K
- Status
T
tommiatkins
Guest
I’m here to find out how crackers change into flesh, and how it dosnt end up going through the normal process of digestion.
I.E Incomplete Absorbing through the stomach wall and breaking into glucose and fat. Reabsorbing through the colon and fibers of the wafer passing straight through.
I have read, i wager, more than you on the subject, as evidence by you beleiving that the substance (and i mean this in a literal,real and non theological sense) is “Not the same”
I.E Incomplete Absorbing through the stomach wall and breaking into glucose and fat. Reabsorbing through the colon and fibers of the wafer passing straight through.
I have read, i wager, more than you on the subject, as evidence by you beleiving that the substance (and i mean this in a literal,real and non theological sense) is “Not the same”
V
vikvak01
Guest
Tommi,
I actually have a bit of empathy for your query here, as I went through some of the same questioning while I was in my earlier schooling.
However if you hold this position:
I surely hope you at least understand and accept the fact that while I cannot prove the tenants of faith via science, you can certainly not disprove them using science either.
Ah but wait, I can already guess your response to that:
You will probably say something like ‘Yes, yes I can disprove transubstantiation, because I can look at the consecrated host under a microscope and I don’t find ‘Jesus molecules’ therefore, it is just regular bread.’
Am I right? Do I have that approx. correct?
As far as my reply to that argument, I’m afraid I don’t have time for the lengthy paragraph now. I will say, after being a student of philosophy for sometime prior to my entering medical school, I became convinced that some schools of philosophy which considered a transcendental world/realm were at least reasonable to entertain. Beyond that I think it becomes a personal thing, for me, various events in my life (even working in the bio-medical field) have led me to feel very good about believing in things I cannot see or study empirically. I know many good scientists/physicians who hold this view, and I know many good scientists/physicians who hold the opposing view.
To accept matters of faith or the transcendental world is a personal change which I doubt is fully up to you or any person. If and when God chooses to change your heart/mind on that then you’ll see and understand. Until that point, I’m sure no argument I can present will move you or even seem plausible. I have no problem accepting that fact.
I actually have a bit of empathy for your query here, as I went through some of the same questioning while I was in my earlier schooling.
However if you hold this position:
What are you doing in a religious forum? You are not going to be able to ‘check this stuff out’. You should, instead, devote your curiosities towards biomedical research and maybe you can help develop a better understanding of some horrible digestive disorder. You would be better off leaving theological discussion to those of us who believe in a metaphysical world.
I surely hope you at least understand and accept the fact that while I cannot prove the tenants of faith via science, you can certainly not disprove them using science either.
Ah but wait, I can already guess your response to that:
You will probably say something like ‘Yes, yes I can disprove transubstantiation, because I can look at the consecrated host under a microscope and I don’t find ‘Jesus molecules’ therefore, it is just regular bread.’
Am I right? Do I have that approx. correct?
As far as my reply to that argument, I’m afraid I don’t have time for the lengthy paragraph now. I will say, after being a student of philosophy for sometime prior to my entering medical school, I became convinced that some schools of philosophy which considered a transcendental world/realm were at least reasonable to entertain. Beyond that I think it becomes a personal thing, for me, various events in my life (even working in the bio-medical field) have led me to feel very good about believing in things I cannot see or study empirically. I know many good scientists/physicians who hold this view, and I know many good scientists/physicians who hold the opposing view.
To accept matters of faith or the transcendental world is a personal change which I doubt is fully up to you or any person. If and when God chooses to change your heart/mind on that then you’ll see and understand. Until that point, I’m sure no argument I can present will move you or even seem plausible. I have no problem accepting that fact.
A
Archimedeez
Guest
Hah! Tommi, you make me giggle.
So what you’re saying is that enzyme catalyzed proteolysis and acid catalyzed hydrolysis leave a substance largely intact, just in smaller chunks. Right?
And if we could only separate the chunks of one thing from the chunks of another, we could re-assemble the original substance, good as new. Right?
I would be most interested in seeing you dump some stomach acid on yourself and then turn around to tell me that you were totally fine; that you just needed to pick the little bits of yourself out of the acid goo and stitch them back on.
Laughable. My case, she rests!
T
tommiatkins
Guest
Nice Googeling, but you need to read your sources carefully, not just a few lines and take what you wish for as being validated by something that in actuality contradicts it 
Parts of it are left intact. Carbohydrate based materials such as corn,(in the bread), and alcohol in the wine go straight through unchanged. A catholic man who is feeling ill and vomits, will vomit up undigested material. One with a poor diet will pass a lot of undigested food, people with healthy diets will still pass some undigested corn.
I wont advocate picking through your poop to look for it,since its smashed up into tiny peices and its a messy and smelly task. But you would find under proper examination, that the wafer particals are indeed there. How much? Depends on the individual. Perhaps 0.2 grammes out of a 4 gramme wafer.
So thats 0.2 grammes of the real presence.
Lets say however that the wafer is totally absorbed into various amino acids, glucose and seperated into electrolytes and salts.
