W
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
I am trying to work that out with Alec, hecd2. If you are coming from a different angle, please let me know.
Practically, I have a broader meaning to spiritual. I consider everything non-material/physical as spiritual.
The difficulty with talking about transubstantiation is the vocabulary. For example, I would not describe the bread as becoming invested with spiritual aspects of Jesus Christ.
Alec and I have been discussing “substance” and “substantially present” so as to understand the chemical composition of bread. As we go back and forth, I hope to get a better understanding.
If the bread were human flesh, it would be noticeable. Posters have given the Catholic explanation. I am in the process of searching out other kinds of answers as you can tell from my posts.
I can understand that trying to explain the Catholic Eucharist could sound like double talk. There are lots of double and triple meanings surrounding the Eucharist. What can I say?
Did the kid get arrested? I thought the ending was that people realized that they had been fooled. No matter. If you consider that the moral of the story is that one should be able to freely question what is happening, I’m with you. Have I mentioned that I am a direct descendent of Thomas the doubting Apostle?
Blessings,
granny
*Luke 24: 13-35 *
H
hecd2
Guest
I wasn’t presenting a case but merely pointing out where things stand with regard to the demolition of universalist and essentialist ways of looking at the world. I am afraid your objection doesn’t hold for several reasons. The researcher’s mind state anticipating the new plant, is not a kind of plant, but a rehearsal in language and visual computation of what the researcher expects the plant to be: it is no more an entity in its own right than is the researcher’s mind state on actually observing the plant. The new plant does not exist until it is grown. Nominalism quite adequately encompasses the situation, because the researcher uses the anticipated properties of the plant (which might differ from the realised ones) to categorise it with other similar but not identical plants that he has experience of.
I’m a bit short of time and I won’t be able to post for a couple of weeks at least after this, otherwise I would have dug out some references for you: but the key figures here are Ernst Mayr (grand old man of the Synthesis) and David Hull (philosopher of biology).
Wait - I’ve just found this:
etss.net/evolution/reviews/hull/david_hull_publications.htm
Look in particular at his 1960s papers.
Dawkins also points out how evolutionary biology is anti-essentialist in his books but not in peer-reviewed papers AFAIK.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
W
WmJackP
Guest
Did the kid get arrested? I thought the ending was that people realized that they had been fooled. No matter. If you consider that the moral of the story is that one should be able to freely question what is happening, I’m with you. Have I mentioned that I am a direct descendent of Thomas the doubting Apostle?
I think you’re right, the kid hired a Philadelphia lawyer and “walked”
I think you’re right, the kid hired a Philadelphia lawyer and “walked”
G
grannymh
Guest
W
WmJackP
Guest
But you would question the place and circumstances of birth were sufficiently called into question, wouldn’t you? I am certain, of course, that you would not seriously begin to doubt your birth place except on very strong evidence and after you went thru a process of verifying the information, cross checking also to be sure that the inconsistencies were brought into account, and, most assuredly reconciling how the San Angelo TX story got onto yiour birth certificate and into the heads of your relatives. For sure, I am entirely with you that if what appears to be a preposterous story is suddenly represented to you as truth, that you will want some powerful evidence before you buy into it.
Hence, my question to you. Do you really think you have strong evidence for the doctrinal beliefs held by you? I grew up the same way you did. I heard all the familiar bible stories and as a RC kid, I learned about the triune God, redemption, transsubstantiation, etc and I pretty much accepted these beliefs because everyone around me had bought the line and it just wasn’t an issue.
But my problem was that, even at an eary age, I was curious and a serious student; Things had to make sense for me; I wasn’t much into nonsense. I learned enough about culture, and, the social sciences that I figured out that it is no coincidence that adherents to Islam tend to be brought up that way, and, so do Shinto-ists, Jews, Christians and the rest. B.F. Skinner once said something like “give me a kid within certain genetic perimeters and let me control his environment, and I’ll give you anyone you want”. So, while I’m not here to argue with you about free will, I earnestly submit to you that what we believe is substantially a function of what we’ve been taught.
My view of what we should do as humans is to free ourselves of our sociological baggage and strive to behave along rational lines. It’s a hard road to travel and not for the squeamish. It is easy to accept a status quo----it is always a challenge to think outside of boxes.
