Poll On The Eucharist. Particles Is The Focus.

[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.

[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]