Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Ok...I have a question which boarders on theology and philosophy (which happen to be most of the questions I think about). Here it is. In traditional Aristotelian physics there are two kinds of change... Substantial and Accidental. So if something is going to change it will have to be one of these 2 types of change. If accidental then we can identify one of the 9 accidents from the Categories which change. When a priest blesses water it becomes holy water. As Catholics we recognize a real difference between water and holy-water. But what kind of change occurs in the water...accidental or substantial? It isn't substantial because that would mean everytime we bless water we are performing a type of transubstantiation. So, it seems it would have to be accidental, but if so what accident changes? Here is another way to 'motivate' my concern. It is often understood (i.e., street catholic knowledge) that when you have a holy water bottle filled with 7/8 cup of holy water and you add 1/8 cup of regular water then you end up with 1 cup of holy water. But let's say you then add another 1/8th cup of regular water to the cup of holy water and you end up with 1&1/8 cup of holy water... let's suppose you keep doing this 1/8 cup at a time until you end up with a gallon of holy water. Then, lets suppose you take a gallon minus 7/8ths of a cup of regular water and you add 7/8ths cup of holy water to it do we end up with a gallon of holy water? If not, why? If so, then would adding 7/8ths cup of holy water to a swimming pool make the entire swimming pool a HUGE holy water fount? If there REALLY is a difference between blessed objects and unblessed objects, what is the difference? And why should we treat blessed objects differently than unblessed objects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Has anyone ever boiled or frozen holy water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 I have stuck my finger into a frozen holy water font before...and even a very moldy/algee(sp?) holy water fount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Algae btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Aristotelian physics describes the physical world, right? Remember sacramental theology...a sacrament (or in this case a sacramental) is an outward sign instituted by Christ to confer grace. Now, in the case of the Eucharist, the sign is the accident itself of Bread while the substance has changed to Christ. Not so with holy water...it remains water, but now has a spiritual (i.e. non-physical) dimension. Neither the substance nor accidents have changed, nor do they have to in order to fit the definition of a sacramental. Because the spiritual reality of the blessing in holy water is not a matter of weights and measures, any amount of water added to holy water becomes holy as well. You can't dilute a spiritual reality. For the sake of context, the Sacrament of Confession does not normally produce a physical change in the penitent, nor does Ordination, Matrimony, or the other sacraments. Occasionally God will effect a change (e.g. a healing from the Anointing of the Sick), but in such a case, we would simply say that there has been a physical change...it's visible, so there's no real dilemma. That's my take on it, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 [i]Aristotelian physics describes the physical world, right?[/i] True, but in as much as H2O is physical, and holy-H2O is physical and H2O is not the same as holy-H2O, there will have to be some difference. Perhaps, not necessarily a physical/chemical difference; but some real difference. [quote]a sacrament (or in this case a sacramental) is an outward sign instituted by Christ to confer grace.[/quote] Dully noted...thanks. [quote]it remains water, but now has a spiritual (i.e. non-physical) dimension.[/quote] My question is what is this spiritual dimension? I mean there is an objectiveness to the difference between holy water and water. There is a [i]real[/i] difference between holy-W2O and H2O. There is going to be a [i]specific difference[/i] that makes one one and the other the other. [quote]any amount of water added to holy water becomes holy as well. You can't dilute a spiritual reality.[/quote] Does this mean the Atlantic Ocean is holy water? I am sure people have added holy water to the ocean (at some point in history). It wouldn't make sense to say adding water to holy water makes it holy, but adding holy water to water makes it regular water. So, I think it follows that all the oceans (and most every body of water at that) are made of holy water. if so, that is awesome, but perhaps slightly disturbing/problematic when we go to the bathroom a commode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 [quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='10 December 2009 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1260456882' post='2017423'] [i]Aristotelian physics describes the physical world, right?[/i] True, but in as much as H2O is physical, and holy-H2O is physical and H2O is not the same as holy-H2O, there will have to be some difference. Perhaps, not necessarily a physical/chemical difference; but some real difference.