W
WmJackP
Guest
said:
- Status
R
richardacombs
Guest
Observations by non-believers always boil down to the same simple and original sin. The person believes that he or she should decide what is good and evil. Exactly the same sin that Adam and Eve committed when they ate the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
What was the Serpent’s line?-- “For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Gen 3:5 (Douay Rheims)
Gee! All these millenia and sinners still fall back on the original sin and the same old line.
What was the Serpent’s line?-- “For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Gen 3:5 (Douay Rheims)
Gee! All these millenia and sinners still fall back on the original sin and the same old line.
W
WmJackP
Guest
Yes, I realize that there are a variety of definitions. However, I believe any scientific definition will include a description somewhat similar to the one I used. Regardless, , to have a discussion about “substance” , we must attach meaning to the word. Otherwise, we will end up with Orwellian doublespeak.
I also recognize that when you refer to transsubstantiation, you also mean some spiritual qualities which are outside of any definition simillar to mine. However, as I am certain I posted to you before, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on the issue of the “soul and divinity” because I could never disprove that such qualities exist. My argument in the post is based exclusively on whether it can be validly postulated that the"body and blood (physical properties) transform.
My position, of course, is that it is quite impossible and requires trickery in the mind to maintain such to be the case. My syllogism was meant to point that up.
W
WmJackP
Guest
More later on the wheat to penecillen thing, but, I gotta run (not to Mass, of course) but I have some things I am late for.
G
grannymh
Guest
Good, that you will continue the wheat thing because I am not sure where I am going with it. Actually, I am working through what Alec, hedc2 has posted and find that you may be on similar track.
What is interesting about your posts is your vocabulary and expression. You challenge everything I’ve learned which is good for this curious being that I am.
For example, I would not consider the Real Presence of Jesus, Body and Blood, as having the same physical properties of a live human’s flesh and blood. In a sense Jesus shed His live human body on the cross and restored His dead body in a new fashion with His resurrection. I am not requiring you to believe the resurrection. I would like you to understand that I do not consider Jesus’ pre-death body in the equation.
If I were Jesus (heaven help the world) and was trying to find a way to continue my presence on earth, I would pick the simplest way possible. Wheat based bread was basic in the time of Jesus and continues to be basic today. Since a resurrected body does not normally have pre-death blood flowing through veins immersed in pre-death flesh, Jesus needed a vehicle to make His presence known to our ordinary human senses. Being present under the signs or accidents or physical properties of bread was the perfect solution.
Blessings,
granny
Human nature is unique in all the universe.
W
WmJackP
Guest
Yes, I am familiar with the logic. I have a friend who returned recently from somewhere in the eastern Pacific and he was telling me of a tribe he lived with whose “god” considers it a form of insanity to question “his” existence. Hence, to question is to be insane and whatever arguments are posited to contradict the belief system are to be discounted as the product of delusions. So, we unbelievers just can’t win, it seems.
W
WmJackP
Guest
I don’t know what you said, but, it certainly sounded good.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.’
W
WmJackP
Guest
Since a resurrected body does not normally have pre-death blood flowing through veins immersed in pre-death flesh, Jesus needed a vehicle to make His presence known to our ordinary human senses. Being present under the signs or accidents or physical properties of bread was the perfect solution. QUOTE]
I know it is difficult to be understood by means of what amount to swapping “post it” notes back and forth, but, the point I really would like to make is that unless we are able to attach real meaning to words, we really aren’t communicating in any meaningful manner.
I hope you would agree with me that if I make the statement that “Christ is truly present” that, in order to be true, the statement must correspond to some reality.
So what is the reality that corresponds to Christ being present in this wafer at this instant in time which is not true before the words of a priest are uttered? I believe you claim that what is different after consecration is that the “accidents” of bread remain but the substance changes? So then what is the substance?
