Poll On The Eucharist. Particles Is The Focus.

[Ice_nine]

the Eucharist, like much of theology and philosophy, cannot be empirically validated. Unless you subscribe to the idea that empiricism is the most definitive and authoritative epistemology, there is no real conflict.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1339035866' post='2442034']
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.
[/quote]

You're trying to turn a sacrament into a science experiment. This is like trying to see how much cleaner your soul looks after confession. It's a sacrament, not a science experiment. You cannot prove it through science. The particles and all that do not change. If you look at it it would have the same molecules and everything it had before. But the substance (Or is it essence? This is my worst subject in science) does change.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1339035736' post='2442033']
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.
[/quote]

No. Not particles. And yes, it's far more complicated than that. You aren't going to find an explanation for particles here, because that kind of thinking about the Eucharist is incredibly flawed.

The Eucharist is bread and wine transformed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. One way we describe this transformation is by talking about substance and accidents and transubstantiation. But that explanation of transubstantiation has virtually no importance compared to the reality of what the Eucharist is. The Eucharist is God, and our meager explanations for what it is and how it works are incredibly limited.

When I say that the Eucharist is more than particles, I'm talking about what the Eucharist means. The Eucharist is God, and eating the Eucharist is an act of extreme intimacy with God. That's what's important. Our philosophical explanation for how the Eucharist works, talking about substance and accidents, is only an explanation. At the end of the day it's only a popular theory that has gained theological traction in history because it's a very helpful way for our tiny capacities for reason to begin to understand what's going on. It's true in the sense that it describes something about the Eucharist that is correct, but it's not the truth of the Eucharist. Does that make any sense?

[Slappo]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1339090379' post='2442205']
Our philosophical explanation for how the Eucharist works, talking about substance and accidents, is only an explanation. At the end of the day it's only a popular theory that has gained theological traction in history because it's a very helpful way for our tiny capacities for reason to begin to understand what's going on.[/quote]

I don't think I can agree with this part of your post. I don't think you can refer to "substance and accidents" as a theory. It isn't theory, it is reality. That is how the Church defines the sacrament. You don't theoretically define the Eucharist. You've either defined it (to the best of your abilities) or you haven't. But it isn't a theoretical definition. The Church has defined transubstantiation in terms possible for human reason to comprehend. It hasn't provided a comprehensive definition of the science of the action as that is not what the Church does.




The "breadness" of the bread is no longer, but the accidents of bread remain the same. By accidents we are referring to all that science can discover. The parcticles still form the accidents of bread, but the substance of the matter is no longer bread. That is why the particles are not "replaced" but do not remain "unchanged".

Edited June 7, 2012 by Slappo

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1339102057' post='2442269']
I don't think I can agree with this part of your post. I don't think you can refer to "substance and accidents" as a theory. It isn't theory, it is reality. That is how the Church defines the sacrament. You don't theoretically define the Eucharist. You've either defined it (to the best of your abilities) or you haven't. But it isn't a theoretical definition. The Church has defined transubstantiation in terms possible for human reason to comprehend. It hasn't provided a comprehensive definition of the science of the action as that is not what the Church does.

The "breadness" of the bread is no longer, but the accidents of bread remain the same. By accidents we are referring to all that science can discover. The parcticles still form the accidents of bread, but the substance of the matter is no longer bread. That is why the particles are not "replaced" but do not remain "unchanged".
[/quote]

I was trying to emphasize that the explanation of substance and accidents isn't more important than the mystery of the Eucharist itself, or all-encompassing. It seemed to me that the OP had latched onto the substance and accidents explanation and was trying to use that as a springboard for arguing about particles. I think talking about particles is ridiculous, so I was trying to pull away from that direction entirely.

Gravity's a theory too. We have a formula to describe it and show how it works with the rest of our system of how we understand physics, but a formula doesn't encompass what it's like to see something fall to earth or feel an object's weight. And it doesn't even touch what it's like to skydive. Does my extended metaphor make any sense?

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1339042883' post='2442071']
Could you elaborate on how this Particle Theory of Substance declares Substance Theory obsolete?[/quote]Although it maintained a high degree of universal popularity for a fair number of centuries, Aristotle's theory of substance was inadequate, insufficient, and ultimately inconsistent. It was/is inadequate and insufficient because it cannot definitively answer enough of the basic questions concerning what a thing is. Take water as a very basic example. Start with a block of ice, put it in a pan and watch it melt into a liquid, turn on the stove and watch it become steam. Aristotelian metaphysics cannot account for this basic phenomenon, and it cannot explain how or in what way water in all its states is the same thing. A simple description of H[sub]2[/sub]O will easily suffice, but Aristotle (along with everyone else) was lacking this sort of information. Necessary information, but they didn't have it and therefore had no way to explain certain things about what things are.

