Transubstantiation in modern science: How can substance change without accidents
#11
(12-06-2012, 02:21 PM)jim111 Wrote: I understand in Transubstantiation the substance changes but accidents stay the same, since according to modern day science substance is determined by molecular structure, how does transubstantiation work. Or how are we to understand it? ???
It happens because God wills it.
:) :) :)
Reply
#12
I don't bother explaining this stuff to modern people. They are too rational and have lost any sense of mystery.

It is far more effective to make them realise that without religion their life is a hopeless mess.  Dawkins thrice married.

Look at the lives of the secular types. Generally speaking there is a lot of marital breakup and unhappy children.

Only belief in a higher power is going to make you curb the passions that will wreck your marriage, health, happiness.

Why would an atheist sacrifice?  Yet sacrifice is OBVIOUSLY a key ingredient in being happy on earth.

As you get to your late 30s and early forties you see what a lot of shitty unfaithful relationships the people around you have.
Reply
#13
(12-07-2012, 01:01 AM)Poche Wrote: It happens because God wills it.
:) :) :)
I believe it exits and i know why it it exist. What i don't understand is what is happening.
(12-07-2012, 02:37 AM)ggreg Wrote: I don't bother explaining this stuff to modern people. They are too rational and have lost any sense of mystery.
Im trying to understand transubstantiation, I accept how it happens is a mystery, but i am trying to understand what is happening, if you don't have any thing helpful to say then please don't post.  :)
Reply
#14
You are making this too hard.  Here's how I explain it to kids and some others (no offence):

A thing is more than the sum of its parts (what you call molecular structure).  For example, Sydney Crosby is a famous Canadian hockey player with legions of fans.  He played on the gold medal Junior team.  During his trip home, his game hockey jersey (shirt) was stolen from his luggage.  No, why would that have been valuable?  Anyone can buy one exactly the same online or from a store.  And I do mean EXACTLY the same...they come off the same line, from the same manufacturer.  But if I offered you two jerseys, identical in every respect except that one was the actual game jersey worn by Crosby, and the other was from the store with his name on it etc., which would you choose?  If you're a Canadian hockey fan you would consider the game jersey to be worth 1,000 or a million times the worth of the store bought one.

Why?  Molecularly they are the same.  Same thread, same dyes, same everything.  A scientist would say they are the same.

So, again, I ask you - why is the game jersey more valuable?  How is it different?

The answer, of course, as everyone simply knows intuitively but can't really articulate very well, is that the game jersey is an entirely different thing altogether.  Why? Because it is authentic in a way the other is not.  It has undergone an experience that transformed it into something else, something new, something different that the other has not undergone (to wit, the game experience).

Such is the case with transubstantiation.  A man who has received valid Holy Orders, acting in obedience to Chirst, holds a piece of bread (itself valid matter) and utters very specific words of consecration, causing this ordinary piece of bread to undergo a very specific experience in a very particular and authorized manner and circumstance.  The bread is gone.  An entirely new, authentic substance (the Body of Christ) is now there.  Why? Two reasons: First, because Our Lord said so and 2) Because the conditions set out by the Church, acting under explicit authority and in fidelity to Christ’s command, have been met.

Now, the outward appearance of bread (the molecular structure) is still there.  But the bread – or what was called bread – is gone, and has been replaced with something entirely, authentically different.  And, as we saw with the hockey jersey, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with outward appearances or physical content.
Reply
#15
(12-06-2012, 07:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Is perhaps your difficulty coming from seeing metaphysics as only related to the spiritual?
(excepting the miraculous cases like Lanciano).
I did not understand that.

If there is no physical change then how does it go from bread to flesh? It is my understanding that  flesh and blood are only physical things, dose not something have to have the nature or flesh and blood to be flesh and blood. Or is there a metaphysical part of all matter that determines what type of substance it is.

I was once told it is heresy to say transubstantiation in not a physical change, which is the teaching of consubstantiation. Is that true?
Reply
#16
(12-07-2012, 01:00 PM)jim111 Wrote: I was once told it is heresy to say transubstantiation in not a physical change, which is the teaching of consubstantiation. Is that true?

As I understand it (and I'm willing to be corrected), consubstantiation claims that the substance of bread and wine remain after the consecration and the substance of body and blood are "tacked on" to the bread and wine.  It is not a "physical change" any more than transubstantiation is.