[/quote] The spiritual realm is not physical, but still entirely real. There is a difference between Holy Water and regular water, but the difference is not in the substance or the accidents. This is why I would say that Aristotle is a good starting point, but his materialism kept him from including classifications for purely spiritual realities. [quote]My question is what is this spiritual dimension? I mean there is an objectiveness to the difference between holy water and water. There is a [i]real[/i] difference between holy-W2O and H2O. There is going to be a [i]specific difference[/i] that makes one one and the other the other.[/quote] The spiritual dimension is the presence of grace, or more precisely, the action of God. God chooses to act through the Holy Water. I believe Apo would say that the water has been infused with the divine energies. Now those energies are not detectable by empirical evidence. St. Thomas Aquinas says that grace inheres in the sacraments and sacramentals, but is invisible: [url="http://newadvent.org/summa/4062.htm#article3"]Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 62 § 3[/url] [quote]Does this mean the Atlantic Ocean is holy water? I am sure people have added holy water to the ocean (at some point in history). It wouldn't make sense to say adding water to holy water makes it holy, but adding holy water to water makes it regular water. So, I think it follows that all the oceans (and most every body of water at that) are made of holy water. if so, that is awesome, but perhaps slightly disturbing/problematic when we go to the bathroom a commode.[/quote] Yes, that would seem to cause a problem. This is what I get for answering questions so late in the evening. I'm searching all over for a regulation of some sort on this from the Vatican, but I can't find any. The consensus from non-official sources seems to say that 50% of the solution must remain holy water. I know from a passing comment by one of my professors on the Dead Sea Scrolls that there were discussions even in ancient times about the "transfer" of holiness or uncleanness (evidently the Essenes were even more strict than the Pharisees about ritual purity). It seems that the Jewish tradition was that something that comes in contact with something holy can become holy, just as something that comes in contact with something unclean can become unclean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 [i]This is why I would say that Aristotle is a good starting point, but his materialism kept him from including classifications for purely spiritual realities.[/i] I believe Aquinas uses the 10 Categories to understand all of reality... the spiritual realm is still made of substances and accidents. Aristotle's categories is not limited to the material world. [quote]The spiritual dimension is the presence of grace, or more precisely, the action of God. God chooses to act through the Holy Water. I believe Apo would say that the water has been infused with the divine energies. Now those energies are not detectable by empirical evidence. St. Thomas Aquinas says that grace inheres in the sacraments and sacramentals, but is invisible: Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 62 § 3[/quote] This is good...So, we see from Aquinas that grace is in a sacrament in two ways as a sign of grace and as a cause of grace. In his reply to the third objection he say's that the scraments contain grace in a passing and incomplete mode of being. And in his reply to the 1st objection (which is the key for our discussion here) grace is not contained in a sacrament as if in a subject, but as a work to be done by the sacrament. So from this it looks like it is the designated use/specific purpose of a sacrament that that is how a sacramental can be said to contain grace... So it is the specific purpose/designated use (of a priest) that is what allows us to say that THIS water is holy, because it is going to be used in a certain way as to confer grace... There is nothing IN it that makes it holy, rather what makes it holy is what it is used for and how it is used. At least that is what it seems Aquinas is saying...and it makes good sense to me. Grace is "in" a sacrament as a sign and as a cause... Also, if we claim that 50% of the water must be holy in order for the whole water to be holy...we will run into some 'mereological' problems... suppose you only add a drop of regular water ever day to a cup of holy water... after you add the one drop then ALL that water is holy water...the next day you do the same thing and then ALL that water is holy...keep doing this for a million years and you get an ocean of holy water which started from a cup of regular water...this seems to be as strange as well... Honestly I am not sure what I think about this. It is rather wierd...for holy water evaporates all the time...does that mean rain is holy water? Lord bring down the rain (Isn't there some praise and worship song about that?? