I concur that this thread is not the place to discuss the minutiae of transubstantiation. If there's interest in following this up, I'll create an open thread for it.

I'm not so sure about the "minutiae" of transubstantiation, but I think transubstantiation might make for an interesting edition of Do You Really Believe That? I'm intrigued by the fact that, in light of the "evidence" for the Lanciano eucharistic miracle presented by commenter Adam, apparently there exist samples of Jesus' DNA.

I agree with what Arch said.

Oh, the irony.

First off, do you understand Aquinas's def. of science? Read again what he said before your quote. He defines two types of Science:

"We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed."

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. He's trying to compare geometry and math to "god and the blessed?" Ebon had it right, this isn't science, it's the opposite. What he's trying to do is claim that theology rests on top of well established principles, like 1 and 1 are 2, yet this is simply not true.

Based on that, Do you have a problem with the study of God because you believe that there should be no religion, or because without a doubt you believe that there is no God?

Because saying that there is no possibility of God is rather unreasonable. You have no evidence of this.

First off, many atheists (Ebon included I believe) do not say there is no possibility of god, just that there is no evidence of such and it is not rational to believe in a god for which there is no evidence. (As a side note, I do find most Xian conceptions of god to be impossible because they are logically contradictory, but that's a separate issue.) Second, where did Ebon say that he has a problem with the study of god? He quite plainly said that it's not science, which it's not, and Aquinas's definition does nothing to change that. Third, why do I have to have evidence that there is no god in order to not believe that there is a god? This is plain backwards. If you want me to believe in your god, then it is up to you to provide some evidence of this god.

Cardinal Ratzinger says, that there is one thing that all human people have in common, and that is doubt: Belief in God, but doubting his existence, or the belief in no-God, but doubting his non-existence.

You mean Pope Benedict XVI? Either way, he is wrong. There are many people out there (yourself included most likely) who don't doubt god's existence at all. And, for my part, I don't doubt his non-existence. I am open to evidence of this god that would change my mind, but I doubt that evidence is forth-coming.

If then, one believes in God, or doubts His non-existence, one has to accept that Theology is a Science (according to the Thomistic definition).

No, one does not, even given the suppositions that one might doubt his non-existence. Theology is nothing more than the study of made up things, based on fanciful whims. Science is the study of the natural world. Science proceeds by very specific rules which theology can't even hope to follow. Science makes progress and gives us new insight, while theology clings to old "knowledge" and old "insight" in order to preserve the status quo. They are nothing at all alike.

So you agree that people should think and question for themselves, and should not be content to simply believe whatever was taught them by the previous generation?

I agree with what Arch said.

Uh, no. Aquinas says that "just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God." In other words, he advocates faith in unverifiable claims of revelation. That is not science: it is the opposite of science.

First off, do you understand Aquinas's def. of science? Read again what he said before your quote. He defines two types of Science:

"We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed."

Based on that, Do you have a problem with the study of God because you believe that there should be no religion, or because without a doubt you believe that there is no God?

Because saying that there is no possibility of God is rather unreasonable. You have no evidence of this.

Cardinal Ratzinger says, that there is one thing that all human people have in common, and that is doubt: Belief in God, but doubting his existence, or the belief in no-God, but doubting his non-existence.

If then, one believes in God, or doubts His non-existence, one has to accept that Theology is a Science (according to the Thomistic definition).

I think it should be noted that Arch also makes the mistake of thinking that "seeing is believing" which is something I alluded to above, but did not explain. Verification doesn't mean, "I saw it, so it is verified." Science does not simply go by what we can see. If that were the case, then we would still believe that the sun goes around the Earth, since that is what we see from out frame of reference. Verification, in this sense, means the ability to run experiments and come to consensus on answers to the questions that the experiments are designed to test. It means that if one person runs one experiment and gets one answer, I should be able to run the exact same experiment and get the same answer...if not, then there's something going on and the experimental answers are not verified. This is what the church backs away from, because they know they can be shown wrong. So, when they are on the losing end of something (like geocentrism) they simply declare that it wasn't an infallible teaching anyway, and then try to sweep it under the rug. Of course, it's funny that god would keep them in the dark instead of telling them these things, but that's religion for you, huh?

And it is interesting that you trust "verification" as a source of authority, when there are countless times in which what individuals have "verified" with their own eyes at one time, has proven to be incorrect at another.

Which is why good evidence requires independant verification by numbers of different, independant sources and repeatability. It's why antecdotal evidence shouldn't just be accepted as anything more than a story, and why tradition and stories shouldn't be accepted without testing either.

Yes, this exactly what the Catholic Church does!! St. Thomas argues this when he asks, is Theology a Science?

