superblue Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 So as Catholics we believe that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Our Lord, and there are reports of at least in the 8th Century of the Eucharistic Miracle that took place in Lanciano , Italy.... But I have been wondering would the same hold up today ? The same scientific study, if samples of consecrated bread and wine were to be examined, would there be any scrap of human DNA in them , and if not, are we to then just believe that this is no longer a literal but a spiritual representation of our Lord ? K but then, if there is human DNA from a wide variety of samples, all done independently but all holding the same DNA across the board, would that scare anyone ? Or would it be more motivating than anything ? South Park had one very funny crack at trying to explain the Eucharist where the kids were debating it and in the end drove the nun crazy and she ended up telling them to shut up but anywho. More over IF DNA evidence is of no matter, then why any Eucharist Miracle at all to begin with ? It seems if this miracle takes place in one, it takes place in each and everyone.....and if that happens then there should be physical DNA evidence to some degree, be it big or small. Also why if then would there not be physical DNA in the body and blood that we receive at mass ? Being the literal body and blood of Christ. I think in the end, an this is just for me, i am more than happy to know that is the body and blood of Christ, in the form of bread and wine, no DNA what so ever. I would have a hard time consuming actual flesh and blood, i mean if after the consecration the bread started to look like flesh, and the wine started to look and become the texture of blood. And if there is DNA, i think i would be more creeped out than awe inspired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 DNA falls under physical accidents which normally do not change during the consecration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 DNA falls under physical accidents which normally do not change during the consecration. I dont follow, could you explain further? A physical accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I think Nihil is talking about essence v. accidents The essence/substance of the bread and wine changes into the body ad blood of Christ, while the physicality of the bread and wine(how it looks, tastes, feels, smells) are known as the "accidents", remain the same. I believe Aquinas might have coined this expression... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Yeah, I was on my phone and kind of rushed so I was unable to clarify further. The substance of a thing is the aspect that makes that thing what it is. To be kind of crudely (perhaps too much so) Aristotelian, there are lots of different kinds of chairs, and many look completely different from each other. Different materials, colours, shapes, etc. But they are all chairs, because they all share a substance of 'chairness'. Substance is the reality of a thing that we cannot really see. The accidents of a thing are those aspects that we can perceive. We can perceive that a chair is made from wood, has four legs, is X inches high, etc. But the chair could be made of a different kind of wood and still be a chair, or it could be Y inches high instead and still be a chair. Different accidents do not affect the substance of 'chairness'. There have been mountains of papers and essays written on the relationship between accidents and substance, not to mention whether or not that is a real distinction, if 'types' (i.e. substances) even exist. I will not get into that because I am only a pretend philosopher and I do not really like those subjects very much. So with the Eucharist, before the consecration we have bread and wine, and after the consecration we have Flesh and Blood. But both before and after the consecration, the accidents persist. Everything that we can perceive with our senses is unchanged. It still appears to be bread and wine. But the substance is changed. It is not bread and wine anymore, even though it looks like it in all aspects. This is not the normal way things happen. We can think of all kinds of ways where something's accidents change. If I paint my chair, the accident of its colour is changed. That is easy to do. But if I wanted to take away the 'chairness' of the chair, I would probably have to throw it into a wood chipper. And even then, it is sort of a decomposition of substance, rather than a radical change. Substances do not really change like that. That is why transubstantiation is such an important concept. So if we take a consecrated host, in normal circumstances we will not see any change in its accidents. We will not find DNA if we analyze it in a lab. We will not find blood cells. It will not smell or taste any different. Eucharistic miracles are noteworthy because the accidents of the bread and wine change along with the substance change that occurs during consecration. These are exceedingly rare, and worth very careful attention. We call them miracles for a reason. But the accidents are not the essential part, because the Host becomes the Body and Blood of Christ just as surely as if the accidents also changed. We are quite literally eating flesh and drinking blood, even if it does not look or taste like we are, and even if all the scientific analyses in the world show that nothing changes. Because we cannot perceive the non-physical substances through physical observation. Materialists do not like this because the concept of transubstantiation becomes an unprovable theory, to them. There is nothing that can be tested. But our faith is not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 so basically what I said, without the wordiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 You forget that I am a pretend philosopher. I have to