Sorites Paradox And The Eucharist

[Ziggamafu]

[quote]Otherwise known as the "heap paradox", the question regards how one defines a "thing." Is a bale of hay still a bale of hay if you remove one straw? If so, is it still a bale of hay if you remove another straw? If you continue this way, you will eventually deplete the entire bale of hay, and the question is: at what point is it no longer a bale of hay? While this may initially seem like a superficial problem, it penetrates to fundamental issues regarding how we define objects.[/quote]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy#Sorites_paradox (which also refers the reader [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_heap"]here[/url])

The Real Presence exists until the physical appearances of bread / wine can no longer be discerned as such. So what about the realm of subjectivity involved, here? Whose perception of the accidents sets the bar for the rest of us? Some people are going to perceive the elements at points where others cannot. When is the form of bread no longer the form of bread?

It seems like there are only two clear answers. Either a) microscopic structure or b) obvious appearance. Then again, certainly the vast majority of people cannot recognize the forms of the accidents at the microscopic level (and nobody would have, before the invention of the microscope). And "obvious appearance" seems just as problematic.

What do you think?

Edited July 28, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='28 July 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1280354862' post='2149265']
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy#Sorites_paradox (which also refers the reader [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_heap"]here[/url])

The Real Presence exists until the physical appearances of bread / wine can no longer be discerned as such. So what about the realm of subjectivity involved, here? Whose perception of the accidents sets the bar for the rest of us? Some people are going to perceive the elements at points where others cannot. When is the form of bread no longer the form of bread?

It seems like there are only two clear answers. Either a) microscopic structure or b) obvious appearance. Then again, certainly the vast majority of people cannot recognize the forms of the accidents at the microscopic level (and nobody would have, before the invention of the microscope). And "obvious appearance" seems just as problematic.

What do you think?
[/quote]
Perhaps it is both, if an observer is aware of the appearances the real presence remains. If the observers are no longer aware, or will no longer be aware in the future, the real presence leaves?

As far as the bale of hay goes, it stops being a bale when it is no longer held firmly together enough to be moved efficiently. Otherwise it becomes a mess of hay. Remove enough of the mess of hay and you have a small mess of hay. Eventually you will get to "not enough hay to be concerned about".

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='peach_cube' date='31 July 2010 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1280553253' post='2150185']
Perhaps it is both, if an observer is aware of the appearances the real presence remains. If the observers are no longer aware, or will no longer be aware in the future, the real presence leaves?

As far as the bale of hay goes, it stops being a bale when it is no longer held firmly together enough to be moved efficiently. Otherwise it becomes a mess of hay. Remove enough of the mess of hay and you have a small mess of hay. Eventually you will get to "not enough hay to be concerned about".
[/quote]
I like this thing about hay. Very practical. Be careful about making the mystery of the Eucharist subjective to our sights. God is objectively there as long as it still appears to be bread. In our modern age, even a small crumb can be perceived as bread under a microscope. Therefore, I'd hazard microscopic. We're not as ignorant any more. Once those particles are divided, then we can know.

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='28 July 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1280354862' post='2149265']
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy#Sorites_paradox (which also refers the reader [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_heap"]here[/url])

The Real Presence exists until the physical appearances of bread / wine can no longer be discerned as such. So what about the realm of subjectivity involved, here? Whose perception of the accidents sets the bar for the rest of us? Some people are going to perceive the elements at points where others cannot. When is the form of bread no longer the form of bread?

It seems like there are only two clear answers. Either a) microscopic structure or b) obvious appearance. Then again, certainly the vast majority of people cannot recognize the forms of the accidents at the microscopic level (and nobody would have, before the invention of the microscope). And "obvious appearance" seems just as problematic.

What do you think?
[/quote]


[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='31 July 2010 - 01:59 AM' timestamp='1280555940' post='2150203']
I like this thing about hay. Very practical. Be careful about making the mystery of the Eucharist subjective to our sights. God is objectively there as long as it still appears to be bread. In our modern age, even a small crumb can be perceived as bread under a microscope. Therefore, I'd hazard microscopic. We're not as ignorant any more. Once those particles are divided, then we can know.
[/quote]
observing a particle under a microscope in order to discern whether or not it is still bread is not a normal, everyday life thing to do, so I dont think Christ remains at a certain point where bread to the ordinary eye no longer appears as bread for example with the particles, nor do I think God intends us to be that scrupulous. My understanding is that Christ intended to use the ordinary things of this world as matter for the Sacraments. Water, bread, wine, oil. In my opinion Modern science and technology does not have a place in a theological analysis of the Sacraments.

A particle has no sign value as bread. One does not eat particles in order to be nourished. One eats pieces of bread. And one cannot even discern that the resurrected Christ is present by the naked eye so how is one suppose to figure out when he leaves? This doesnt mean that a priest should be haphazard in the ablutions. There could be a small piece he didnt see, so it is fitting to remain reverent. But I generally do not think Christ remains under the appearance of a small particle of bread even if one can see it with the naked eye.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='31 July 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1280623618' post='2150382']
observing a particle under a microscope in order to discern whether or not it is still bread is not a normal, everyday life thing to do, so I dont think Christ remains at a certain point where bread to the ordinary eye no longer appears as bread for example with the particles, nor do I think God intends us to be that scrupulous. My understanding is that Christ intended to use the ordinary things of this world as matter for the Sacraments. Water, bread, wine, oil. In my opinion Modern science and technology does not have a place in a theological analysis of the Sacraments.

A particle has no sign value as bread. One does not eat particles in order to be nourished. One eats pieces of bread. And one cannot even discern that the resurrected Christ is present by the naked eye so how is one suppose to figure out when he leaves? This doesnt mean that a priest should be haphazard in the ablutions. There could be a small piece he didnt see, so it is fitting to remain reverent. But I generally do not think Christ remains under the appearance of a small particle of bread even if one can see it with the naked eye.
[/quote]

Aha. Yes, I completely agree with Kafka here (at least with his assessment of evident problems in the microscopic approach). However, doesn't that lead to a problem? I thought that it was heretical (or at least incorrect) to say that the Real Presence is determined by subjective perception? Isn't what that would amount to? Because it would be a matter of a given individual perceiving the sign of bread whether by sight or touch or taste. And then...no, that can't be right because that would mean that the Real Presence does not exist for the severely handicapped, or those who are blind and deaf (I doubt a person could perceive the standard host-wafers as "bread" by touch alone).

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='01 August 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1280706501' post='2150630']
And then...no, that can't be right because that would mean that the Real Presence does not exist for the severely handicapped, or those who are blind and deaf (I doubt a person could perceive the standard host-wafers as "bread" by touch alone).
[/quote]
the Risen One is objectively present after the words of consecration whether one can discern his presence or not. One discerns his presence primarily through faith.