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommas_boy Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 In my view, there really isn't a "change", but rather a "setting aside for a particular purpose". For example, you wouldn't drink holy water (except in dire circumstances of course). This is because the blessing that has been given to it has "set it aside" for a special purpose, and it is not to be used for anything apart from this purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 [quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='10 December 2009 - 11:35 AM' timestamp='1260462956' post='2017504'] [i]This is why I would say that Aristotle is a good starting point, but his materialism kept him from including classifications for purely spiritual realities.[/i] I believe Aquinas uses the 10 Categories to understand all of reality... the spiritual realm is still made of substances and accidents. Aristotle's categories is not limited to the material world. This is good...So, we see from Aquinas that grace is in a sacrament in two ways as a sign of grace and as a cause of grace. In his reply to the third objection he say's that the scraments contain grace in a passing and incomplete mode of being. And in his reply to the 1st objection (which is the key for our discussion here) grace is not contained in a sacrament as if in a subject, but as a work to be done by the sacrament. So from this it looks like it is the designated use/specific purpose of a sacrament that that is how a sacramental can be said to contain grace... So it is the specific purpose/designated use (of a priest) that is what allows us to say that THIS water is holy, because it is going to be used in a certain way as to confer grace... There is nothing IN it that makes it holy, rather what makes it holy is what it is used for and how it is used. At least that is what it seems Aquinas is saying...and it makes good sense to me. Grace is "in" a sacrament as a sign and as a cause... Also, if we claim that 50% of the water must be holy in order for the whole water to be holy...we will run into some 'mereological' problems... suppose you only add a drop of regular water ever day to a cup of holy water... after you add the one drop then ALL that water is holy water...the next day you do the same thing and then ALL that water is holy...keep doing this for a million years and you get an ocean of holy water which started from a cup of regular water...this seems to be as strange as well... Honestly I am not sure what I think about this. It is rather wierd...for holy water evaporates all the time...does that mean rain is holy water? Lord bring down the rain (Isn't there some praise and worship song about that?? ) [/quote] [quote name='mommas_boy' date='10 December 2009 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1260467273' post='2017576'] In my view, there really isn't a "change", but rather a "setting aside for a particular purpose". For example, you wouldn't drink holy water (except in dire circumstances of course). This is because the blessing that has been given to it has "set it aside" for a special purpose, and it is not to be used for anything apart from this purpose. [/quote] I think you're both correct. It is because the water is consecrated (set aside) for a specific purpose that it is holy, and the act of setting it aside is a certain blessing with a certain intention, etc. Fiat, I really would like a primer on Aristotle's categories. I enjoy philosophy, but I lack the training to do much of it outside of basic logic and the philosophy of the human person (if the FUS philosophy program has a particular strength, that's it). Mommas_boy, I think there is a spiritual change, but it is contingent on the things Fiat mentioned...use and purpose (and, of course, the action of God)...it isn't in the water naturally, but it is there through outside factors and it will not remain after those outside factors cease. This is interesting because we definitely aren't supposed to think of sacramentals as being like talismans, which are supposed to have power in and of themselves). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 True... that would also allow us to say that after holy water is evaporated and mixed with the clouds and falls, it is no longer holy water... Some time when I have more of it, I would love to give a run down of the Categories...the are very central to Aristotle's philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommas_boy Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 [quote name='Raphael' date='10 December 2009 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1260468911' post='2017595'] I think you're both correct. It is because the water is consecrated (set aside) for a specific purpose that it is holy, and the act of setting it aside is a certain blessing with a certain intention, etc. Fiat, I really would like a primer on Aristotle's categories. I enjoy philosophy, but I lack the training to do much of it outside of basic logic and the philosophy of the human person (if the FUS philosophy program has a particular strength, that's it). Mommas_boy, I think there is a spiritual change, but it is contingent on the things Fiat mentioned...use and purpose (and, of course, the action of God)...it isn't in the water naturally, but it is there through outside factors and it will not remain after those outside factors cease. This is interesting because we definitely aren't supposed to think of sacramentals as being like talismans, which are supposed to have power in and of themselves). [/quote] Agreed. I suppose I didn't understand the nature of God's grace acting in the water, and so did not mention the spiritual change that you mentioned, but rather a "pragmatic change" in view of its changed purpose. