Poll On The Eucharist. Particles Is The Focus.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1340163603' post='2446594']
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.[/quote]I don't really want to marvel at it- it's just an issue that I want to know something about and I consistently find that it's difficult to get Catholics to say anything about it. But I'm persistent, so I'm not too worried about it in the long term.


[quote]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?[/quote]I think that can be done, but that's not the purpose of this thread.

The purpose is to talk about particles.

[quote]Or simply that they believe in something they can't prove?[/quote]I think that's been stated without any help from me. The purpose is actually to get Catholics to talk about something that they are consistently pretty good at avoiding.

That something would be particles, whenever they have anything to do with the Eucharist.



[quote]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)[/quote]It may or may not lead to some contradiction of philosophical terms. I don't know. Maybe Catholics know the answer to this question, and it has something to do with why they generally avoid talking about it. There may be some intellectual curiosity on my part, though I'm not so proud of my intellect that I would try to lead with that. And there's no interest in proving to myself that Catholicism is the right religion. I know it's not the right religion for me, and it's hard to imagine why it would be the right religion for someone else, but with some effort I suppose I can see that. But this isn't even about making that effort. It's about getting Catholics to stop avoiding a topic that nearly all of you tend to work way too hard at avoiding. I don't even care why you're avoiding it. Just stop avoiding it.


[quote]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[/quote]Thank you for your effort. I don't know why a relatively simple question would require a background check on the intentions of the OP in order to elicit some sort of useful response, but if you think it helps, I'll give it a try.

[Ice_nine]

it helps because most of us have been on this merri-go-round before where the OP is expecting some big moment where we are all standing deaf and dumb unable to respond to the questions of the OP, thus admitting defeat. This person gets mad when that doesn't happen. They are usually unprepared for the trolls we have on here.

I think what you see as "avoiding a question" is giving an explanation that you don't like. Do the physical properties of the Eucharist change? I would say not. Down to the subatomic level do they change physically? I don't believe so.

That doesn't mean it doesn't change. Not everything is material. non-material things can change whilst the material things do not.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1340168107' post='2446619']
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.
[/quote]
Well then start two threads. One about particles and one about transubstantiation, because as people have been telling you they are unrelated. In physics, elementary 'things' are given descriptors. For want of a better word, the quarks have flavours and colours but this is not literal. It is only a method of describing certain attributes to the different types. The quarks constitute bosons which when they are involved in collisions fly apart at differing angles implying that they are globular in shape so they are classified as particles. But it is not really known if they are particles or dimensional forces. The particles only transform in nuclear reactions not in chemistry or during the transubstantiation. During chemical change the 'particles' rearrange their combinations and during transubstantiation they remain as were. So the answer is they don't change or rearrange their combinations. Just as the substance of a persons ethos does not affect the physical particles that make up their body.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

Sorry I meant baryon not boson!

[PilgrimageOfGrace]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1340168703' post='2446620']
I don't really want to marvel at it- it's just an issue that I want to know something about and I consistently find that it's difficult to get Catholics to say anything about it. But I'm persistent, so I'm not too worried about it in the long term.


I think that can be done, but that's not the purpose of this thread.

The purpose is to talk about particles.

I think that's been stated without any help from me. The purpose is actually to get Catholics to talk about something that they are consistently pretty good at avoiding.

That something would be particles, whenever they have anything to do with the Eucharist.



It may or may not lead to some contradiction of philosophical terms. I don't know. Maybe Catholics know the answer to this question, and it has something to do with why they generally avoid talking about it. There may be some intellectual curiosity on my part, though I'm not so proud of my intellect that I would try to lead with that. And there's no interest in proving to myself that Catholicism is the right religion. I know it's not the right religion for me, and it's hard to imagine why it would be the right religion for someone else, but with some effort I suppose I can see that. But this isn't even about making that effort. It's about getting Catholics to stop avoiding a topic that nearly all of you tend to work way too hard at avoiding. I don't even care why you're avoiding it. Just stop avoiding it.


Thank you for your effort. I don't know why a relatively simple question would require a background check on the intentions of the OP in order to elicit some sort of useful response, but if you think it helps, I'll give it a try.
[/quote] Catholics don't discuss it, because it is something that remains largely something we don't fully understand - but that's ok because we know we are not meant to have all the answers.