This is called metabolising. Its breaking down the molecular structure.
The carbon molocule that is part of the flesh tissue of Christ is seperated from the atoms that make up the corn or the starch etc.
These molecules are reabsorbed in the same state into the colon and the kidneys.
I understand you have a problem with Jesus being made in the biscuit factory, and the explaination is that the magic words makes him arrive. There are no magic words to make him leave.
The only answer is what the old boys decided in the 14th century. seemed a good call at the time.
Then science came along.
As I say, for those who want to shut their eyes to measurable facts, fire away.
To the brasshats in the church, i would get some of the lads around the table and divinely get them inspired, whistling up something new. Because as it stands, there is a lot of presence going down the pan.
Parts of it are left intact. Carbohydrate based materials such as corn,(in the bread), and alcohol in the wine go straight through unchanged. A catholic man who is feeling ill and vomits, will vomit up undigested material. One with a poor diet will pass a lot of undigested food, people with healthy diets will still pass some undigested corn.
I wont advocate picking through your poop to look for it,since its smashed up into tiny peices and its a messy and smelly task. But you would find under proper examination, that the wafer particals are indeed there. How much? Depends on the individual. Perhaps 0.2 grammes out of a 4 gramme wafer.
So thats 0.2 grammes of the real presence.
Lets say however that the wafer is totally absorbed into various amino acids, glucose and seperated into electrolytes and salts.
This is called metabolising. Its breaking down the molecular structure.
The carbon molocule that is part of the flesh tissue of Christ is seperated from the atoms that make up the corn or the starch etc.
These molecules are reabsorbed in the same state into the colon and the kidneys.
I understand you have a problem with Jesus being made in the biscuit factory, and the explaination is that the magic words makes him arrive. There are no magic words to make him leave.
The only answer is what the old boys decided in the 14th century. seemed a good call at the time.
Then science came along.
As I say, for those who want to shut their eyes to measurable facts, fire away.
To the brasshats in the church, i would get some of the lads around the table and divinely get them inspired, whistling up something new. Because as it stands, there is a lot of presence going down the pan.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
** tommi**,
The above quote from you highlights a glaring misconception regarding the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence. If you sincerely want to learn about the teaching let us know (and refrain from the insults), and we might be able to have a fruitful discussion.
** Other posters on this thread**,
Can we take the ball away from tommi for a moment and discuss the underlying mechanics of what is at work here, and what seems to be at work in similar discussions?
It seems to me that the modern educational system has completely abandoned training in metaphysics. I wonder if, more often than not, those who have such trouble understanding the doctrine of the Real Presence are in actuality having difficulty because they hold empiricism or “sense-preceptism” to be true, and suscribe to a material mechanistic world-view. It seems if they admit the existence of substances or essences at all, they are “nominal essences” in the vein of Locke, or Voltaire.
Anyone want to weigh in?
VC
A
Archimedeez
Guest
Certainly, VC.
I would see the issue as quite simple. I see it as having little to do with metaphysics. This could appear to be a stab at Vik and some of the others who’ve mentioned metaphysics in this thread. It isn’t meant as one–I have nothing but respect for Vik. But I think that higher end topics are often assumed to be needed in error. The error I’ve seen at play so far is one of simple logic based on nothing but the premises before us.
In this instance in particular, as with many instances in general, the correct underlying science does not conflict with with the aspect of religion at all. It is made to appear to by those who want it to. And those who don’t want it to typically don’t know a lick of science. So what happens? Those who think they know science say “we’ve won the argument.” Those who don’t know any science say “science isn’t applicable.” Both are wrong.
So those who think they know science keep harping. Those who don’t know science appeal to another discipline. We bring in metaphysics, an entirely theoretical arena where really anything goes and arguing about anything at all is an exercise in futility, when in reality all we needed was simple logic off the premise and this debate would have been history at page 1.
Here’s what we have in this case. The question is posed: How long does the Presence stay with the Host? The Catechism says “till the Host ceases to persist.” To any normal reader, that says “till the Host doesn’t look like the stuff it looked like when it became the Host anymore.” But then some guy comes along and tells us that science dictates that the host persists “in smaller chunks” all the way through the body. Now we have a problem because nobody thinks it religiously correct to have the body of Christ being removed with the rest of the bodily waste. Big debate. Rawr. So the guys who don’t want to argue on a scientific basis say science can’t explain it. And the guy who thinks he knows science thinks he’s been validated. It’s a shame.
In reality, science tells us that what happens during digestion is chemical breakdown. The Host is most certainly not the same thing as what it started out as after digestion. These change very easily fit the idea of “ceasing to persist.” It can even be empirically proven to be the case that what you get out isn’t the same thing as what you put in. Science and religion in this case don’t even disagree–their agreement is quite elegant, in fact.
So there’s my take. While the tools of metaphysics do, I imagine, have their uses, I wonder if they are considered to be required too hastily. Just because science doesn’t look like it agrees with some aspect of religion doesn’t mean reality doesn’t agree with it. It means the current iteration of either one or the other discipline is probably being seen in error.
