Poll On The Eucharist. Particles Is The Focus.

[cooterhein]

I insist. Particles, which are not accounted for at all from the Aristotelian view of substance. Nevertheless, we know that matter is particulate even if Aristotle did not, and we know that atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles exist even if he did not. So this is my latest and greatest attempt at getting past the everyday spiel in order to deal with something that matters.

Particles.

I really must insist. Please take the poll and let me know what you think of the questions.

[Papist]

Questions are too long.

[Annie12]

Consecrated hosts are the body of Christ the same way your DNA is yours at the microscopic level. Is this what you wanted an answer to?

[Basilisa Marie]

Thinking about the Eucharist in terms of subatomic particles is too much like trying to figure out the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. The Eucharist is more than substance and accidents, as helpful as that explanation may be.

[Groo the Wanderer]

not up for debate or vote. the Church has clearly defined this. end of story.

[cappie]

Bread and wine are material objects; they are made of nothing but molecules. Any material object (made only of molecules) is divided, philosophically, into substance and accidents. The Magisterium teaches that the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine change, but the accidents remain the same. The claim that the molecules do not change at all in the consecration implies that either the molecules are entirely accidents, without substance, or that there is no change of substance. Either of these claims is heresy, because each claim is incompatible with Catholic dogma on the Eucharist.

[Slappo]

For question 1: The parcticles are neither "replaced" nor "remain the same".

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1338975241' post='2441695']
not up for debate or vote. the Church has clearly defined this. end of story.
[/quote]It actually hasn't defined it from the standpoint of the Particle Theory of Substance- only from the Aristotelian standpoint.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='cappie' timestamp='1338977240' post='2441698']
Bread and wine are material objects; they are made of nothing but molecules. Any material object (made only of molecules) is divided, philosophically, into substance and accidents. The Magisterium teaches that the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine change, but the accidents remain the same. The claim that the molecules do not change at all in the consecration implies that either the molecules are entirely accidents, without substance, or that there is no change of substance. Either of these claims is heresy, because each claim is incompatible with Catholic dogma on the Eucharist.
[/quote]A particle is neither "a substance" nor "an accident." It is a particle.

Philosophically, the Aristotelian theory of substance has been replaced by the Particle Theory of Substance. You can't just act like that didn't happen.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1338964088' post='2441665']
Thinking about the Eucharist in terms of subatomic particles is too much like trying to figure out the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. The Eucharist is more than substance and accidents, as helpful as that explanation may be.
[/quote]In one breath, you tell me it's not worth talking about particles. Then in the next breath, you tell me there is more to the Eucharist than substance and accidents. I am well aware of this- it has particles! So why can't we talk about them. They're not that complicated- atoms, for example, are neatly arranged on the Periodic Table of Elements.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1338948323' post='2441597']
Consecrated hosts are the body of Christ the same way your DNA is yours at the microscopic level. Is this what you wanted an answer to?
[/quote]I'm asking for some attempt at an explanation of transubstantiation that gives a satisfactory explanation for particles. That is why I have insisted on making this about particles from the beginning of the thread.

[sixpence]

carbon molecule can be part of a cat or part of a horse.... what are you getting at?

[cooterhein]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1339036079' post='2442037']
carbon molecule can be part of a cat or part of a horse.... what are you getting at?
[/quote]I'm getting at what does or doesn't happen to the molecules of the Communion elements in the Catholic description of transubstantiation.

Why do you mention that carbon molecules can be part of a cat or part of a horse?

[Hubertus]

Could you elaborate on how this Particle Theory of Substance declares Substance Theory obsolete?

I tried looking up the Particle Theory of Substance, but all I could find was the Particle Theory of Matter, which I'm guessing you're talking about, but as a scientific theory it seems to me as somewhat unrelated to the philosophical Substance Theory.

If it helps and if you haven't already read it, here's a snip from Wikipedia's article on transubstantiation that addresses your question pretty directly:

[quote]"Substance" here means what something is in itself. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them.[36] While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.[37]

Consider the classic example[38] of the human body. All of the separate chemical compounds, minerals and water—which when piled together constitute the sum total of the actual physical matter of the human body—are not of themselves a human body, however much they may be physically compounded and mixed and rearranged in the laboratory, since they are still only a pile of organic chemicals, minerals and water in a particular complex configuration. If this has never been alive it is not a human body. If they are participant in the integral physical expression of a living human being who has absorbed and metabolized them, or if they are now the physical remains of a once-living human being, the substance of what they actually are is human, hence, a human body. The substantial reality of what is before us is human. The substance (substantial reality) of what is seen is not solely that of a complex organization of organic chemical compounds, but is (or has been) someone. The chemical elements of the food a person eats become in a few hours part of that person's human body and are no longer food but have been turned into the human flesh and blood and bone of that person, yet the physical chemical elements of what was once food remain the same (calcium, copper, salt, protein, sugars, fats, water, etc.). The substance of any matter that has become an integral part of any human being has ceased to be the substance or reality of food and has become incorporated as an integral part of the physical manifestation or expression of that human person. To touch that matter now is not to touch a batch of chemical compounds or food but to touch that person.[39]

When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body",[40] what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration,[41] the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist[42] when the words are spoken "This is my body ... this is my blood." In Orthodox confessions, the change is said to take place during the Epiklesis.[/quote]

Does this address your point?

[Groo the Wanderer]

every day i'm trollin'

why put up a poll question, then reject all the responses you get? seems like you already have your mind made up and have no actual interest in learning the correct answer to your question