A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Socrates4Jesus]

… At times it apparently seemed quite human to others. At times it seemed like a ghost or spirit. At times it appeared to clearly look like Jesus before He died. At other times not. Apparently It caan move with the speed of thought and material obsticles are no longer an impediment. …

I suppose, Chuck, that if you or i could go back in time, we would be able to test this theory. We might, perhaps, ask Jesus about this new body He had. My guess is that in their astonishment at seeing Him alive, they were dumbfounded. I’m sure several of them were kicking themselves for not asking.

I find it interesting that, were it not for the skeptic Thomas (i see much of myself in him) we might have known much less about Jesus’ resurrected body than we now do! As i’m sure you recall, Thomas was not around when Jesus first appeared to the disciples after He rose from the dead. When they told him He was alive, he tenaciously said: “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

Now, Thomas had lived with these guys and gals for more than three years. I’m sure he did not like some of them, and disagreed with some of them, and thought they were way too quick to believe. But i cannot imagine how he would think they were all pulling his leg about something as serious as this, nor can i see how he would have thought them all stock raving mad! They must have seen someone or *something. *So i wonder, was he thinking they had seen a ghost?

I can imagine the rest of the conversation:

Peter: We have seen the Lord!Thomas: They found the stolen body, good. Have the wicked grave robbers been apprehended, too?Andrew: No, Tom, we’ve seen Him *alive!*James: Yes, He has risen from the dead!John: And i bet you’ll never guess what He said!Thomas: Were you sure it was *Him? *Peter: 110% certain. He appeared to Mary first, and then to the rest of us. Do you question our word, doubting Tom?John: Or do you think us all insane? James, maybe, but not all of us!James: Hey!Everyone but Tom: (Laughing)Thomas: No, you all might be too gullible for me, but never deranged. Do you think you saw a ghost?Peter: He was no ghost, Thomas. Thomas: How do you know? Did you ask Him if He was standing before you in the flesh? Did you touch Him to see? Everyone: (Silence)Thomas: Then, unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe itThat Jesus was not a ghost was confirmed by His own words when He appeared to Thomas, too:

26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” *(John 20)*I hope you don’t mind my asking, but do you doubt Jesus, Chuck?

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/pics/doubting_thomas_modern.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

YES.

So Jesus, when He changing water into wine, must have at least added carbon atoms to the water by some miraculous method. This leads me to my question for you, Chuck, and you ToAslan, and anyone who is good enough to offer her best guess.

Then, are you not surprised at the logical conclusion of this? Please allow me to explain:

If

a = changing the atoms of an object

s = changing the substance of an object
and

a = s
then it appears to logically follow that atoms are the individual substance of a material object.

In the case of our example, water is oxygen and hydrogen. Am i blind as a bat, now, or am i really starting to see something real?

http://welcomeconsumer.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/blindman.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc! Still asking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by toaslan forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
If I may take a teeny tad of your glacier, one molecule of water, 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom…

*We have the individual substance “water”. The dynamic among the 3 atoms so related is unique to “water” (because God would have it so). *So related **IT (not they) is water. It is water on the essential level because the molecule participates in the substantial form “waterness.” It is water on the accidental level for all measurable attributes are those of water. The molecule is water both essentially and accidentally.

While related to hydrogen in the water bond, is the oxygen atom simultaneously oxgen AND water? Is this atom two disparate things at the same time and in the same respect?
Is that where we are, Soc?

Sorry, ToAslan, missed your reply. Good question. I don’t really have my mind made up about what to believe. I’m just trying different ideas on to see if they fit the truth, as far as i can tell.

Let’s go with that so-called truth. It is the truth of the Sophist Atomists who were around when Socrates was still discussing the meaning of life with anyone who would answer his questions. The poor Atomists were never taken seriously. They had this crazy idea that everything was small particles they called atoms. Atoms, they said, were being. Everything that exists is atoms.

It was not until 2,300 years later that scientist discovered that indeed objects were composed of countless unseen particles. I imagine one of them, remembering something he learned from one of philosophy classes, called these building blocks of matter atoms, and the name stuck.

So allow me to try on that truth for awhile and walk around in it. I am atoms, glad to meet you. Please convince me that i’m wrong, and i’ll shed this truth like yesterday’s underwear!