Transubstantiation is an attempt to try to understand the Eucharist and make sense of it...and why should the Eucharist be any more understandable than Christ was when He was on earth? I.e We believe Christ is God - yet if you were to go back in time and analyze Christ's DNA, would you see His divinity? No, because while He is God, He is also truly man.

So, do the particles of the bread and wine change into particles of flesh and blood? No, it doesn't. (although, there have been Eucharistic miracles where this has happened)

I'm not a sacramental theologian so I can't debate on a very high philosophical or theological level, but I accept it because Christ said so.

Edited June 21, 2012 by PilgrimageOfGrace

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1340221515' post='2446796']
it helps because most of us have been on this merri-go-round before where the OP is expecting some big moment where we are all standing deaf and dumb unable to respond to the questions of the OP, thus admitting defeat. This person gets mad when that doesn't happen.[/quote]That's quite the opposite of my goal. My past experience has consisted almost entirely of avoidance of this particular topic and contempt when the issue is pressed at all.

I want straight answers on the topic of my choosing, which is particles. No contempt, no avoidance, and no pretending that I want stunned silence. I want straight answers with the intent of promoting clarity.

[quote]They are usually unprepared for the trolls we have on here.[/quote]By "they," I suppose you mean me (and people like me), and by "the trolls we have on here," I....really don't know.

Are there trolls on here that post regularly? Are you talking about Catholic trolls on a Catholic forum? I could see why you might call some behavior troll-ish or troll-like, on occasions when Catholics become frustrated with non-Catholics and do things to frustrate them in return. But to me, a real "Catholic troll" would be someone who has a primary user name for serious matters and some sort of alt that they use for monkey business. I haven't really been looking for this sort of thing, but I'm inclined to believe it's not happening here.

If some people do engage in troll-like behavior while using their one and only Phatmass account, it doesn't bother me all that much. The whole point of being a troll is that you get to poke at someone anonymously without any fear of reprisal. That's why you would generally want to use an alter ego. I don't really mind troll-ish behavior as long as it's done by people who have just one account. Sure, it might not be your real name, but it is who you are as far as your association with Phatmass. Dickish behavior does damage to your reputation and credibility, and in some way, you can be held accountable for it. So as long as no alts are involved, I'm good- and I don't really think of such people as trolls. Trolls act inappropriately and find ways to make sure it doesn't come back to them. But if you choose to act like a fool on one thread, a troll on another, and a serious person who ought to be listened to on a third, you're not a troll- you're just a clumsy person who lacks foresight and comes to understand damage to his own credibility through personal experience rather than some other means. Or maybe you're just someone who doesn't care all that much. Either way, I don't think of such a person as a troll, but as someone who isn't consistently good at what they're trying to do.

[quote]I think what you see as "avoiding a question" is giving an explanation that you don't like.[/quote]I think I understand what's really happening. I know what I'm asking, I have a good idea of what sorts of responses would adequately answer my questions, and I generally find that Catholics choose to reframe my questions so they can give completely different responses. Not every single time, but that is mostly what happens.

[quote]Do the physical properties of the Eucharist change? I would say not.[/quote]That's not exactly what I asked, and if by "properties" you mean "accidents," this is exactly the sort of reframing that I was just talking about. I appreciate that the answer is clear and straightforward, but it's probably not the question that I want answered.

[quote]Down to the subatomic level do they change physically? I don't believe so.[/quote]You're still talking about "properties," and probably in the sense that you understand them as Aristotelian "accidents." I am trying to ask something a little different and quite a bit more specific.

Down to the subatomic level. Let us consider protons. You understand protons? The number of protons that an atom has is the number that determines where it falls on the periodic table.

I understand that you acknowledge no change in "properties," or "accidents." Now I am asking you to consider particles at the subatomic level. I am not asking you to tell me about their properties- I am asking about numbers. I am asking whether atomic numbers change. I am asking whether there is any change in the number of protons that any given atom has.

I am not asking whether its properties change. I am not asking whether its appearance changes. I am asking a specific question that is designed to exclude these things from consideration. I am asking whether the number of protons changes. If you tell me something about appearance or properties, you aren't answering the question because this is a numbers game. I'm trying to find out what your belief is about the true reality of the particles, particles, particles, nothing but the particles....which you seem to think are disguised by their appearance, or properties.

Beneath the disguise, what happens to the particles? Do atomic numbers change without appearing to change? Does the number of protons change in any given atom- in reality, in fact, in actuality, and not just in appearance or based on their properties.