If you don’t have any meaning for the word substance then are you really making a meaningful statement? You were critical of my definition of “substance” in an earlier post, so what is your definition if you don’t like mine? Again, I stress that if you don’t know what “substance”, or, if you have no definition of “substance”, then how can you possibly say that it changes from one substance to another? You may as well say that even though it looks, smells, tastes, feels and tests like like bread in chemical and atomic analysis, bread is really more than any of that-----it is something else which you want to call “substance”, but, what that something else is, no one can say.
Because the Pope or predecessors to the Pope says it is so that the “substance” changes, does that really make sense–or is this simply another way of saying that the emperor has new clothes?
I know it is difficult to be understood by means of what amount to swapping “post it” notes back and forth, but, the point I really would like to make is that unless we are able to attach real meaning to words, we really aren’t communicating in any meaningful manner.
I hope you would agree with me that if I make the statement that “Christ is truly present” that, in order to be true, the statement must correspond to some reality.
So what is the reality that corresponds to Christ being present in this wafer at this instant in time which is not true before the words of a priest are uttered? I believe you claim that what is different after consecration is that the “accidents” of bread remain but the substance changes? So then what is the substance?
If you don’t have any meaning for the word substance then are you really making a meaningful statement? You were critical of my definition of “substance” in an earlier post, so what is your definition if you don’t like mine? Again, I stress that if you don’t know what “substance”, or, if you have no definition of “substance”, then how can you possibly say that it changes from one substance to another? You may as well say that even though it looks, smells, tastes, feels and tests like like bread in chemical and atomic analysis, bread is really more than any of that-----it is something else which you want to call “substance”, but, what that something else is, no one can say.
Because the Pope or predecessors to the Pope says it is so that the “substance” changes, does that really make sense–or is this simply another way of saying that the emperor has new clothes?
H
hecd2
Guest
Quick note while running out the door. With all due respect, I don’t believe that Aquinas (or Aristotle) had the faintest idea about evolution as understood today (as his comments about monstrous offspring and the corruption of seed demonstrate). (As an OT aside, the metaphysics of both Aristotle and Aquinas are seriously compromised because they build their metaphysics on serious misunderstandings about the natural world - but that is a topic for another time) .The point is that essentialism and the concept of universals have been undermined by the knowledge of the continuity across wide swathes of organism space at any one point in time (read up on the ambiguity of species identity at population boundaries), and by the continuity over time of the properties of now widely disparate parent and daughter organisms.
Leaving aside the fact that it’s *not *true that all the atoms in an animal body are recycled every year, what makes a creature the same creature over time are the facts that all of its cells have the same DNA, that the organism has a identifiably common host defence over time and that on a macro-scale it observes continuity of life. In this case, essence absolutely follows and is defined by the properties of the entity. In the same way, the identity or essence of the Host is absolutely defined by its properties - it is bread.
I was, however, not so much pointing out difficulties in reconciling hylomorphism with the modern understanding of population-based evolutionary biology (which problems are associated with the fact that the form is a consequence of the configuration of matter and not distinct from it) as pointing out the huge difficulties with synthesising an essentialist and evolutionary view of nature.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
L
Leela
Guest
Well, how about this. Jesus is 100% divine. Jesus is 100% human.
L
Leela
Guest
I have no idea what you are telling me above. Can you dumb it down for me?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.’
D
davidv
Guest
This is true. How can it be? It not fully explainable, like many things in our physical world.
W
WmJackP
Guest
And, if I ever need a squabble partner, you’re the one I’ll call.
Y
yppop
Guest
Ok, I accept this argument, but I think you missed an important point that I made, namely, that the meaning of the word substance used in the sense of transubstantiation is not the same as the definition you are using, namely the scientific definition of a “chemical substance”. This is a “philosophical” forum so I prefer to stick to the definition of substance as “that which underlies the form of a material object”. So if you want to discuss transubstantiation shouldn’t we agree to use a definition that applies to the phrnomenon that we are discussing?