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/i...ert-Einstein-s-Birthday-Greetings-Posters.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I asked you something first! I will be interested to answer this when you’ve gotten around to dealing with that, however.

But in the meantime, let me again press your phrasing.

Substance, by its definition, it not attributed to anything.

So we cannot “say” substance “of” anything. Agreed?

Things are said “of” substance. Rather than the other way around.

Our working definitions:

The individual substances are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring.

Substance is being as in the “whatness” underlying/causing all things; it is the form/definition/essence/nature of things. Accidents inhere in it; it inheres in nothing.

So, Soc, do you agree that your question stated in line with our definitions is in fact this question: Did Jesus change the individual substance water to the individual substance wine?

(In other words, to say the *substance of *wine can imply that wine underlies substance. )

I’m reminded of Socrates simple, but profound words:

How can a man understand the name of anything, when he does not know what the thing is?*(Theaetetus, 147)*The answer, of course, is that he cannot understand anything if he does not know what it is. So i’m trying my best to understand, despite my ignorance and other flaws, to understand what a material object (like water) is. Now, i also share Socrates’ fear, which is this:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to “look fore and aft” …(Cratylus, 428)
I am open to the possibility that i am deceived, and to anyone who tells me she is not deceived i listen with great caution. For someone who thinks she will never be deceived is less likely to look out for a pit of lies and more apt to fall into one.

That being my motive, i want to say that my fear is, ToAslan, that by accepting your definitions as true without knowing why they are true, i will be walking blindly into a deceptive hole, and may have a heck of a time trying to climb back out again. My fear is that, instead of molding your theory to fit reality, you are distorting reality to fit your theory!

So please don’t ask me to make a leap of faith down into the same deep pit from which you speak. I cannot see you down there, and i don’t know whether i’ll fall far and break my bones on jagged flint, or whether the landing is close and sandy to break my fall. Light a torch and show me that your theory of substance and accidents is a good fit to what is real, and then i’ll be jumping into the light, with a clear view of where i’ll land.

Coding Horror

programming and human factors

blog.codinghorror.com

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Sorry, Tami, Mary, and all. I try to reply to posts in the order that they arrive, and i did not have time to respond to yours, as it is getting late. I will try to remember to respond later, but if i do not, please remind me.

I’m a bit of an absent minded geek, but i’m reassured that this is OK, as my wife calls me adorkable!

 

[davidv]

Then, are you not surprised at the logical conclusion of this? Please allow me to explain:

If

a = changing the atoms of an objects = changing the substance of an objectand

a = sthen it appears to logically follow that atoms are the individual substance of a material object.

In the case of our example, water is oxygen and hydrogen. Am i blind as a bat, now, or am i really starting to see something real?

I believe you just reversed the order that I though we established earlier. That is, matter follows form. You have just proposed that opposite. In your example above “a=s” is incorrect because true relationship is “s therefore a”. What do you think?

 

[clmowry]

I think it would be beneficial for you to focus your attention on ToAslan’s question.

While related to hydrogen in the water bond, is the oxygen atom simultaneously oxgen AND water? Is this atom two disparate things at the same time and in the same respect?

And lets remember our definitions.

The individual substances are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring.

Substance is being as in the “whatness” underlying/causing all things; it is the form/definition/essence/nature of things. Accidents inhere in it; it inheres in nothing.

However, as to your question, I would say, no, a does not equal b.

I can think of some conditions where perhaps b requires a.

I think it would be limited to non-living things without any compound properties.

(Boy I wish I had some formal philosophical training….sigh.)

For example, “perhaps” b requires a when looking at going from H2 and O2 to H2O.

I’m not so sure b even requires a when going from water to wine or from wheat to bread etc. i.e. Are there not an infinite variety of a that could result from b?

Last night I had a bottle that contained atoms that I’m sure constituted wine, but I assure you, it was only a bad imitation of the bottle I open after I dumped the first down the sink. a1 was not equal to a2 but both wineries would have told me that the substance in the bottle was in fact wine.

a definitely does not equal b when dealing with living things.

If I take the tree growing outside of bedroom window and cut it down, the same atoms remain, but the only thing that may still “b” a tree is the stump still connected to its root system. What I cut off contains the same atoms but now it is a log, twigs and saw dust, something that is no longer alive.

a remains the same, but b has definitely changed.