[quote]That doesn't mean it doesn't change. Not everything is material. non-material things can change whilst the material things do not.[/quote]I've said this before, and I will repeat myself again- the purpose of this thread is not to help you defend transubstantiation. If you find ways to believe in it despite all the difficulties, good for you. I don't really care. But I do want to get that stuff out of the way when it prevents me from getting answers to the questions that I have.

I haven't really said this yet, but I'd probably better say it now. I fully understand that either conclusion can be construed in such a way that you are able to continue believing in transubstantiation. I just want to know which way you would tend to go with it. You could potentially believe that the number of protons does not change at all, and you would still believe in transubstantiation. (I care about the number, and I don't really care about your belief). Or perhaps the number of protons does change while maintaining the appearance, the accidents, and the properties of particles that are entirely different....and of course you believe in transubstantiation either way. Again, I care about what you have to say concerning the particles, the atoms, and the number of protons that they have before and after. I can't say I really care about your belief in transubstantiation, and if you are going to talk about it at all, you had better be 100% sure that you've already given me what I came for.

I hope this clarifies what it is that I came for. I am not looking for stunned silence. I am looking for straight answers to specific questions to which answers have so far mostly eluded me.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='PilgrimageOfGrace' timestamp='1340283945' post='2447057']
Catholics don't discuss it, because it is something that remains largely something we don't fully understand - but that's ok because we know we are not meant to have all the answers.

Transubstantiation is an attempt to try to understand the Eucharist and make sense of it...and why should the Eucharist be any more understandable than Christ was when He was on earth? I.e We believe Christ is God - yet if you were to go back in time and analyze Christ's DNA, would you see His divinity? No, because while He is God, He is also truly man.

So, do the particles of the bread and wine change into particles of flesh and blood? No, it doesn't. (although, there have been Eucharistic miracles where this has happened)

I'm not a sacramental theologian so I can't debate on a very high philosophical or theological level, but I accept it because Christ said so.
[/quote]"I don't know" is an acceptable answer. On the whole, though, it looks like you would be more inclined to go through Door Number Two on Question Number One of the poll. Would you, or are you more committed to an "I don't know" type of answer?

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1340244975' post='2446933']
Well then start two threads. One about particles and one about transubstantiation, because as people have been telling you they are unrelated.
[/quote]What if I just do one thread about particles?

[Hubertus]

Christ said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood," so we believe Him. It is a mystery that's difficult to accept, which is why so many people left Him in John 6:66, but we take Him on His word.

So, as one of your options states, it's called a mystery for a reason: we don't completely understand it. That's why people are giving "unsatisfactory answers" to you; the Church teaches that the answers we have are unsatisfactory (judging from the numerous times it's called the "Paschal Mystery" in the catechism).

But do you object to taking Him on His word? (I know you'll probably answer with "Particles is the focus," but I thought I would ask anyway..)

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1340314937' post='2447199']
What if I just do one thread about particles?
[/quote]
That would be fine, but physicists don't fully understand all there is about particles either! So you possibly could state that we know things about particles and the Eucharist but neither is fully understood. I would suggest that if your interest is particles then find a physics forum. But if you want to talk about the Eucharist well then I think we have answered to the best of our knowledge.
My previous post[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/121629-poll-on-the-eucharist-particles-is-the-focus/page__st__20#entry2446579"] 'here'[/url]I'm saying that it has a dual including supernatural aspect which is unrelated to particle physics.
You may be interested in the thread titled [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/121754-spiritual-communion/#entry2444128"]'Spiritual communion'[/url]

[Amppax]

[img]http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gif[/img]Derp. Nothing to see here.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Amppax

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1340321958' post='2447263']
Christ said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood," so we believe Him. It is a mystery that's difficult to accept, which is why so many people left Him in John 6:66, but we take Him on His word.[/quote]Debatable. But that's not a debate for this thread.

[quote]So, as one of your options states, it's called a mystery for a reason: we don't completely understand it. That's why people are giving "unsatisfactory answers" to you; the Church teaches that the answers we have are unsatisfactory (judging from the numerous times it's called the "Paschal Mystery" in the catechism).[/quote]I understand that there's some things you don't know. I have already stated that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. But the main thing that I'm not satisfied with is the tendency to set aside the questions I'm actually asking in exchange for questions that you like better.