OR…
It is my contention that the bread and wine is not made of the “same stuff “before and after consecration because discrete space is “substantially” different than continuous space. What I am suggesting is that discrete space is the “substance” of the material aspect of reality and continuous space is the “substance” of the spiritual aspect. With this underlying duality of substances it is possible that the atoms that form the bread and wine consists of discrete space until consecrated at which point the same bread and wine atoms become configurations of continuous space. The substance of the bread and wine (discrete space) is transformed (replaced) by the substance of continuous space. The accidentals of the bread and wine remain the same even though their underlying nature does not. And be it understood that I am not making the claim that this is what actually happens; I am merely showing that there can be mathematically and scientifically plausible explanation for the Eucharist and it might just be the way that it happens The impetus for the transformation is affected through the words of an ordained Catholic priest
I have attempted (without success) to describe a possible description of reality at the ground if reality that I call the holonomic mechanism. It is briefly described in a thread called “God Exists, But How ” now on page 21 of this forum. It apparently is not easy to understand.
My motivation for spending the last 25 years studying and thinking about the meaning of life has been motivated by the writing of Teilhard de Chardin and if you have any exposure to his philosophy you should understand that my thesis could better be described as Panentheism, and certainly not Pantheism and the duality that I have modelled at the ground of reality is the things that Teilhard refers to as the within and the *without *of material things.
Should we stop here or are you really interested in a possible explanation of the phenomenon of transubstantiation? Probably not, because I assume that you are a young, male, liberal, falling away Catholic whose mind is totally made up. I went through a phase similar to that over fifty years ago, but was able to avoid the terminal smugness that such a set of descriptors implies when I married a good Catholic girl who exemplified the grace associated with the sacrament of matrimony and brought to my life a 53 year love affair (with her and the church)! My apologies if I have assumed the wrong description of you.
Yppop
R
rvilbig
Guest
There was a nice book written in the early 20th century by Columbia University paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, called From the Greeks to Darwin, in which he argued that evolution is essentially an ancient idea, particularly found in the works of Lucretius, Empedocles and Aristotle. For example, Aristotle wrote:
“So where every part turned out to be just as it would have been if it had had some purpose, the creatures survived because, spontaneously, they happened to be put together in a useful way. But everything else has been destroyed and continues to be destroyed, as Empedocles says of his ‘cow-like creatures with the heads of men’.” (Physics II.8)
This is the *essence *of evolution, essentially like Charles Darwin’s description from The Origin of Species: evolution is “the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite manner” (Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter XIV). So I’d say that the ancients and medieval scholastics had a fairly clear understanding of variation and selection, and that it’s the arrogance of modern man to dismiss such insightful considerations by our predecessors.
I prefer Mayr’s species definition: “species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.” Where’s the ambiguity? Individuals can either breed or they can’t and this is the UNIVERSAL ESSENCE of a species. Or do you not believe that species exist?
DNA polymerases generate numerous variations; for example, this high fidelity polymerase introduces changes in 12 per 250,000 bases. This occurs in both somatic and gametic cells. So your theory that all “cells have the same DNA” is mistaken. And you should know better since the variations in gametic cells form the basis of evolution. Or do you not believe in evolution?
Here’s the real question for you Alec: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you =Alec] can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jeremiah 13:23).
Isn’t it time you evolved?
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
G
grannymh
Guest
snip…
What I have been trying to do – and apparently badly-- is to first understand your meanings of substance in your context and with your personal perspective. It was my intention to critique, not be critical, in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of how you support your position. According to my old neighborhood’s wisdom, one must first walk a mile in another person’s moccasins.
I would like to understand the science, philosophy, and semantic positions of those who have different views than I do. I would like to reconcile the differences but even if I cannot do this, I feel it is valuable to put differences on the table.
There are plenty of posters who can present Catholic teaching. Besides, there are far better thinkers, including theist and non-theist, who can discuss the issues better than I can. No matter. My posting needs to be curtailed for a time.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the misadventures of the journey.
I
inocente
Guest
As someone without leanings towards transubstantiation, the Eucharist is still full of meaning. A Catholic may say (or hopefully not) that I get no more than the soldier’s lament for her fallen comrades:
*They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.
Does trying to rationalize absolutely everything help or hinder?
*They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.
