested union with his creatures in Christ.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >(the mystery maintained in orthodoxy without the need for the false clarification of the transustantiation)
        What about the Eastern stories of the Host miraculously transforming into bleeding flesh before congregants' eyes?
        I've seen Orthodox priests quote these stories as authoritative traditions.
        Or, like all things with Orthodoxy, do you just pick and choose what you believe?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And yet the orthodox church(es) and orthodox apologists defend Rome and use the term transubstantiation

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodox don't believe in transubstantiation

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In Aristotelian usage, does "substance" mean form?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
    >For THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
    >But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

    Cathodox please respond.
    Why does Jesus refer to this SUBSTANCE as fruit of the vine AFTER he refers to it as his blood?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because it is? He takes the wine and it becomes His blood.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s the fruit of the vine AFTER the consecration?
        In this I agree with you. But that’s not transubstantiation.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Or its both? À

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Both would not be trans- but con*substantiation.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So it is blood then.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I hold that he was speaking metaphorically of the very real blood he was going to shed.
            But I don’t hold that it’s impossible it’s both* wine and blood. I just don’t subscribe to that view.
            The fact is that after consecration it’s still wine. It didn’t change substance.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Catholicism getting destroyed right now

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Apply the same level of skepticism to your own faith that you do to eucharistic miracles and maybe you'll get somewhere.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
    so here we have seen in this thread that transubstantiation cannot be proven from the Bible nor from reason.
    Therefore there is no reason to hold fast to it. And if it's not to be held to, then Cathodoxy is in error.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Infallibly in error.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's literally there in John 6.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do i need to literally believe i'm eating my lord and saviour to believe in my lord and saviour? someone explain it to me i'm learning to be christian by myself.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s so a specific church can claim monopoly on the lord and savior.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Catholics don’t claim that. The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox have valid sacraments for example.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Okay. You may not claim it. But you insinuate it lmao
          >there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church
          But then of course the pope says anyone, Hindu, atheist, whatever can be saved anyways so who knows LOL
          The point is to keep people locked in while playing politics.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tissue incompatibility.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's almost like Catholics made it the frick up to bait peasants.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Choose Your Fighter!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Aren't the Baptist/Evangelical, Seventh Day Adventist, and Latter-Day Saints descriptions here really all the same?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You'd think. But there have been libraries worth of treatises written about the "profound and irreconcilable" difference between an Emblem and a Symbol. If theres one thing christianity loves doing it's creating religious divisions over synonyms.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lutheran say it is the body and body. Romans add a bunch of unnecessary Aristotelian nonsense.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Dirk

    >1 Cor 10:15-17 I speak to reasonable people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf.

    If Paul refers to the consecrated bread as bread, why do Catholics assert it is no longer bread?

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have celiac and eat them just fine. It's called having faith.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      PRO TIP: do not do this.
      Seriously though, celiac is a spectrum, and more people are being diagnosed who have severe reactions

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God took the form of a burning Bush and that could burn people but that's not really a burning Bush it was God.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they're probably possessed.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    do catholics think that they're eating Jesus?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s not that, it’s that they affirm they are literally* chewing up pieces of his flesh and swallowing it. And, I suppose it goes through them and they cast Jesus “into the draught”
      Must Christian’s affirm that just as Christ is a door, a shepherd, a rock, and so on, he is also bread and manna; but they take it so literally because it’s obvious Jesus spoke in dark sayings not meant to be taken at face value.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most* not must

        Dont* take it so literally*

        (Dont phonepost guys)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Except Jesus in John 6 talked about how it would offend or scandalize people. If he didn't mean it literally, he wouldn't say it would be offensive. His attitude was "It's offensive. So what?"

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because it sounds like cannibalism at face value which is a sin.
          If you understood it was spiritual you wouldn’t be scandalized.
          But you’re a strange sort, who affirm that it is the sin of cannibalism but also
          somehow right and good.
          Nicodemus thought to be “born again” was literal and he’d have to enter again into the womb and be born. Are you as foolish as that?

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The israelites therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

    56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me."

    It looks pretty clear here that it is literally Jesus.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why did you stop quoting where you did?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would literally Jesus cause celiac reactions?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God often has people suffering for a good purpose. Read medieval theology especially.

        Because it sounds like cannibalism at face value which is a sin.
        If you understood it was spiritual you wouldn’t be scandalized.
        But you’re a strange sort, who affirm that it is the sin of cannibalism but also
        somehow right and good.
        Nicodemus thought to be “born again” was literal and he’d have to enter again into the womb and be born. Are you as foolish as that?

        It's similar to how God in the Old Testament asked people to kill entire populations. If you see OT God and NT God as the same, asking this isn't too far of a stretch.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you not understand that killing said populations didn’t violate Gods morality?
          Have you considered why we don’t have to go into the womb a second time to be born again?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But killing entire populations would normally violate God's morality as would eating flesh and blood. However, these were made exceptions to the rule.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have to go into the womb a second time to be born again?
            If Jesus is our shepherd, are you actually a sheep with wool, 4 legs, and hooves?
            Because I would easily affirm that Christ our shepherd INDEED. But that doesn’t make it not a metaphor.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >God often has people suffering for a good purpose.
          He wasn't asking why people suffer, he was asking why the flesh of Jesus Christ would cause a celiac reaction.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In English, Doc

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Accidents are superficial traits of the horse which can change, but that are still true of this horse. For example, the horse has fur, it has four legs, it has a saddle, it can run at 30mph. And so on. All of these things are true, and appear to us as features of the horse. But the horse would still be a horse if they became untrue. If the horse lost one of its legs, if it’s fur fell out, and it couldn’t run as fast anymore, it would still be a horse.

        Substance refers to those facts about the horse which must be true in order for it to be a horse. They don’t appear immediately to our senses. We have to study horses to get a clear picture of what “horseness” is in the abstract. What does it mean to be a horse? These would be things that are not only true of all horses, but which must be true of any horse. Horses are animals. They have bodies. They are mortal. And so on.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Horses are animals. They have bodies. They are mortal. And so on.
          Okay so when does the horse get transubstantiated here?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *