ECT Modern Science and Trent

[themuzicman]

It would appear that the Roman Catholic Church has an issue with the council of Trent. You see, Aquinas used Aristotle's philosophy to explain how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ by stating that it was the substance of each that became body and bread, while the accidents remained the same:

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

However, as science has evolved, we have discovered that the essence of matter is found in the interactions of atomic and subatomic particles, and not in the hidden substance that Aristotle pointed to.

Indeed, the very definition of body and blood is found in its DNA makeup, which defines both its substance and appearance. Thus, if the bread and wine were literally the body and blood of Christ, it would need to contain the DNA of Christ.

This idea has been put to the test:

This study falsifies the claim that a religious ritual performed by a priest can actually change the substance of a bread wafer into the substance of a human body.

http://atheistcreationist.org/news/...efutes-catholic-transubstantiation-claim.html

Thus, the RCC (once again) stands in opposition to scientific discovery, although this time, it is a Catholic Council that has been proven to be in error.


So, the question remains: When will the RCC admit that its council is in error?

 

[themuzicman]

Two days and no response? Interesting. Perhaps Trent will fall.

 

[PureX]

There isn't much point in arguing with people who cannot grasp metaphor, regardless of what 'side' they're on.

Jesus was speaking metaphorically. The wine did not become actual blood when he did so, and it has never become blood at any time, since. Nor did the bread become actual flesh, then or now. He was speaking of the wine and bread as blood and flesh, metaphorically. And he even was speaking of ingesting his blood and flesh, metaphorically, as he was really referring to his essence: his spirit. Of adopting His way of being. Everyone in the room at the time understood this, I believe, and anyone with any common sense understands it, today.

Sadly, that apparently leaves out a lot of people.

 

[themuzicman]

Am I in the wrong forum?

 

[themuzicman]

I guess I'll give this one more bump before I figure that the RCC's around here have abandoned Trent.

 

[patrick jane]

I guess I'll give this one more bump before I figure that the RCC's around here have abandoned Trent.

The cathoholics here are dim witted and slow. They can't discern what you are saying

 

[glassjester]

The cathoholics here are dim witted and slow. They can't discern what you are saying

Do you truly believe that?

 

[glassjester]

I guess I'll give this one more bump before I figure that the RCC's around here have abandoned Trent.

Transubstantiation is a metaphysical concept. It's outside the scope of science.

Do you truly believe that science contains all truths? Are there no truths outside of science?
Those questions are rhetorical.

Here's a question that's not rhetorical.
Do you believe that if the cells of Jesus' body had been observed under a microscope, you'd be able to prove that he was God?

 

[themuzicman]

Transubstantiation is a metaphysical concept. It's outside the scope of science.

But it is making claims about the physical world.

Do you truly believe that science contains all truths? Are there no truths outside of science?
Those questions are rhetorical.

They are, but they fail to address transubstantiation.

Here's a question that's not rhetorical.
Do you believe that if the cells of Jesus' body had been observed under a microscope, you'd be able to prove that he was God?

No. But transubstantiation comes from the humanity of Christ (body and blood), not the divinity. If they cells could be observed under a microscope, it would prove that he was human.


The fact is that in order for the bread to be Christ's body, it must fundamentally be Christ's body in a physical sense, which means it must have the cells and DNA of Christ. And it doesn't.

 

[Nick M]

When will the RCC admit that its council is in error?

When pigs fly.

 

[themuzicman]

Transubstantiation is a metaphysical concept. It's outside the scope of science.

So, Jesus' body is metaphysical and not physical? Or Jesus' presence in the bread is metaphysical and not physical?

 

[glassjester]

The fact is that in order for the bread to be Christ's body, it must fundamentally be Christ's body in a physical sense, which means it must have the cells and DNA of Christ. And it doesn't.

You're denying much more than transubstantiation, here. You're denying the existence of substances, completely.

Here's a long read, and a shorter read on what, philosophically speaking, substance is:
Long: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Short: http://simplyphilosophy.org/philosophy/classical-greek-philosophy/aristotle/substance-theory/


Do you agree that a substance is not its properties, but rather has properties?

 

[glassjester]

So, Jesus' body is metaphysical and not physical? Or Jesus' presence in the bread is metaphysical and not physical?

The substance of the bread has changed (hence - transubstantiation); the accidents (or properties) have not.

Substances are not made known to the senses (accidents are), but rather to the intellect.
This goes for all substances, not just in the case of transubstantation.

 

[Cruciform]

The cathoholics here are dim witted and slow. They can't discern what you are saying

Your latest ignorant and bigoted ad hominem assertion is noted. Come back if you ever manage to come up with an actual substantiated argument.

 

[themuzicman]

You're denying much more than transubstantiation, here. You're denying the existence of substances, completely.

Aristotelian metaphysics in this respect has been displaced by modern science. It'd essentially been reduced to being an idea we hold in common and nothing else.

That would make the Eucharist symbolic.

Here's a long read, and a shorter read on what, philosophically speaking, substance is:
Long: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Short: http://simplyphilosophy.org/philosophy/classical-greek-philosophy/aristotle/substance-theory/


Do you agree that a substance is not its properties, but rather has properties?

No. Modern science has demonstrated that the essence of an object comes from it's molecular make up. The fact that a particular organization of molecules functions as a chair or or rock or bread is a function of our minds and not some external hidden "substance."

This is the problem with Trent: It bases Transubstantiation on a metaphysical model that doesn't represent reality.

Further, the body is defined by the cells' DNA structure. Without DNA, there is no body.

 

[glassjester]

No. Modern science has demonstrated that the essence of an object comes from it's molecular make up.

Yet these substances are not properties. They have properties.

You're only kicking the can down the road.
The molecules themselves have properties.
The atoms have properties.
The quarks have properties.
The superstrings have properties.

Is it turtles all the way down?

Further, the body is defined by the cells' DNA structure. Without DNA, there is no body.

So identical twins have the same body?
And... red blood cells don't exist (since they do not carry DNA).

Is that right?

 

[themuzicman]

Yet these substances are not properties. They have properties.

You're only kicking the can down the road.
The molecules themselves have properties.
The atoms have properties.
The quarks have properties.
The superstrings have properties.

Is it turtles all the way down?

LOL.. Thank you for making my point. We now know that Aristotle (and by extension Aquinas and Trent) are in error in claiming that a set of molecules has some mysterious actual substance behind it that makes it "bread" or "body." We now know from biology that human flesh is comprised of cells with DNA, and that without this DNA, it cannot be physical body.

And we know that the consecrated bread does not have human DNA.

So identical twins have the same body?

Nice try, but in finding an exception, you've just confirmed the rule.

And that you have no real response.

And... red blood cells don't exist (since they do not carry DNA).

Is that right?

We're talking about body, not blood. Flesh cells have DNA.

Trent is dead.

 

[glassjester]

LOL.. Thank you for making my point.

Get real. Transubstantiation is not a scientific claim.
It is neither verifiable nor falsifiable by scientific means.

No one claims otherwise. But you.

 

[themuzicman]

Get real. Transubstantiation is not a scientific claim.
It is neither verifiable nor falsifiable by scientific means.

No one claims otherwise. But you.

Thank you for your admission. Since it is not a claim about the physical world, the bread CANNOT be the actual body of Christ, as the body is physical.

 

[glassjester]

Thank you for your admission. Since it is not a claim about the physical world, the bread CANNOT be the actual body of Christ, as the body is physical.

Is that what I said?