- Laurence Binyon
Does trying to rationalize absolutely everything help or hinder?
R
reggieM
Guest
Hinder.
J
jmcrae
Guest
That’s a much more sophisticated god than most tribal gods I’m familiar with - what tribe was this, if you don’t mind my asking?
W
WmJackP
Guest
Should we stop here or are you really interested in a possible explanation of the phenomenon of transubstantiation? Probably not, because I assume that you are a young, male, liberal, falling away Catholic whose mind is totally made up. I went through a phase similar to that over fifty years ago, but was able to avoid the terminal smugness that such a set of descriptors implies when I married a good Catholic girl who exemplified the grace associated with the sacrament of matrimony and brought to my life a 53 year love affair (with her and the church)! My apologies if I have assumed the wrong description of you.
Yppop
Shall we be absolutely fair? Isn’t it likely that we both have our minds made up? However, that shouldn’t prevent us from seeing how close or apart we are. It might surprise us both.
For one thing, I am a Jesuit product myself. At least, the Jebbies provided me with the inspiration and curiosity to think “outside of the box” You may then be surprised that one of my heros was (is) Fr.Teilhard de Chardin. Now, that was a guy who thought “outside the box” as indeed he was soundly criticized for. Since then, I am nearly two decades beyond the Jebbie influences of my h.s. and university under-grad days. So I have had time to acquire some new heros and ideas of my own.
I always thought that the distinction between pantheism and panentheism was intellectually dishonest. God is the universe verses God permeates every nook and cranny of the universe? It seems like a lot of unnecessary work to feel good about RC doctrine.
If the universe is rational–a point on which I am certain you and I agree on–why don’t we just leave it that way. I will be the first to acknowledge that there is a rational universe. However, does that mean we have to personalize it, and, invent a diety to be the wizard behind the curtain? Then all the other stuff about virgin births, the triune godhead, transubstantiation? Is all that mystical stuff necessary to (1) understanding reality (2)living a good life? These doctrines can’t be proven, can’t be investigated; they, smack of the mediteranean mystry religions of the first century and really don’t add much to intellectual growth.
The existence of a rational universe is all by itself a thing to marvel at; but as awe invoking as it may be, it is not necessarily a “personal diety” to worship. Ocham’s razor, right?
I hope I haven’t offended you. That isn’t my purpose. But you do seem bright, and, someone who nonetheless thinks differently than me. So I’m curious about that.
Regards,
Yppop
Shall we be absolutely fair? Isn’t it likely that we both have our minds made up? However, that shouldn’t prevent us from seeing how close or apart we are. It might surprise us both.
For one thing, I am a Jesuit product myself. At least, the Jebbies provided me with the inspiration and curiosity to think “outside of the box” You may then be surprised that one of my heros was (is) Fr.Teilhard de Chardin. Now, that was a guy who thought “outside the box” as indeed he was soundly criticized for. Since then, I am nearly two decades beyond the Jebbie influences of my h.s. and university under-grad days. So I have had time to acquire some new heros and ideas of my own.
I always thought that the distinction between pantheism and panentheism was intellectually dishonest. God is the universe verses God permeates every nook and cranny of the universe? It seems like a lot of unnecessary work to feel good about RC doctrine.
If the universe is rational–a point on which I am certain you and I agree on–why don’t we just leave it that way. I will be the first to acknowledge that there is a rational universe. However, does that mean we have to personalize it, and, invent a diety to be the wizard behind the curtain? Then all the other stuff about virgin births, the triune godhead, transubstantiation? Is all that mystical stuff necessary to (1) understanding reality (2)living a good life? These doctrines can’t be proven, can’t be investigated; they, smack of the mediteranean mystry religions of the first century and really don’t add much to intellectual growth.
The existence of a rational universe is all by itself a thing to marvel at; but as awe invoking as it may be, it is not necessarily a “personal diety” to worship. Ocham’s razor, right?
I hope I haven’t offended you. That isn’t my purpose. But you do seem bright, and, someone who nonetheless thinks differently than me. So I’m curious about that.
Regards,
- Status