A
Alindawyl
Guest
I also learned all that stuff as a kid. Not that it did me any good because I ended up not practicing my faith for over a decade once becoming an adult. Just because we’re taught it doesn’t mean we accept it. I never once stopped believing that God was real and out there somewhere in a vague, nebulous sense, but didn’t do anything about it other than vaguely praying maybe once every few months. The object of my faith was me, not Him. All that learning and I never really established any sort of personal relationship with Christ. I thought it didn’t matter, that I didn’t need it.
Imagine my surprise a few years ago when I found out how wrong I was.
There is very strong evidence for the veracity of the doctrinal teachings of the Church. The evidence is that Jesus existed 2000 years ago and that Jesus is who he claimed to be - not simply a human like us but a divine person.
You are probably not willing to accept it as valid evidence, unfortunately. Most people who have not chosen to place their faith in Christ apply a different standard of acceptability to anything which smacks of the supernatural. They don’t want to hear it, so requiring a stricter standard allows them to disregard the inconvenient and keep themselves as the object of their faith. Been there, done that.
If you REALLY want to talk about evidence, I’m more than willing to give it a go.
W
WmJackP
Guest
Alindawyl;If you REALLY want to talk about evidence said:
R
rvilbig
Guest
Thanks, Alec. I’ll look into these references.
Regarding a synthesis of evolution and hylomorphism, Saint Thomas seems to have had no problem doing so, since every mutated genome itself is the prime matter that has the *potential *to be an actualized instantiation of some form or combination of forms. This is from his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics:
“The same thing is true of those substances which Empedocles said were produced at the beginning of the world, such as the ‘ox-progeny’, i.e., half ox and half man. For if such things were not able to arrive at some end and final state of nature so that they would be preserved in existence, this was not because nature did not intend this…, but because they were not capable of being preserved. For they were not generated according to nature, but by the corruption of some natural principle, as it now also happens that some monstrous offspring are generated because of the corruption of seed.” (Aquinas, Physica, Book 2, Lecture 14, Section 262)
Essentially, seed is corrupted (genes mutate) and some species thrive and some die, but all exist as a substantial union of matter and form. Consider for example, that all of the atoms in an animal body are recycled every year, and yet it is still the same creature. Since the matter has changed but the individual is still present, this suggests that its essence is distinct from its matter. Make sense?
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
W
WmJackP
Guest
In any case, you have not proven that there is in fact a contradiction in the idea of a triune God, and there has been explanations of the trinity which show that at least the concept is not inconsistent with the nature of God.
I must not have been very clear. Maybe if I restate my point:
If you reached a different conclusion, then I believe that you will have satisfied your own test for inconsistency
I must not have been very clear. Maybe if I restate my point:
Code:
1.. A substance is that which has a specific chemical composition with specific properties
2. Bread is comprised of A plus B plus C molecules and has X properties
3. Human tissue is comprised of D plus E plus F molecules and has Y properties
4. During the Eucharistic exchange, there is no change in the chemical com- position of the wafer nor in its properties.
5. Therefore, it is the same substance thruout the exchange
L
Leela
Guest
Are you kidding? The notion that something that is three is also simultaneously one is inherently self-contradictory. The Father is the Son? The Father begot the Son who is also the Father? God sacrificed himself to himself for the forgiveness of the sins of humanity? I’m not belittling the notion here. It is just that the Trinity is supposed to be a mystery in Catholic theology. If you think you understand it, you don’t understand it. The more you know about it, the more you have left to learn. It is THEE Zen Koan of Christianity. In that way, it is said to reward continuous inquiry. To say that it can be grasped by reason–that it is entirely rational and noncontradictory–is to belittle it.
N
NaturalEnquirer
Guest
“One x is simultaneously three x’s” is self-contradictory. “One x is simultaneously three y’s” is not. One cube is six squares. One god is three persons. No contradiction.
You’re right that no one fully understands the trinity. And reason would not lead us to it without divine revelation. But it transcends human understanding, it doesn’t contradict it.
D
davidv
Guest
I must not have been very clear. Maybe if I restate my point:
1… A substance is that which has a specific chemical composition with specific properties
However, this is not the Church’s definition of substance when she is teaching about the Eucharist.
True
And a spiritual soul.
How do you know this?