Or as we move up the scale, when I was a kid I had a Great Dane named Lady. She died when she was relatively young (only 8). When she died, the atoms that made up her body were the same atoms that made up Lady only a moment before, but that mass of atoms no longer contained the substance of Lady.

Chuck

Then, are you not surprised at the logical conclusion of this? Please allow me to explain:

If

a = changing the atoms of an object

s = changing the substance of an objectand

a = sthen it appears to logically follow that atoms are the individual substance of a material object.

In the case of our example, water is oxygen and hydrogen. Am i blind as a bat, now, or am i really starting to see something real?

 

[toaslan]

So i’m trying my best to understand, despite my ignorance and other flaws, to understand what a material object (like water) is.

And I agree that to understand what a material object is, like water, is a very worthwhile task, despite the impatience it causes in the less philosophically-inclined. It is the task of philosophy to understand the natural world around us–Aristotle called it "Physics." And, without physics, we cannot do metaphysics. We can do Faith–but not well, as Faith is reasonable.
Soc:

Now, i also share Socrates’ fear,

Soc, because you asked that I follow your lead and go slowly, step by step, I have done so. I understand that there is no point in attempting to push/pull the other in a thought journey. We cannot breach the free will of the other while we present reasons to his mind.
Soc:

That being my motive, i want to say that my fear is, ToAslan, that by accepting your definitions as true without knowing why they are true,

Oh, Soc. Should you not recall that you were the one who proposed the definition of individual substance as articulated by the Stanford article? I agreed to it, provided you accepted my definition of substance (because without a definition of substance any definition containing the term would remain undefined.) You agreed. I agreed. David agreed. Chuck agreed. The rest of the thread remained silent on this point, which means people were willing to let us go forward on that understanding.

I guessed that you remained uncomfortable with the definition of “substance.” But I thought you were willing to let it be as defined for the sake of seeing what it would come to.

To help you do so, I have been careful to call the accepted definitions “working definitions.”

You now balk at working any longer with these working definitions?

Because you can see their combined tendency? Because you think they are “begging the question”, the logical fallacy of assuming at the outset what is to be proved?
Soc:

i will be walking blindly into a deceptive hole,

Blindly? I thought we were following the truth no matter where it led? If we do that, how is our stepping blind and not fully illuminated?

Deceptive? I truly have no interest in setting up any deception. I would rather agree to leave it as food for thought, so that you can mull it all over, look into it further on your own. I would have no interest in wringing any hollow agreement from you.

Am I myself deceived? Ah, Soc, that’s a desperate question. I see as in a blurry mirror, but what I see in the matters you and I are discussing, I see truly. My common sense is satisfied, my experience of reality is served. We will all see everything clearly in another realm–and what is dimly true now will be refractedly true then.
Soc:

and may have a heck of a time trying to climb back out again.

This assumes that ahead of you is a pit instead of a mountain.
Soc:

My fear is that, instead of molding your theory to fit reality, you are distorting reality to fit your theory!

Take some reassurance from knowing its not my theory. It’s the theory of Aristotle, known to the world, at least the Western World, as the Father of Philosophy.

I know that’s a little appeal to authority, but since you FEAR, you are not letting go of emotion; this makes some unwillingness to allow the intellect to operate. If will blocks intellect, truth cannot be accessed.
Soc:

So please don’t ask me to make a leap of faith

You and I, Soc, have not been talking faith when we have been talking substance/accidents. We have been talking logic applied to the material world.

Do you suspect your own intellect, and your own mind? Granted, our minds are clouded due to Original Sin’s effects, but they are basically good. We can indeed know with them, supported by grace.

Socrates and Aristotle knew with their minds. I understand they were both wise men. They were wise, so they were able to detach from what they wanted/willed/desired/feared and let their minds operate on reality in order to understand reality.

Meanwhile, because I expect they were also both good men, I expect they also had the idea that they would secondly conform their wills to their minds, i.e., conform what they *wanted as good *to what they knew as truth. Which is the proper order of the human soul, rather than the disorder caused by Original Sin.
Soc:

down into the same deep pit from which you speak.

