That is simply a bogus characterization of my argument. We have not gotten to the point of discussing whether the doctrine is true. I'm trying to get across what it is, whether true or not.
Let's review: YOUR SIDE, in obvious ignorance of what we actually teach and in spite of links to the Summa on the topic and of frequent citations of hymns by Aquinas, insists that the doctrine necessitates a perceptible change in the "species."
Now let's stop right here. Does seeing the sunrise make the sun come up?
Nowhere did I say, not in one place, I defy you to show me a place where I said that believe made it true or made it happen. That is nonsense.
YOUR side repeatedly brought up the manner of "apprehending" the change, NOT of causing it or verifying it or of proving the doctrine.
The doctrine, whether true or not, teaches that the change is objective, but apprehended by faith alone. Faith does not MAKE the change, faith does not PROVE the change. The change, IF we are right, is only apprehended by faith. That is all I am saying.
Consequently so suggest that there is anything at all in my argument that says either that the change happens because of faith or that the doctrine is true because of faith is to demonstrate that the argument has not been understood -- WHETHER you agree with it or not.
I am astonished.
I have to get ready for Church.
MD, YOU certainly are free to assume I stated this with you in mind...but you are mistaken...however if the shoe fits..as is said... My thoughts were of those in cults and false religions who "believe" in their stuff which is often grossly out of the sphere of reality..yet they genuinely believe it. When you posted to me at first...you stated '"Fire Away"...I ignored that remark in favor of dialog. An d know here you are assuming I was referenceing you in a post to another person..sheesh. I do not have time now to answer this post you responded with now as I have to go to work...but will return later. Hopefully by then MEtmom will have responded.