No so, as premise one is not applicable as written and premise four is uncertain.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I ask a question based on your usage of the word substance, i.e., specific chemical composition with specific properties. Note: There are five definitions in my dictionary including "“A material of a particular kind or constitution” and “Essential nature; essence.” (American Heritage College Dictionary)
Wheat has a specific chemical composition which is different than penicillin. Stretching the analogy a tad – how is this accomplished? wheat to bread to mold to penicillin.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is sacred.
Y
yppop
Guest
In post #97 Leela wrote:
*What is this “substance” that the properties of bread are supposed to adhere in? It sounds made up. How could there be more to bread than the properties that make bread bread rather than something else? This sort of substance talk probably made a lot more sense when scientists talked about the ether and phlogiston and before all that modern “wave-particle” business. Now substance just sounds like an old wive’s tale. *
In post # 149 WmJackP presents an argument:
1… A substance is that which has a specific chemical composition with specific properties
2. Bread is comprised of A plus B plus C molecules and has X properties
3. Human tissue is comprised of D plus E plus F molecules and has Y properties
4. During the Eucharistic exchange, there is no change in the chemical com- position of the wafer nor in its properties.
5. Therefore, it is the same substance thruout the exchange
Regarding the subject of “substance” I make the following above comments:
Premise 1 of WmJackP’s post defines a “chemical substance”. This is not the definition of “substance” that is involved in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist (and I do appreciate your capitalization). So what are we Catholics talking about concerning that which occurs in the Eucharist? Certainly nothing that is currently acceptable to the majority of scientists; and the reason for that is: science is adhering to the philosophical principles of Logical Positivism when science describes what is observed or can be measured without delving into the underlying cause of reality much as a water bug skims the surface of the pond without ever diving in to the deeper depths.
Leela’s asks: What is this “substance” that the properties of bread are supposed to adhere in?
Let us dive deeper into the pond of reality to explore the scientific view of matter and perhaps we can adduce what the properties (accidentals) of bread are supposed to adhere in.
Yes, bread and human tissue are made of molecules and molecules are made of atoms. Atoms according to most scientific descriptions consist of a nucleus surrounded by a cloud of point-like electrons, organized in orbits. The diameter of the uranium atom is 23,000 times the diameter of its own nucleus. At the other end of the size spectrum, the diameter of the hydrogen atom is 145,000 times the diameter of its nucleus.
Conclusion: atoms are mostly space.
Let’s not stop there, let’s take one more plunge into the depth of reality and consider the fermions (protons and neutrons) that make up the nucleus. Fermions are made up of quarks, which supposedly are point particles like the electrons, meaning their diameters are zero.
Conclusion: Matter is nothing more than specific configurations of space, i.e., the substance (in the philosophical sense) of matter is space.
How can this be? Simply. In mathematical terms, space can be continuous (infinitely divisible) when associated with the real numbers or discrete when associated with the rational numbers. Do we have two kinds of “substance” to describe the ground of reality? No; rather two modalities of the same substance exist! Hence, duality is introduced at the ground of reality as “substance” and objective reality is manifested at an explicate level as matter and it concomitant properties.
Such a model of reality offers an opportunity to reassess the age old dichotomies: mind/body; spiritual/material; real/ideal; within/without; contingency/necessity, etc. etc. etc. The basic idea, that describes a possibility that the accidentals of bread and wine can remain the same as the fundamental substance is changed, is that discrete space is the substance of matter and continuous space is the spiritual substance in which matter is immersed. The substances are readily exchanged in a physical sense if one is willing to accept that “space” is a “physical” entity that exists in dual modalities. The Eucharist is not an old-wive’s tale if one is willing to dive deeper into the nature of reality.
Yppop
*What is this “substance” that the properties of bread are supposed to adhere in? It sounds made up. How could there be more to bread than the properties that make bread bread rather than something else? This sort of substance talk probably made a lot more sense when scientists talked about the ether and phlogiston and before all that modern “wave-particle” business. Now substance just sounds like an old wive’s tale. *
In post # 149 WmJackP presents an argument:
1… A substance is that which has a specific chemical composition with specific properties
2. Bread is comprised of A plus B plus C molecules and has X properties
3. Human tissue is comprised of D plus E plus F molecules and has Y properties
4. During the Eucharistic exchange, there is no change in the chemical com- position of the wafer nor in its properties.
5. Therefore, it is the same substance thruout the exchange
Regarding the subject of “substance” I make the following above comments:
Premise 1 of WmJackP’s post defines a “chemical substance”. This is not the definition of “substance” that is involved in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist (and I do appreciate your capitalization). So what are we Catholics talking about concerning that which occurs in the Eucharist? Certainly nothing that is currently acceptable to the majority of scientists; and the reason for that is: science is adhering to the philosophical principles of Logical Positivism when science describes what is observed or can be measured without delving into the underlying cause of reality much as a water bug skims the surface of the pond without ever diving in to the deeper depths.
