Transubstantiation in modern science: How can substance change without accidents
#21
I think part of being a True Trad is to acknowledge that if the Church screwed up that badly with the truth over the last 2000 years then there is no point in being a True Trad.

Galileo, slavery and usury are one thing but if we start questioning or rationalising that sort of fundamental stuff then we might as well just join Teilhard de Chardin on the bus to point Ω
Reply
#22
(12-07-2012, 02:44 PM)ggreg Wrote: I think part of being a True Trad is to acknowledge that if the Church screwed up that badly with the truth over the last 2000 years then there is no point in being a True Trad.

Galileo, slavery and usury are one thing but if we start questioning or rationalising that sort of fundamental stuff then we might as well just join Teilhard de Chardin on the bus to point Ω
The Gallileo case is extremely exaggerated, they church was not at fault. I learned this form a full understating of his case. Teilhard de Chardin denied Dogma's and held opinions completely contrary to elementary Catholic Doctrine. Neither of which I am doing. I am merely trying to fully grasp what the church teaches, not make my own understanding, which I will have if i do not fully grasp this. This form has already given me a better understanding of the Eucharist, and I wish to learn more.

Does any one else think that my questions are only harmful to me?
Reply
#23
no man is an island, but question away.  I doubt anyone on this side of the grave has a satisfactory answer for you though.
Reply
#24
The substance of bread changes to substance of flesh. What is this substance of bread that changes. In past posts it was stated the change is not physical but spiritual, then would that not mean that matter has spiritual as was well as physical parts. Other wise there would be nothing to transform.


Here is a possible understating of transubstantiation compared to a website.
The Substance would be the code that determines how a web page is displayed, However the Browser is how we view the code in a logical arrangement. They way the code is viewed is determined by the accidents that are programed, however it is possible to code a website called Google, but make it have all the visual appearances (accidents) of Bing. The differences would be the name given in the code and the data would be drawn from the Google database instead of the Bing database.

Are there any problems with this analogy?

Reply
#25
(12-07-2012, 03:41 PM)jim111 Wrote: The Substance would be the code that determines how a web page is displayed, However the Browser is how we view the code in a logical arrangement. They way the code is viewed is determined by the accidents that are programed, however it is possible to code a website called Google, but make it have all the visual appearances (accidents) of Bing. The differences would be the name given in the code and the data would be drawn from the Google database instead of the Bing database.

Are there any problems with this analogy?

As I understand it, there is a problem in that one *can* observe the raw code of a website.  As I said above, the metaphysical substance of a thing cannot be observed, only the accidents can.
Reply
#26
(12-07-2012, 03:44 PM)Pilgrim Wrote: As I understand it, there is a problem in that one *can* observe the raw code of a website.  As I said above, the metaphysical substance of a thing cannot be observed, only the accidents can.
In this case God is the coder and only people he wishes can see the code, the browser is or bodies which determine reality through senses, unlike angles who I don think see with eyes, but see with intellect and understand things in totality form the code without seeing them with human senses. They don't even obey space/time they just illuminate.
I would say the angles see code but not the same as God. I would say the angles see a simple code like C+ where God sees code as binary the code which all code is built on.
Reply
#27
Please read my example again.  You are - in my opinion - utterly misunderstanding the concept of "substance".  The bottom line is this: what is a thing, reallY?  Am I a male homosapien?  Or am I a father and husband?  The unconsecrated host is simply the sum of its parts: it is bread, really.  After consecration, because of the experience it went through (which is now a real part of "its" history) it is now something completely different. 

Other examples:

Woman ==> Gives Birth ==> Mother  [Same thing "accidents" wise, though - XX chromosomes, flesh, two lungs, hemoglobin, carbon-based life - and yet, now totally different]

Virgin ==> Sex ==> Not a Virgin  [can never be a virgin again, changed in reality, yet the same person in appearance]

An experience can change what a thing really is, such that it becomes something completely new and different, and can never go back to what it was. 

