Can one get sick from the Eucharist?

[holdencaulfield]

It can’t be much more logically closed than to say there is no physical change whatsoever as far as can be determined through physical means. That is 100% closed ended.

This is religion, not science. You know what we believe now, stop arguing.

 

[holdencaulfield]

If I can’t to your satisfaction produce a closed concept then can you help me?

By the way, regardless of your insulting objection, stating that no physical change can be detected by any means whatsoever is a totally closed case.

closed case for what?

 

[holdencaulfield]

This is a great article about the Holy Eucharist.

Article

 

[FrRJBoyd]

It can’t be much more logically closed than to say there is no physical change whatsoever as far as can be determined through physical means. That is 100% closed ended.

If I may, interject, since I think both of you are trying to express exactly the same thing in different terminology. The Aristotelian argument would insist that the physical reality of bread and wine consists of both substance (which cannot be directly observed) and accidents (which can be directly observed). I believe you are using the term physical change to talk only about the observables. An Aristotelian would use physical change for either the change in a substance or an accident. So, according to traditional Thomistic language, transubstantiation by definition is a physical change. However, according to your terminology, which seems to be based on modern scientific terminology, there is no change in the physical observables.

I really hope this helps.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd, Ph.D. [physical chemistry, Princeton]

 

[Cristiano]

If I may, interject, since I think both of you are trying to express exactly the same thing in different terminology. The Aristotelian argument would insist that the physical reality of bread and wine consists of both substance (which cannot be directly observed) and accidents (which can be directly observed). I believe you are using the term physical change to talk only about the observables. An Aristotelian would use physical change for either the change in a substance or an accident. So, according to traditional Thomistic language, transubstantiation by definition is a physical change. **However, according to your terminology, which seems to be based on modern scientific terminology, there is no change in the physical observables.
**
I really hope this helps.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd, Ph.D. [physical chemistry, Princeton]

Please let me slightly disagree with you on this. The fact that a person could live on Eucharist alone for an extended period of time is a physical observable. Same story for Eucharistic miracles, they are physical observables. However, such events would not be possible if it were simple bread.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Please let me slightly disagree with you on this. The fact that a person could live on Eucharist alone for an extended period of time is a physical observable. Same story for Eucharistic miracles, they are physical observables. However, such events would not be possible if it were simple bread.

I think that a person living on the Eucharist alone is an extra-ordinary miracle that the Lord has worked over and above the miracle of transubstantiation. The Lord does not promise such physical sustinence to those who receive the Eucharist. As St. Thomas asserts, it is digested the same way by the body as ordinary food.

 

[holdencaulfield]

If I may, interject, since I think both of you are trying to express exactly the same thing in different terminology. The Aristotelian argument would insist that the physical reality of bread and wine consists of both substance (which cannot be directly observed) and accidents (which can be directly observed). I believe you are using the term physical change to talk only about the observables. An Aristotelian would use physical change for either the change in a substance or an accident. So, according to traditional Thomistic language, transubstantiation by definition is a physical change. However, according to your terminology, which seems to be based on modern scientific terminology, there is no change in the physical observables.

I really hope this helps.

Nice Post