I am sorry for your fear. Indeed, I respect it. Because it is indeed mind-boggling, that which I propose echoing Aristotle.
Soc:

I cannot see you down there,

You are assuming that I am down in a pit, and you are up in the light. Is not that very assumption an *a-priori *unwillingness which blocks reasoning?

continued…

 

[toaslan]

Soc:

and i don’t know whether i’ll fall far and break my bones on jagged flint,

Do you remember what Eustace had to agree to go through in order to leave his dragon skin behind? After he had painfully, bravely peeled himself out of layer after layer of dragon skin, only to find he was still organcally trapped inside his dragon skin? It had to do with Aslan’s huge, sharp hot teeth, and His piercing claws…
Soc:

or whether the landing is close and sandy to break my fall.

ah, dear Soc, it is not a fall at all, but you cannot know that, I understand that much, and I honor it.
Soc:

Light a torch and show me that your theory of substance and accidents is a good fit to what is real, and then i’ll be jumping into the light, with a clear view of where i’ll land.

Soc, I wish I were better fitted to argue the positive side for you, rather than letting you ask the leading questions (I do not mean leading in any pejorative sense–it is a great art, the Socratic art, to be able to ask the right questions, those which further a conversation, turning it into a penetration into truth rather than a mindless road trip to nowhere).

Aristotle asks what is Being after he has settled what logic is. He decides it is necessary to understands the objects of thought–what is reality. Like Socrates, he does get around to asking, “What is Virtue?” Unlike Socrates, Aristotle ends up nailing it down, defining it to the satisfaction of the world for a 2-3 thousand years–his definition stands today. I won’t tell you his solution because the terms require definition, and that’s out of place here–I just bring it up to illustrate a point.

The point is, Aristotle works with Being and Becoming. To understand how *our natural world *both changes while remaining *our natural world *is to understand Substantial Change.

Because Supernature rests on Nature; because Theology rests on Philosophy truly–because thought and reality are continuous, not discreet–Therefore, the principles discovered at the level of nature apply to supernature too.

This must be so, because of what we know about our own minds–we know that which is mortal as we are, and we also know that which is immortal, that which has no element of change, birth or death about it. (That is, we know that justice has a nature; that the square on the hypotaneuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides, etc.)

Because we know it, we must be it–somehow. For the agent can only act in sofar as he is; we men can only understand immateriality insofar as we ARE immaterial!

To grasp the principles which must be at work in order for Substantial Change to be so–this is to grasp the principles both at work and those being suspended in the unique Substantial Change Catholics understand by the Transubstantiation which takes place during the consecration at Mass.

My friend Soc, what about this?

Is it not good to follow out to its logical conclusion the train of thought you and I and others have worked out so far, that is, as to substance & accident?

We could see the result.

Then, if the result offends your common sense; or if you think it stinks, then is the time to go back and re-examine the premises.

Not when one anticipates the outcome–when we let the outcome be what it is.

If you truly wish to let this particular aspect of this thread go dormant, I would understand and agree to that: Provided you cede that there is a whole reasonable construct behind the Catholic notion of Transubstantiation! Whether or not that reasonable construct is persuasive to you is another matter.

At least this much: That the logical foundation exists, that it makes sense given certain premises, that much will have been conveyed thus far, I hope!

 

[toaslan]

I believe you just reversed the order that I though we established earlier. That is, matter follows form. You have just proposed that opposite. In your example above “a=s” is incorrect because true relationship is “s therefore a”. What do you think?

Soc, David is reminding us that matter follows form rather than the other way around.

Otherwise, Soc is what he eats. You are your macaroni and cheese. (As in, you are your atoms.)

Soc is his macaroni and cheese as to matter.

Soc is human as to form.

If you want to try something on for size, try asking yourself what is the cause behind some particular natural thing, such as your son. Aren’t there causes, rather than one cause? Which among these plural causes is more responsible for the more peculiarly unique who-nesses and the what-nesses of that son?

 

[toaslan]

If you are still willing to continue, Soc, I agree with Chuck that it is time for you to bear down on the current question:

I think it would be beneficial for you to focus your attention on ToAslan’s question.

While related to hydrogen in the water bond, is the oxygen atom simultaneously oxgen AND water? Is this atom two disparate things at the same time and in the same respect?

And lets remember our definitions.

The individual substances are the subjects of properties in the various other categories, and they can gain and lose such properties whilst themselves enduring.