There's also the matter of inconsistency. Aristotle's [i]Metaphysics[/i] reveals that he was committed to each of the following three propositions: Substance is form, form is universal, and no universal is a substance. Aristotle's theory of substance is heady, complicated, and rather dense, but the process of exploring it is alleviated somewhat once you understand that it is ultimately inconsistent. And knowing what we know now, it's ok that he wasn't able to come up a system of finding all the answers that he wanted. We have a better system now.

[quote]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.[/quote]All matter is made up of very small particles.
There is space between these particles, varying between solids, liquids, and gases.
All particles in a pure substance are the same.
The particles in matter are always in motion.
Particles are attracted to each other, some more than others. (Helps explain solutes and solvents).

These are the basic propositions (which easily lead to more detailed explanations) that are the keys to understanding what things are. How and why it is that ice, water, and steam are all the same things. Why it is that grass stains are difficult to get out of pantaloons and why water is no help, whereas something like rubbing alcohol will be of some help. These small matters are completely impenetrable from the perspective of one who limits himself to a strictly Aristotelian philosophy of substance. The particle theory of substance is not an irrelevant foray- it is practical, useful, and a more capable alternative that yields answers that the Aristotelian theory cannot give. It picks up where the older theory leaves off and gets better results.

[quote]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]Not really helpful.

[quote]Does this address your point?[/quote]No. This thread is about particles. All matter is made up of very small particles. Those kinds of particles. Aristotelian theory of substance does not pertain to these particles because the Aristotelian theory of substance is inadequate and insufficient. It does not address tiny particles that no one knew anything at all about until rather recently- but those particles are relevant and important.

You can't act like they don't exist. Aristotle didn't know they existed, so that's his excuse. You can't do the same.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1339089796' post='2442203']
You're trying to turn a sacrament into a science experiment. This is like trying to see how much cleaner your soul looks after confession. It's a sacrament, not a science experiment. You cannot prove it through science.[/quote]I disagree with some of your underlying assumptions, but I appreciate that you can address the issue I ask about even if you judge it to be unimportant.

[quote]The particles and all that do not change.[/quote]Color me surprised! A straight answer. I can only assume that you chose the second option for the first question- the particles "and all that" do not change, but the change in substance has to do with something entirely unrelated.

[quote]If you look at it it would have the same molecules and everything it had before.[/quote]It would seem that some people are not getting the point. This is not about what it looks like "when you look at it." Forget about that. That has no place on this thread. This is about what the molecules are. It's about the atoms that comprise those molecules. It's about the number of protons that each atom has. It's not about what it looks like- it's about what's actually there. Particles, not appearance, but please do feel free to relate particles to substance if that's something you're willing and able to do.

[quote]But the substance (Or is it essence? This is my worst subject in science) does change.[/quote]It doesn't really matter to me, as long as you're able to tell me about particles. You've made it clear that the particles do not change and you have some separate explanation for a change in substance that has nothing to do with the particles, and that is good enough for me.

This is a thread about particles. I'll restate this in every post if I have to.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1339090379' post='2442205']
No. Not particles. And yes, it's far more complicated than that. You aren't going to find an explanation for particles here, because that kind of thinking about the Eucharist is incredibly flawed.[/quote]Would you argue that the Communion elements are devoid of particles? No? Then try to decide between answering a question or two about them and keeping your assessment to yourself.

[quote]The Eucharist is bread and wine transformed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. One way we describe this transformation is by talking about substance and accidents and transubstantiation. But that explanation of transubstantiation has virtually no importance compared to the reality of what the Eucharist is. The Eucharist is God, and our meager explanations for what it is and how it works are incredibly limited.[/quote]In all the posts that I've made on this thread, which one gave you the idea that I want to know about anything and everything that you have to say about the Eucharist?

This is a thread that has to do with particles. That's it. Do you have any meager explanations that can describe the particles in question? That is what I'm looking for.

[quote]When I say that the Eucharist is more than particles, I'm talking about what the Eucharist means.[/quote]It's not that I don't care- although that is true, to some extent. The topic that I've chosen for this thread is one that frustrates me because so many Catholics demonstrate no ability to talk about it and insist on talking about anything and everything else.

This thread deals with particles. It does not deal with what the Eucharist means to you.

[quote]The Eucharist is God, and eating the Eucharist is an act of extreme intimacy with God. That's what's important.[/quote]This is not a thread that caters to an explanation of what you deem important.