If you can demonstrate that you understand my questions and then tell me you don't know the answers, that is fine. But when people tell me I should take it elsewhere, or state that it's up to them to "take it in a different direction," or "restate" the question in a way that suits them better (ie., reframe the question), that is most unsatisfactory.

If the answers to these questions were clearly written down in the Catechism, I would know the answers by now. Obviously, these are questions that go beyond what Magisterial authority has chosen to have a definitive opinion on. These are not easy questions, and the answer for some people may be "I don't know," while the answers for some other people may vary between the options that I've outlined.

I'm neither looking for nor expecting 100% consensus on any one answer. What I am hoping for is more success in making these questions understood, and I hope that I can persuade Catholics to do a better job of comprehending the questions that I ask instead of taking it on themselves to be the question-maker as well as the question-answerer.

That is what would satisfy me. And as it tends to be in these kinds of situations, when the OP is satisfied, the thread has done what it's supposed to do.

[quote]But do you object to taking Him on His word? (I know you'll probably answer with "Particles is the focus," but I thought I would ask anyway..)[/quote]This is a disingenuous question. Suppose I said to you, "I am the keeper of the truth, so you should really agree with me. Oh, but do you object to.....The Truth?"

And yes, you're right, arguing for a particular interpretation of John 6:66 is not the focus of this thread. This thread is about particles. You know this. Please act like it.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1340325003' post='2447274']
That would be fine, but physicists don't fully understand all there is about particles either! So you possibly could state that we know things about particles and the Eucharist but neither is fully understood. I would suggest that if your interest is particles then find a physics forum. But if you want to talk about the Eucharist well then I think we have answered to the best of our knowledge.
My previous post[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/121629-poll-on-the-eucharist-particles-is-the-focus/page__st__20#entry2446579"] 'here'[/url]I'm saying that it has a dual including supernatural aspect which is unrelated to particle physics.
You may be interested in the thread titled [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/121754-spiritual-communion/#entry2444128"]'Spiritual communion'[/url]
[/quote]Dual aspects? Great! Let's table the supernatural aspect (about which you can make some comment but cannot explain fully) and focus on the other aspect. I guess you want to call that the "particle physics" aspect.

What can you say about the particle physics aspect? What is it that you believe you can know about that? For example, is it your belief that our modern understanding of particle physics allows us to be capable of identifying the number of protons that an atom has? Furthermore, when some miraculous transformation is alleged involving a wafer and a bit of wine, do you believe it's possible to ascertain whether or not an atom has become some different atom- that is, one which has a different number of protons?

I know that when you're faced with these sorts of questions, you're immediately confronted with the urge to reframe them in some manner similar to this: "I think what you mean to say is, do I believe it's possible to ascertain whether an atom looks like a certain atom, or has the characteristics of a certain atom if you choose to go to that level and look at things from there." Or...."I think what you're asking is, is it possible to ascertain whether or not atoms appear to have changed or not, or whether their observable properties have changed."

So we're clear, I am not asking those questions. So please fight the urge to go there. Just don't go there. Answer the questions that I have asked.

Do you understand the difference between these "reframed" questions and the questions that I'm actually asking?

From the ontological angle, I believe we can know things about particles. We aren't limited to knowing things about their appearance or their properties- we can actually know things about the particles. We aren't limited to saying "This thing looks like a duck and quacks like a duck." There was a time when we were limited to this kind of reasoning, but now we can say "This thing has duck chromosomes. This is duck DNA. And of course, we believe it has been a duck from the moment of conception. The duck DNA, the duck chromosomes, the duck genes- that is why it's a duck." Of course, this is all very much dependent on our ability to know exactly what kind of DNA we're dealing with, what kind of chromosomes we're dealing with, and what kind of genes we're dealing with. It depends on really, truly knowing what they are- not just what they look like. It's not enough to know that DNA makes noises that sound like quacks, and it's not enough to know that genes walk with a gait that resembles what you might see from a duck. You need to know what these things are, not just what they look like or resemble- and I believe this is something that we can know. It is knowable, and as with anything else that is knowable, you don't need permission from a Magisterium in order to know it.