Here’s a parting thought for you. The prime directive of science is a deeper understanding of reality. Whether or not that directive is always achieved is debatable. Sometimes current scientific theory is flat wrong. But the direction is always the same. If there’s going to be said to be anything at all to religion in general, the tenants of religion must deal with aspects of reality. Nobody cares about a religion that they do not believe to be real.
So why would we so quickly remove science from debates about religion? While they aren’t after precisely the same thing, the idea that there would never be times when one be used to explain the other, or that those times would even be rare, borders on the absurd. If God created the world and science is an effort to gain a deeper understanding of it, the idea that one could never use science to explain attributes of the Creator kind of sounds silly, doesn’t it?
I would see the issue as quite simple. I see it as having little to do with metaphysics. This could appear to be a stab at Vik and some of the others who’ve mentioned metaphysics in this thread. It isn’t meant as one–I have nothing but respect for Vik. But I think that higher end topics are often assumed to be needed in error. The error I’ve seen at play so far is one of simple logic based on nothing but the premises before us.
In this instance in particular, as with many instances in general, the correct underlying science does not conflict with with the aspect of religion at all. It is made to appear to by those who want it to. And those who don’t want it to typically don’t know a lick of science. So what happens? Those who think they know science say “we’ve won the argument.” Those who don’t know any science say “science isn’t applicable.” Both are wrong.
So those who think they know science keep harping. Those who don’t know science appeal to another discipline. We bring in metaphysics, an entirely theoretical arena where really anything goes and arguing about anything at all is an exercise in futility, when in reality all we needed was simple logic off the premise and this debate would have been history at page 1.
Here’s what we have in this case. The question is posed: How long does the Presence stay with the Host? The Catechism says “till the Host ceases to persist.” To any normal reader, that says “till the Host doesn’t look like the stuff it looked like when it became the Host anymore.” But then some guy comes along and tells us that science dictates that the host persists “in smaller chunks” all the way through the body. Now we have a problem because nobody thinks it religiously correct to have the body of Christ being removed with the rest of the bodily waste. Big debate. Rawr. So the guys who don’t want to argue on a scientific basis say science can’t explain it. And the guy who thinks he knows science thinks he’s been validated. It’s a shame.
In reality, science tells us that what happens during digestion is chemical breakdown. The Host is most certainly not the same thing as what it started out as after digestion. These change very easily fit the idea of “ceasing to persist.” It can even be empirically proven to be the case that what you get out isn’t the same thing as what you put in. Science and religion in this case don’t even disagree–their agreement is quite elegant, in fact.
So there’s my take. While the tools of metaphysics do, I imagine, have their uses, I wonder if they are considered to be required too hastily. Just because science doesn’t look like it agrees with some aspect of religion doesn’t mean reality doesn’t agree with it. It means the current iteration of either one or the other discipline is probably being seen in error.
Here’s a parting thought for you. The prime directive of science is a deeper understanding of reality. Whether or not that directive is always achieved is debatable. Sometimes current scientific theory is flat wrong. But the direction is always the same. If there’s going to be said to be anything at all to religion in general, the tenants of religion must deal with aspects of reality. Nobody cares about a religion that they do not believe to be real.
So why would we so quickly remove science from debates about religion? While they aren’t after precisely the same thing, the idea that there would never be times when one be used to explain the other, or that those times would even be rare, borders on the absurd. If God created the world and science is an effort to gain a deeper understanding of it, the idea that one could never use science to explain attributes of the Creator kind of sounds silly, doesn’t it?
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
You are correct, that that is not the teaching.
You are incorrect, in that you believe that *metaphysically *means symbolically, metaphorically.
But since it does not mean that, it becomes obvious that that is not the teaching.
tee
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Ah Tommy my boy, I see the problem. You are assuming that Catholic’s are teaching that Jesus is “physically” present in the Eucharist, whereas the teaching is “substantially” present. A metaphysical term and not a physical(natural science) term. When the meta-physical substance changes from that of bread and wine to the metaphysical substance of the Glorified Jesus, the physical properties of bread and wine remain and no chemical/physical test in all the world will show them not to have the properties of bread and wine. One will certainly excrete the by products of the digestion of bread and wine and not parts of Jesus as the substance has changed back.
The body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus are not the same as Jesus’ body and blood as it existed before his resurrection. You may recall from scripture that after the resurrection Jesus could pass through solid objects like a door without opening it or sliding through a crack. Now as a Chemist with a Ph.D. and more I know that from the viewpoint of the physical sciences this makes no sense at all, but the physical sciences are limited in their ability to address reality. You will admit that reality goes far beyond the world we can perceive with our senses? If not this thread is a fruitless discussion.
Sorry, I must have mixed up Hirohito, the Emperor, with Tojo. The Chrysantamum dynasty continues to thrive. I don’t catch the allusion of your last question…
V
vikvak01
Guest
Spot-on rwoehmke, spot-on. I was getting ready to write a post with a Cartesian slant, but hopefully your post will make that unnecessary.
- Status