This is a thread about particles. I don't mind that the Eucharist means so much to you, but I do mind that you refuse to answer my questions and tell me that the questions are bad.

[quote]Our philosophical explanation for how the Eucharist works, talking about substance and accidents, is only an explanation. At the end of the day it's only a popular theory that has gained theological traction in history because it's a very helpful way for our tiny capacities for reason to begin to understand what's going on. It's true in the sense that it describes something about the Eucharist that is correct, but it's not the truth of the Eucharist. Does that make any sense?[/quote]Does a thread that focuses on particles make any sense?

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1339102057' post='2442269']
I don't think I can agree with this part of your post. I don't think you can refer to "substance and accidents" as a theory. It isn't theory, it is reality.[/quote]It is a theory, and an inconsistent one, at that.

[quote]That is how the Church defines the sacrament. You don't theoretically define the Eucharist. You've either defined it (to the best of your abilities) or you haven't. But it isn't a theoretical definition. The Church has defined transubstantiation in terms possible for human reason to comprehend. It hasn't provided a comprehensive definition of the science of the action as that is not what the Church does.[/quote]You don't seem like you have a terribly good grasp of what a theory is.

[quote]The "breadness" of the bread is no longer, but the accidents of bread remain the same. By accidents we are referring to all that science can discover. The parcticles still form the accidents of bread, but the substance of the matter is no longer bread. That is why the particles are not "replaced" but do not remain "unchanged".[/quote]That's a Yoda response that clarifies absolutely nothing. If you could clarify whether the number of protons in any or all of the atoms are changed, that would give me some clarity.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1339166830' post='2442510']
I was trying to emphasize that the explanation of substance and accidents isn't more important than the mystery of the Eucharist itself, or all-encompassing. It seemed to me that the OP had latched onto the substance and accidents explanation and was trying to use that as a springboard for arguing about particles. I think talking about particles is ridiculous, so I was trying to pull away from that direction entirely.[/quote]What you think about particles is unimportant. You don't get to hijack my thread, and you don't get to pull me in some other direction. You play or you don't. Changing the purpose of this thread is not for you to do.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[img]http://kingcritter.kupatrix.net/random-stuff/pics/Drama_Llama.jpg[/img]

[KnightofChrist]

I was seriously just going to say, the purpose of this thread will hence be the avvesomeness of Llamas.

Edited June 20, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Mark of the Cross]

[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]

[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]
Good analogies! In looking at atomic level Coot is going too far. It's what it constitutes is what is the substance. The priest is not performing Chemistry or physics activities, he's consecrating! Transubstantiation is the monumental transformation of physical food into spiritual food. The Host is exactly what it is, a Host, a carrier! The accident of bread is the carrier of Jesus body of the resurrection. It can be given in limitless quantity because it is supernatural, therefore you cannot analyse it by natural means. Your questions are irrelevant answer 3 and 3.

[Ice_nine]

cooterhein, your username always makes me chuckle. I am immature, yes.

Now, I can understand why you wonder about these things. Thinking about what things are on the atomic level is just fascinating, and while I'm not a particle physicist I do like to marvel about these things.

However you seem a little contentious (hence why I don't thoroughly read all of your posts). It would be helpful to know your aim of this conversation. Are you trying to prove Catholics are wrong? Or simply that they believe in something they can't prove? Or a contradiction they can't explain? Is this mere intellectual curiousity? A genuine interest in learning if Catholicism is the right religion (I doubt it but, you tell me cuz I dono)

If you answer that question I'm sure this thread will take the direction you're looking to go in, so none ofus start barking up the wrong tree an all

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1340161225' post='2446579']
Good analogies! In looking at atomic level Coot is going too far. It's what it constitutes is what is the substance. The priest is not performing Chemistry or physics activities, he's consecrating! Transubstantiation is the monumental transformation of physical food into spiritual food. The Host is exactly what it is, a Host, a carrier! The accident of bread is the carrier of Jesus body of the resurrection. It can be given in limitless quantity because it is supernatural, therefore you cannot analyse it by natural means. Your questions are irrelevant answer 3 and 3.
[/quote]Even if they are irrelevant, they are answerable. Even if it doesn't help prove, explain, or defend the doctrine of transubstantiation, these questions are answerable. You're able to say what does or doesn't happen to particles.

Even if it doesn't help you defend your doctrine. Even if that, to you, means the exercise is irrelevant.

But this thread isn't about helping you explain or defend transubstantiation.

Nor is this thread about llamas. (As much as I like llamas).

This is about particles. If you're talking about how you don't want to talk about particles, you can do that on any other thread.

But that's not what this thread is for.