Substance is being as in the “whatness” underlying/causing all things; it is the form/definition/essence/nature of things. Accidents inhere in it; it inheres in nothing.

Thanks with Blessings.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

here is a link to the poster I was talking about that has the Rulke of Carmel ( St. Albert’s Rule) with Eucharistic image.

It is by Dutch Artist Arie Trum

carmeliteinstitute.org/Rule.html

I am sorry Socrates, I don’t think i can help you any further with proving the physical Presence of Christ. It is a matter of faith.
I do believe God gives miracles to strengthen our faith and you have to accept those. I hope you can find your answers.

Peace and God Bless, MaryJohnZ

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, the people of past times have thought of light as being the closest thing to something in nature that manifests God. The Jewish people were told to build shelters that had light passages open to the sky during the Feast of Tabernacles. The windows in
Jewish temples are thought of as a means to let light out into the world ( reverse of normal view of windows)…

If Christ’s Spirit is conveyed by light…
Normally we think of the Spirit being hidden in the body.
Why can’t a body be hidden in a Spirit?
Can’t that be reversed too?

Just some thoughts…

MaryJohnZ

Deep thoughts, Mary! It’s a paradox. I mean, these all seem to be true:

1. 
   *]Atoms take up space (e.g., i have atoms, so i exist in space).
   *]The property of where can be applied to things made of atoms (e.g., “Where is Soc? He lives in Indiana.”).
   *]A soul has no atoms (i.e., it is immaterial).
   *]A soul does not take up space (e.g., where is Soc’s soul? I don’t know; asking that question is kind of like asking what the color blue tastes like!)
   Therefore, how can a soul be hidden in a body? Then again, how can it not be hidden in, or at least be near, a body?
   
   I guess if we cannot figure out how a soul hides in a body, we won’t be able to figure out how the opposite might be true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I realized later (after the time limit) that I hit the submit button instead of the preview button.

But since it was posted, the issue IMO is the same. The ECF’s I quoted gave a literal interpretation to Jesus words in Jn 6. And this is how the Church has taught also.

Exactly what words of John 6 are to be taken literally, Steve? All of them? Some of them?



Please give me a verse or two to consider.

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

IMO there is.

Think about it, doubt is the opposite of trust.

Yes, i agree!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

People who join Amway report similar life-changing experiences. Getting and remaining out of debt changes people’s lives for the better, too - it improves marriages, restores one’s faith in the future, and gets people away from drugs, alcohol, and other self-destructive habits. Hope is a powerful thing - but Amway does not claim to do miracles (and if there is such a thing as a “religion of work” Amway would be it, I think) - yet, the feelings and changes in people’s lives are remarkably similar to the feelings of new converts to Christianity, or to any other religion of hope.

So, feelings are great - but they are not evidence of miracles - they are simply evidence of themselves - the feelings that they are, and it is the feeling of hope that changes your life, and causes you to behave differently than you did before.

That raises the question, JM: How do we know for certain that the changed life of a Catholic is a miracle? I mean, people from other religions, or no religion at all, can change. Who can prove that God has anything to do with the changed life of a person who is a follower of Jesus?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hey Soc! I agree with this. And the only observable evidence we have that the miracle of the Eucharist is true, is the fruit which it bears in our lives.

God bless,

Tami

Hey, Tami! Good to hear from you, again. You might be right, there.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I believe you just reversed the order that I though we established earlier. That is, matter follows form. You have just proposed that opposite. In your example above “a=s” is incorrect because true relationship is “s therefore a”. What do you think?

I think, David, that we have not established anything. I mean, in your mind it might be established, but in my mind i’m still thinking it through.

What proof can you offer that it is an error to believe that form follows matter? Help me think this through, and i might change my mind and agree with you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Chuck, ToAsland, and Mary:

Have to go, but i’ll try to respond as soon as i’m able. You guys and gals are really great! as is everyone else.

Thanks for all the help.

 

[jmcrae]

That raises the question, JM: How do we know for certain that the changed life of a Catholic is a miracle? I mean, people from other religions, or no religion at all, can change. Who can prove that God has anything to do with the changed life of a person who is a follower of Jesus?

The only person who knows for sure is the Catholic himself. This is why it is not really an observable miracle. After all, there could be many reasons why a person’s life could change for the better.