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 But, don't we typically regard blessed objects in a different way then unblessed objects, even though [i]we[/i] designate an unblessed object as a means for grace... for example an unblessed rosary... does using an unblessed rosary not confer grace upon the one using it? or does it confer less grace? (Personally I think this is a bad way to view blessings of objects/sacramentals...I think it makes them out to be quasi-superstitious, for we tend to think they have super powers inside them once blessed...But if blessed objects are a cause of grace and a sign of it, then viewing blessed sacramentals in this way might not be quite accurate...) I am willing to defend this, but I will admit it seems contrary to the way most devote Catholics view blessed rosaries/crucifixes/etc... For often people think you are not allowed to use a rosary until it is blessed (or at least that is a common attitude people have...like it will confer less grace because it wasn't blessed...that seems wrong to me.) If I pick up 10 rocks from the ground and start using them as rosary beads, do not those rocks confer grace upon me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 [quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='10 December 2009 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1260478275' post='2017765'] But, don't we typically regard blessed objects in a different way then unblessed objects, even though [i]we[/i] designate an unblessed object as a means for grace... for example an unblessed rosary... does using an unblessed rosary not confer grace upon the one using it? or does it confer less grace? (Personally I think this is a bad way to view blessings of objects/sacramentals...I think it makes them out to be quasi-superstitious, for we tend to think they have super powers inside them once blessed...But if blessed objects are a cause of grace and a sign of it, then viewing blessed sacramentals in this way might not be quite accurate...) I am willing to defend this, but I will admit it seems contrary to the way most devote Catholics view blessed rosaries/crucifixes/etc... For often people think you are not allowed to use a rosary until it is blessed (or at least that is a common attitude people have...like it will confer less grace because it wasn't blessed...that seems wrong to me.) If I pick up 10 rocks from the ground and start using them as rosary beads, do not those rocks confer grace upon me? [/quote] Any time you pray in the state of grace, you are actualizing the potential you have for holiness...your action of prayer itself becomes a channel of grace. However, there are also objects which are channels of grace because of God's work through them and not our own (although we can only receive the grace in our souls through participation). If I pray with an unblessed rosary, my prayers are just as effective as they would be without a rosary at all, but if my rosary is blessed, I am using something specifically set aside for prayer, and in so doing I am entering into the prayer of the Church and into one of many spiritual "places" designated by God for the conferral of grace. I am more perfectly binding myself to Christ in my prayers. As we say in theology, salvation (and therefore every act of grace in man) is about being bound to Christ. To pray is good and meritorious, to pray using a sacramental is a greater channel for grace because it is a special way Christ has established for us to pray, and by praying in that way, we join ourselves more perfectly to His will than if we pray in our own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 That makes somewhat sense...I think I am done... my only 'worry' is that when I as a lay member set aside 10 rocks to be used as the church intends a rosary to be used, are not the 10 rocks being used as the tool/instrument to confer grace to me as a blessed rosary is used...since a blessed rosary doesn't provide grace in and of itself, but only through its use...so why can't the use of something for the purpose/intent confer the same grace in the same way? I can see the reasons for certain blessings (i.e., making objects to be used for a specific purpose) only come from a priest, but why can't I set an object aside in the manner that the church does? Perhaps the only reason is that it is fitting for a priest to do it, and that is how it is going to be done. period. That would make things much easier, but I am worries about whether blessed rosaries confer 'more' grace than unblessed rosaries... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now