meet union requirements, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 I appreciate the detailed response and the analogy, it is indeed, I dunno odd but not in a crude or rude sense of the word, and I guess if I really really reaaaaallllllly wanted to embark on a new education it would be to try an get a better understanding of transubstantiation is, and unfortunately that hurt my brain just spelling that so I am probably going to wait a few... but then it does make me wonder, for the confirmed Eucharistic miracles, why just that one species, during the consecration of the bread and blood, there must have been more than just one small piece of each so why not all of it, and more over, what would happen if it were to be consumed instead of venerated ? A rose by any other name is still a rose, and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its' butt when it hops. Though I guess trying to figure out why God decides to have one miracle take place in the physical with irrefutable proof, and not just spread even a microscopical amount of dna across the board for everyone to par take in, is for God to explain in his own words when that day comes and in a very simplified form so that our brains don't implode. The way i see it first, Christ humbles himself through Gods' love to join humanity here on earth for a short time, now He transforms himself into bread and wine at mass for everyone yet no speck of dna or anything and all we have is our human faith to go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) AH South Park, Do the Handicap Go To Hell, is the episode i am thinking of, i don't know but i think it might be a two parter, and in it the kids in one scene are briefly getting into a discussion to a small part about this, and if you don't take it seriously that one tiny scene i found to be funny because in a stupid way it does reflect what I am thinking. Dude and that bazinga at the end, lmfao scrolling down an down, BAZINGA,,, hilarious. Edited June 2, 2014 by superblue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I appreciate the detailed response and the analogy, it is indeed, I dunno odd but not in a crude or rude sense of the word, and I guess if I really really reaaaaallllllly wanted to embark on a new education it would be to try an get a better understanding of transubstantiation is, and unfortunately that hurt my brain just spelling that so I am probably going to wait a few... but then it does make me wonder, for the confirmed Eucharistic miracles, why just that one species, during the consecration of the bread and blood, there must have been more than just one small piece of each so why not all of it, and more over, what would happen if it were to be consumed instead of venerated ? A rose by any other name is still a rose, and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its' butt when it hops. Though I guess trying to figure out why God decides to have one miracle take place in the physical with irrefutable proof, and not just spread even a microscopical amount of dna across the board for everyone to par take in, is for God to explain in his own words when that day comes and in a very simplified form so that our brains don't implode. The way i see it first, Christ humbles himself through Gods' love to join humanity here on earth for a short time, now He transforms himself into bread and wine at mass for everyone yet no speck of dna or anything and all we have is our human faith to go on. If you wanted to understand this better, you would want to start by familiarizing yourself with Aristotle's substance dualism, then find where St. Thomas Aquinas takes up where Aristotle leaves off. They are the real heavyweights in this sort of discussion. It is not an easy topic though. I was not exaggerating when I said that mountains of literature have been written on substance dualism, nominalism, etc. It bores me to tears, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 If you wanted to understand this better, you would want to start by familiarizing yourself with Aristotle's substance dualism, then find where St. Thomas Aquinas takes up where Aristotle leaves off. They are the real heavyweights in this sort of discussion. It is not an easy topic though. I was not exaggerating when I said that mountains of literature have been written on substance dualism, nominalism, etc. It bores me to tears, frankly. Well I am glad to at least find out that this is something that has been thought about before and made even the heavy hitting thinkers of the day go into great detail about, I imagine i would be bored to tears as well, but really only because i would not be able to understand a word of what is written, it would like a preschool child reading a college level text book, it can be done, and read very slowly, but the meaning would be completely lost. But heck to scratch the surface of the question alone i find interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I should have mentioned, Plato was the immediate predecessor of Aristotle in terms of substance dualism. One might want to start with Plato's Phaedo, then Aristotle's Metaphysics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximillion Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 One might want to start with Plato's Phaedo, then Aristotle's Metaphysics. Er, no thanks. Tried that one. Didn't like it. :farmer: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Er, no thanks. Tried that one. Didn't like it. :farmer: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :eek: Unfortunately, nobody in philosophy cares what you enjoy reading. :P They just care that you understand it. How do you think anybody ever writes anything about Hegel? Well, not by understanding it either, but you catch my drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 you people are weird 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