Leela’s asks: What is this “substance” that the properties of bread are supposed to adhere in?
Let us dive deeper into the pond of reality to explore the scientific view of matter and perhaps we can adduce what the properties (accidentals) of bread are supposed to adhere in.
Yes, bread and human tissue are made of molecules and molecules are made of atoms. Atoms according to most scientific descriptions consist of a nucleus surrounded by a cloud of point-like electrons, organized in orbits. The diameter of the uranium atom is 23,000 times the diameter of its own nucleus. At the other end of the size spectrum, the diameter of the hydrogen atom is 145,000 times the diameter of its nucleus.
Conclusion: atoms are mostly space.
Let’s not stop there, let’s take one more plunge into the depth of reality and consider the fermions (protons and neutrons) that make up the nucleus. Fermions are made up of quarks, which supposedly are point particles like the electrons, meaning their diameters are zero.
Conclusion: Matter is nothing more than specific configurations of space, i.e., the substance (in the philosophical sense) of matter is space.
How can this be? Simply. In mathematical terms, space can be continuous (infinitely divisible) when associated with the real numbers or discrete when associated with the rational numbers. Do we have two kinds of “substance” to describe the ground of reality? No; rather two modalities of the same substance exist! Hence, duality is introduced at the ground of reality as “substance” and objective reality is manifested at an explicate level as matter and it concomitant properties.
Such a model of reality offers an opportunity to reassess the age old dichotomies: mind/body; spiritual/material; real/ideal; within/without; contingency/necessity, etc. etc. etc. The basic idea, that describes a possibility that the accidentals of bread and wine can remain the same as the fundamental substance is changed, is that discrete space is the substance of matter and continuous space is the spiritual substance in which matter is immersed. The substances are readily exchanged in a physical sense if one is willing to accept that “space” is a “physical” entity that exists in dual modalities. The Eucharist is not an old-wive’s tale if one is willing to dive deeper into the nature of reality.
Yppop
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
Ideas are not based on evidence. An idea is autochthonous, dominate, fixed, overvalued, or an idea of reference. Therefore, I do think that your 'idea of reference is based on the ‘projection of the causes of one’s own imaginary difficulties upon someone else.’
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
Neither of you know what all Catholic’s believe.
J
jmcrae
Guest
We know what Catholics are taught to believe, and are supposed to believe. Yes, there are “Catholics” who believe heretical ideas - so what?Neither of you know what all Catholic’s believe.
It’s not as if either God or the Pope is taking an opinion poll.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I add that some Catholics do not know what Catholicism teaches.Neither of you know what all Catholic’s believe.
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
Who are the Catholics who believe heretical ideas? I am a Roman Catholic that started off learning about God through the bible then progressed by attending on the weekend the Catholic Church for instruction. As a young girl I walked 4 miles to do that then returned with my mother on Sunday to attend church. Immediately, I realized at very early age there was a God when one of the nuns come into a class and told us that we would be shortly taken into the Church for communion. First we would go to confession. All of a sudden I couldn’t remember the Act of Contrition. I kept praying to God to help me. It was a sincere plea of help to Jesus. HELP ME! All of a sudden the classroom door opened and the nun came in to tell us the priest wasn’t able to do confession or Mass. I knew then that God loved me in a very special way.We know what Catholics are taught to believe, and are supposed to believe. Yes, there are “Catholics” who believe heretical ideas - so what?
To this day, I haven’t forgotten the Act of Contrition.I do recall BENEDICT XVI mentioning on February 3, 2010, “Albigensians, a heretical group which upheld a dualistic conception of reality, that is, with two equally powerful creator principles, Good and Evil. This group consequently despised matter as coming from the principle of evil. They even refused marriage, and went to the point of denying the Incarnation of Christ and the sacraments in which the Lord “touches” us through matter, and the resurrection of bodies.”
- Status