It's a science you say? What kind of experiments are they running? Are they blinded? Single or double? What're their subject sizes? Upon what do they base their claims? Are these repeatable? Have they been peer reviewed? How far have they got on the "who's going to hell and who isn't", or "which parts of the bible are literal and which are figurative"? Have they figured out definitately that god exists, or rather, which god they're testing?
What about all those mysterious ways they say god works in; have they come any closer to figuring those out yet or have they simply decided it can never be understood?

Yes, the Church teaches that we should think and question for ourselves.

Is this why the church has taken pains to ensure that masses are held in latin, you know so that the common people will not understand it? Is this why the church has fought against the learning of people and literacy of the populace?

When you speak of independent thinking, it seems you are upholding a stance of moden individualism, rather than recognizing history, tradition, and the stories of those past.

No, what he's saying is that we shouldn't blindly cling to the stories of the past and should discover new things for ourselves.

This statement again disregards the true nature of the teaching on infallibility. And it is interesting that you trust "verification" as a source of authority, when there are countless times in which what individuals have "verified" with their own eyes at one time, has proven to be incorrect at another.

No, he pretty well nailed the infallibility thing. It's simply not true that the church is infallible, unless it is true that we've always been at war with Eurasia.

And, I see that you don't understand what he means by the word "verified." What he's saying is that the church has backed off (due to past embarrassment) on saying that they are infallible when it comes to things that people can actually go out and check, like the place of the Earth in the universe. Are you really going to argue that scientific verification is a bad thing or that it is worthless against the made up crap of the church; especially a church that has been on the wrong side of debates numerous times?

So you agree that people should think and question for themselves, and should not be content to simply believe whatever was taught them by the previous generation?

Yes, the Church teaches that we should think and question for ourselves. The thought of those in communion with the Church leads them to accept an authority of truth regarding divine revelation.

When you speak of independent thinking, it seems you are upholding a stance of moden individualism, rather than recognizing history, tradition, and the stories of those past. If you or I should conceive a thought, and consider it to be something that has never been proclaimed, thought, or upheld by someone prior to us, I think we would be quite wrong.

In other words, the church says that even though they've often been wrong about things that can be verified, we should trust them completely about things that cannot as easily be verified. Color me unconvinced.

This statement again disregards the true nature of the teaching on infallibility. And it is interesting that you trust "verification" as a source of authority, when there are countless times in which what individuals have "verified" with their own eyes at one time, has proven to be incorrect at another.

This is exactly what Pope John Paul II, Nicolaus Copernicus, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Gregor Mendel (an Augustinian priest) did.

So you agree that people should think and question for themselves, and should not be content to simply believe whatever was taught them by the previous generation?

This statement tells me that you are still a little confused about the Church's Infallibility.

I'm well aware that the church claims to be infallible only in matters of faith and morals, not science. In other words, the church says that even though they've often been wrong about things that can be verified, we should trust them completely about things that cannot as easily be verified. Color me unconvinced.

Yes, this exactly what the Catholic Church does!! St. Thomas argues this when he asks, is Theology a Science?

Uh, no. Aquinas says that "just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God." In other words, he advocates faith in unverifiable claims of revelation. That is not science: it is the opposite of science.

Because most things believed in the past were wrong. Most things believed today are wrong. If you blindly accept what past generations have taught, without applying critical scrutiny of your own, you will be forever entangled in the errors of others. If humanity in general adopted the method you advocate, intellectual and moral progress would be impossible.

This statement is filled with misconceptions of the Catholic Church.

Of course the Church wants people to advance in intellect and morality. To say otherwise is to not know history. This is exactly what Pope John Paul II, Nicolaus Copernicus, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Gregor Mendel (an Augustinian priest) did. Many of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known have been devout Catholic.

Here is a list of more Catholics who do exactly what you claim Catholics do not do "apply critical scrutiny" to advance in intellectual and moral progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists

No one is asking you to blindly accept what past generations have taught. I have not done that, and neither has the Catholic Church.

If the Catholic church was in error then, what prevents them from being in error now?

This statement tells me that you are still a little confused about the Church's Infallibility.

What about you? Why should I trust you to know what Truth is?

You should only trust me, or anyone else, insofar as they present plausible arguments founded on evidence and reason.

Yes, this exactly what the Catholic Church does!! St. Thomas argues this when he asks, is Theology a Science?

See: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.i.FP_Q1.FP_Q1_A2.html

Mrnaglfar,

Yes, there is one set of Teachings in the Catholic Church, see: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

There is no contrary evidence against the Catholic Church's teachings.

There is no one set of those teachings; different churches teach different things and different sects teach different things. The bible is not without self-contradiction, the churches teachings have changed over the years, normally depending on whether they happen to be in power or not. The bible is flat out wrong on many occassions and in terms of any progress that has come in society, be it growth of human rights to technological advancement, the church's teachings at the time and the study of the bible have not led to any of them.

The results speak for stonger than the words of any religious tongue

Just to let you know, I posted my last post before your post at 8:08 showed up on my computer. So I did not see it