I'm trying to find out how many Catholics want to fight me on this. When I take a consecrated wafer and state that we can ascertain that none of its particles are any different from what they were before, I want to see how many Catholics on this forum will say "Yes, of course the particles are no different, but transubstantiation isn't about particulate change- if it was, we would fight you on that really hard." And I also want to see how many Catholics do want to fight me on that, arguing that I only have the ability to draw conclusions concerning the "accidents" of those particles, and I don't really have any way of knowing what sorts of particles an object is really, truly, actually made up of.

I've made it clear what I'm looking for. Now your job is to ensure that a general sense of irritation and belligerence doesn't cause you to fight me on some different issue. It might confuse things. If you're going to fight me on anything, fight me on the knowability of basic particles like atoms and molecules. Or state that you don't want to fight me on this because there is no real disagreement on this point.

[Basilisa Marie]

Dude, all I'm trying to do is show you how the question is ridiculous, because it betrays a misunderstanding of what the Eucharist is and how Catholics understand it. And I was trying to give you a little bit of insight in to how Catholics actually understand the Eucharist.

But seeing as you want no part in either of those things, I vote we bring on the Llamas.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1340313999' post='2447191']
That's quite the opposite of my goal.
[/quote]

razzle dazzle

[quote]By "they," I suppose you mean me (and people like me), and by "the trolls we have on here," I....really don't know.[/quote]

By "they" I mean people who think they are coming to PM with some new argument that none of us have ever heard before and will flame bait us before they totally pwn us religious morons. Unless you're in that group, no need to include yourself

And by trolls, I mean people like Winchester.


[quote]I have a good idea of what sorts of responses would adequately answer my questions[/quote]

such as?



[quote]That's not exactly what I asked, and if by "properties" you mean "accidents," this is exactly the sort of reframing that I was just talking about. I appreciate that the answer is clear and straightforward, but it's probably not the question that I want answered.

You're still talking about "properties," and probably in the sense that you understand them as Aristotelian "accidents." I am trying to ask something a little different and quite a bit more specific.

Down to the subatomic level. Let us consider protons. You understand protons? The number of protons that an atom has is the number that determines where it falls on the periodic table.[/quote]

How does atomic number NOT fall under the "physical properties" umbrella?

[quote]
I understand that you acknowledge no change in "properties," or "accidents." Now I am asking you to consider particles at the subatomic level. I am not asking you to tell me about their properties- I am asking about numbers. I am asking whether atomic numbers change. I am asking whether there is any change in the number of protons that any given atom has.[/quote]

Why is that such a pressing question? Again I'd say no because atomic number is a physical property of particles. A carbon molecule in the Blessed Sacrament has the same atomic number (presumably) as the unconsecrated host.



[quote]I am asking a specific question that is designed to exclude these things from consideration. I am asking whether the number of protons changes. If you tell me something about appearance or properties, you aren't answering the question because this is a numbers game. I'm trying to find out what your belief is about the true reality of the particles, particles, particles, nothing but the particles....[b]which you seem to think are disguised by their appearance, or properties.[/b][/quote]

Bro, particles are physical. You're making this 1000x more complicated than needed. The particles change, but not physically, so yes including the atomic number. The atomic number in the atoms of the host does not due to consecration. Furthermore it's not the particles which are disguised. We can SEE the particles. We may not be able to "see" an atom broken up into its subatomic constituents, unless we had a powerful enough microscope, but it's not the Real Presence of Christ hiding electrons and protons from us. You have it backwards. It's the carbon atoms and their electrons and such hiding the Real Presence.

Particles are only hidden insofar as the limits of our senses and understanding of particle physics. Whether these particles be in the Eucharist or otherwise.

[quote]
Beneath the disguise, what happens to the particles? Do atomic numbers change without appearing to change? Does the number of protons change in any given atom- in reality, in fact, in actuality, and not just in appearance or based on their properties.
[/quote]

Again. Yes, the particles change in some way. Just not physically. This includes the atomic number of the atoms therein. I am genuinely baffled as to why you don't consider atomic number a physical property, but semantics aside, transubstantiation doesn't alter the atomic number of said atoms (except possibly in some extraordinary events such as Lanciano (sp?)).


[quote]Or perhaps the number of protons does change while maintaining the appearance, the accidents, and the properties of particles that are entirely different....[/quote]

It's been a while since I've taken chemistry, but I think if the atomic number changes the appearance would change. Like if all the carbon atoms gained a proton they'd turn to nitrogen, thus changing the molecules, and thus changing the physical properties, thus changing the appearance to us.