In the end, transubstantiation is not a physical change since a physical change would be perceptible on some level and hence an accident.
Reply
#17
With regard to transubstantiation and whether there's a physical change, it's my understanding that no physical change takes place, as the accidents remain and also we do not believe that Christ is locally present in the Sacrament*, which would be the case if a physical change had taken place.

* See St. Thomas' Summa Theologiae: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article5 (and also article 6)
and the Roman Catechism: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thec...rist.shtml

Roman Catechism Wrote:The pastor should next teach that our Lord is not in the Sacrament as in a place.  Place regards things only inasmuch as they have magnitude.  Now we do not say that Christ is in the Sacrament inasmuch as He is great or small, terms which belong to quantity, but inasmuch as He is a substance.  The substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, not into magnitude or quantity; and substance, it will be acknowledged by all, is contained in a small as well as in a large space.
Reply
#18
(12-07-2012, 12:46 PM)Allan Wrote: So, again, I ask you - why is the game jersey more valuable?  How is it different?
The example you gave me is perceived value, meaning it only exists on a mental level but not in reality. The Eucharist is valuable because it is God. Weather or not we believe it, the bread is flesh and the wine is blood. The jersey did not change its substance, I guess you could say it has undergone consubstantiation, as it has the value of a jersey and the fact it was worn by a celebrity. There is no substance transformation in the jersey. It only has changed if you admire the hockey player, the Eucharist is Jesus regardless of belief.
.
Reply
#19
(12-07-2012, 12:27 PM)jim111 Wrote:
(12-07-2012, 01:01 AM)Poche Wrote: It happens because God wills it.
:) :) :)
I believe it exits and i know why it it exist. What i don't understand is what is happening.
(12-07-2012, 02:37 AM)ggreg Wrote: I don't bother explaining this stuff to modern people. They are too rational and have lost any sense of mystery.
Im trying to understand transubstantiation, I accept how it happens is a mystery, but i am trying to understand what is happening, if you don't have any thing helpful to say then please don't post.  :)

It cannot be understood in a normative sense of that word.

Equally how can God become man.  How can Jesus be fully man and fully God.  God is not man and man is certainly not God.  If are fully something then you cannot be fully something ELSE.  The two words are mutually exclusive in a normative sense of the words "man" and "God".

There is a lot of mystery in the universe.  This is just another piece of mystery.

What is the alternative?  That Jesus did not mean that and the apostles got it wrong?  That Christians believed a lie for 1500 years?

It either is true, or it is not true.  It cannot be half true.
Reply
#20
(12-07-2012, 01:59 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(12-07-2012, 12:27 PM)jim111 Wrote:
(12-07-2012, 01:01 AM)Poche Wrote: It happens because God wills it.
:) :) :)
I believe it exits and i know why it it exist. What i don't understand is what is happening.
(12-07-2012, 02:37 AM)ggreg Wrote: I don't bother explaining this stuff to modern people. They are too rational and have lost any sense of mystery.
Im trying to understand transubstantiation, I accept how it happens is a mystery, but i am trying to understand what is happening, if you don't have any thing helpful to say then please don't post.  :)

It cannot be understood in a normative sense of that word.

Equally how can God become man.  How can Jesus be fully man and fully God.  God is not man and man is certainly not God.  If are fully something then you cannot be fully something ELSE.  The two words are mutually exclusive in a normative sense of the words "man" and "God".

There is a lot of mystery in the universe.  This is just another piece of mystery.

What is the alternative?  That Jesus did not mean that and the apostles got it wrong?  That Christians believed a lie for 1500 years?

It either is true, or it is not true.  It cannot be half true.
    There is no reason God can not be man. Man is a soul united to a body. There is no reason God can not exist as this. Man refers to the physical and spiritual makeup of a being. God refers to the one who is the creator of all. One can be supreme creator and exist as a man, this is not at all illogical. One can also fully be man and fully be CEO of a company. There is nothing in the nature of man, that prevents it from being a type of existence for God.

I do not however not fully understand transubstantiation, if it is a mystery I can't comprehend then I will accept that. However I would like to fully understand this. In past topics I did not understand I realized the things I thought were contradictory were only due to my limited/false understanding of how things worked. This has helped to convert from a neocon to a true Trad. I do not intend to prove the apostles wrong, I only wish to increase my understanding.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)