This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty

strangebrew's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by strangebrew

.Comment 14 by God fearing Atheist

John Robinson..

One problem with this question being viewed as a shibboleth is that most people misunderstand what the doctrine means

Including clueless fools that make it up as they go along...

The Modern Catholic Dictionary:


The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term itself was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis, “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). after transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantio, change of substance.)

Some fools should really learn their own doctrine before opening pious gobs. But let them waddle in their own crap, they make a funny sight misunderstanding their own dogma!

I just crack up at the mental image of a gaggle of righteous prigs nodding in enthusiastic agreement with a pompous mouth piece, that obviously made it up, and without at least checking with a 'reputable' Catholic source.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:04:32 UTC | #946356