Jettison all that learning you have and become like a child again.  To quote Ronald Reagan, "It isn't that they [Dems] are ignorant...it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Reply
#28
(12-07-2012, 03:57 PM)jim111 Wrote:
(12-07-2012, 03:44 PM)Pilgrim Wrote: As I understand it, there is a problem in that one *can* observe the raw code of a website.  As I said above, the metaphysical substance of a thing cannot be observed, only the accidents can.
In this case God is the coder and only people he wishes can see the code, the browser is or bodies which determine reality through senses, unlike angles who I don think see with eyes, but see with intellect and understand things in totality form the code without seeing them with human senses. They don't even obey space/time they just illuminate.
I would say the angles see code but not the same as God. I would say the angles see a simple code like C+ where God sees code as binary the code which all code is built on.

OK, with the caveat that human beings could not see the raw code of the website without divine assistance, I think the analogy stands.  However, any effort to understand metaphysical issues like transubstantiation through these means are going to be problematic at best since one is trying to ground a metaphysical concept in the physical world (hence my question about the website analogy).
Reply
#29
(12-07-2012, 02:56 PM)jim111 Wrote: Does any one else think that my questions are only harmful to me?

Asking these questions is dangerous, because it could lead to doubt, or belittling of the mystery, or pride.

But I think St. Thomas asked questions like these.  It is not wrong to want to understand better what mysteries mean - to show that they are not against reason (although they are not provable); to defend them against their enemies.  If it were wrong, why would the Church try to explain things more thoroughly over the centuries (e.g. the Divinity and humanity of Christ)?  Why would it even take up the word "transubstantiation", which uses the philosophical notions of Aristotle as purified by St. Thomas?  Why would it approve and praise theologians who studied these matters? It is right to understand better what we can, if we do it humbly. 

Of course not everyone is meant to be a theologian, for many reasons.  Even if we are not it is not always wrong to ask questions (and to go to the best places for help, e.g. St. Thomas). But we should pray that we remain at peace, and that we proceed humbly in the face of such a great mystery.
Reply
#30
(12-07-2012, 04:49 PM)Allan Wrote: Woman ==> Gives Birth ==> Mother   [Same thing "accidents" wise, though - XX chromosomes, flesh, two lungs, hemoglobin, carbon-based life - and yet, now totally different]

Virgin ==> Sex ==> Not a Virgin  [can never be a virgin again, changed in reality, yet the same person in appearance]
Though what you say is true they are very different scenarios.

Woman ==> Gives Birth ==> Mother
1. By definition a mother is one who has had a birth. Without the event of a birth a mother can never exist.
2. A mother is still a woman.

Virgin (one who has not had sex) ==> Sex (we all know what this is) ==> Not a Virgin (One who has had sex)
1. Without the existence of sex the women could not become not-a-virgin
2. The event (sex) is only a description of what has occurred to the object (virgin) in the past. Though natural changes occur in the woman as a result of this act. Those changes are not what classifies her as not-a-virgin, but rather her participation in sex.
3. If the object started as a woman, she is not transformed into a not-a-virgin, she is a not-a-virgin  and a woman. No transformation of substance.



Bread ==> Consecration ==> Flesh of Jesus  (Flesh or Jesus, not defined by: a consecrated piece of bread)
1. Jesus and his flesh/blood can exist without, consecration.
2. Jesus and his flesh/blood are not dependent on the existence of bread for there existence.
3. Transubstantiation changes bread into flesh, the original substance of bread no longer exists.
4. It exists because it is now something different then bread, it is flesh, not because it was Consecrated, but because it has been transformed into something different. It exists as something different in the present than the past. where as a virgin is only different in the sense that she committed a specific act in the past. However her existence is not different after the act then before the act. In transubstantiation the existence of bread changes to an existence of flesh.
5. It would be possible for God to turn any substance into his flesh without consecration. However by definition, one can not be created as not-a-virgin. One must first have sex.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)