Posted: December 19th, 2006, 10:53 pm::What did I say that was philosophical?
Hi Linda, this: "Seriously, can you take the communion wine and make black pudding out of it? If not, it ain't blood." I presume you meant if so, it ain't blood (you said "if not"). You're claiming, here, that because the accidents (what you called appearances) act as accidents in their effects (black pudding can be made with it; enough communion wine and you'll get drunk) then the substance hasn't changed. Your argument, for the sake of being a fair argument, must accept the possibility that communion wine is real communion wine in the sense Catholics understand it, and then, accepting this, show why "it ain't blood" according to that understanding. You attempt to do this by saying that if communion wine can be used to make pudding, then it ain't blood. But this isn't an argument, you have not made a point, there's no connection there.
You think you have a grasp of the Catholic understanding of communion which you phrase "IS meat and blood, while retaining all the physical appearance and attributes of grain and grape-based substances." Ok, so why, if the substance is blood yet the attributes of a grape-based substance are retained, wouldn't those attributes act as they normally would to make black pudding? This is a philosophical argument. Never the less, I invite you to answer the question, which I'll ask again. Why, if the substance is blood yet the attributes of a grape-based substance are retained, wouldn't those attributes act as they normally would to make black pudding or get one drunk?
By the way, concerning this quote, "The Catholic position is, that it IS meat and blood, while retaining all the physical appearance and attributes of grain and grape-based substances", I just want to make one slight clarification. The Catholic position is that either species (bread or wine) by itself contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ: the altered bread isn't just the body; the altered wine isn't just the blood.
Thanks,
Jesse
