Fatima, The Principle, and How to Change the World

[Aquila]

if a statement contradicts the evidence then the statement must be false.

You're still subjecting faith to reason, as though faith derives from it, which is not faith at all.

For example: There's plenty of evidence that an unconsecrated host is no different from a consecrated one; the statement "This consecrated Host is not bread" contradicts that evidence. Thus, you'd disbelieve the transubstantiation?

The crux of the matter is that you, Geremia, believe that Catholics are required to believe in geocentrism.

GloriaPatri states (correctly) that there is no scientific evidence for geocentrism and that there is in fact strong scientific evidence against it.

You say a) That every scientist except the pseudo-scientist Sungenis is wrong, or that b) it doesn't matter; even is scientifically disproven, geocentrism is still true because it's required by Faith.

Unfortunately for you , (a) is false because Sungenis has been repeatedly and convincingly refuted by real scientists, aka people with real degrees in physics and real PhDs from accredited institutions, with real scientific data,

and (b) is false; belief in geocentrism is NOT required to be a Catholic. I have asked multiple traditional Catholic priests and theologians this question, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM agreed with me.

To sum up, you are ascribing a dogmatic status to your personal opinion, which has been refuted multiple times, and insisting that acceptance of your personal opinion is necessary for salvation, when it is in fact only YOUR OPINION.

[Basilios]

A consecrated host is not materially bread.......

[GloriaPatri]

A consecrated host is not materially bread.......

Difference in semantics, I believe. The material accidents are bread, while the metaphysical substance or essence changes. But in modern language material is used to signify atomic structures. Aka accidentd

[Geremia]

with those who deny facts, there can be no discussion

Who determines what are facts and what is theory?

[Basilios]

A consecrated host is not materially bread.......

Difference in semantics, I believe. The material accidents are bread, while the metaphysical substance or essence changes. But in modern language material is used to signify atomic structures. Aka accidentd

Geremias point remains then. Scientist or Catholic don't deny that the accidents of bread remain. But a scientist will deny, based on observation, that this is substantially the flesh of Christ. But it is substantially, materially, the flesh of Christ. As St Thomas says, to paraphrase, the senses have accidents as their object but the intellect has substance and faith informs us of what the substance is in this case.

Far from doubting Geremias cathechism I question Aquila who was so strongly doubting that he unwittingly said something heretical that the bread is materially present.

[Geremia]

if a statement contradicts the evidence then the statement must be false.

You're still subjecting faith to reason, as though faith derives from it, which is not faith at all.

For example: There's plenty of evidence that an unconsecrated host is no different from a consecrated one; the statement "This consecrated Host is not bread" contradicts that evidence. Thus, you'd disbelieve the transubstantiation?

What a stupid argument.

Another favorite trick of Modernists: call "stupid" or "boring" anything that sounds too "medieval" or "scholastic".

The whole point of the Transubstantion is that materially the the communion wafer remains bread,

You're espousing the heresy of impanation/consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.

but it's essence is miraculously changed into Christ.

Yes, its substance is Christ, not bread. When we say what something is, we say of what is essential to it, not accidental. So, if someone asks me what a consecrated Host is, I cannot say "bread", just like if I asked you who I am, you can't say "hair" or "skin" or anything of my other non-essential properties or accidents.

One cannot apply the scientific method to something that is essentially spiritual.

From Pascendi §17:

And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this.

Also, see this:

Benedict Ashley, O.P., in his book The Way toward Wisdom (p. 511 n. 53), cites Hume's claim, which he borrowed from Dr. Tillotson, that the transubstantiation, "since it denies the evidence of the senses on which all certitude rests," "leads to skepticism:"

I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument of a like nature, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.

[...]

Suppose, for instance, that the fact, which the testimony endeavours to establish, partakes of the extraordinary and the marvellous; in that case, the evidence, resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual. The reason why we place any credit in witnesses and historians, is not derived from any connexion, which we perceive a priori, between testimony and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity between them. But when the fact attested is such a one as has seldom fallen under our observation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences; of which the one destroys the other, as far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the force, which remains.

—David Hume's Enquiry of Human Understanding, sec. 10 "On Miracles" part 1

Benedict Ashley, O.P., responds:

Yet we experience that very unusual events do in fact occur! Why must we, then, always doubt the testimony of others about such events? Sense experiences are signs to be intellectually interpreted always in their contexts. The proper accidents of bread and wine naturally signify these substances, but for the Catholic faith the context of the Eucharist established by God permits the appearance of bread and wine to signify without deception [Summa Theologiæ, IIIª q. 75 a. 5 arg. 2 et ad 2] Christ's body and blood. Although this is not strictly a "miracle" (since the change is not evident to our senses and hence is extremely improbable as regard natural reason), as Aquinas shows [Summa Theologiæ, IIIª q. 75 a. 5 arg. 3 et ad 3], it is not impossible; and if the Catholic faith is credible, as apologetic seeks to show, reason demands that it be believed on the testimony of the Church. Similarly, the context of the Bible as read in the tradition of the Church (which one would suppose Tillotson accepted) permits it to signify the mind of God, not merely the intent of its human authors. Hume's argument amount to declaring that he is determined to interpret his experiences a way that will not disturb his "common sense" habits; but life is full of uncomfortable events.

The above-mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiæ quotes are:

Objection 2. Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then, that human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is unbecoming to this sacrament.

Objection 3. Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still it is not contrary to reason, but above it, as was said in the beginning of this work (Summa Theologiæ, Iª q. 1 a. 6 ad 2 et a. 8). But our reason has its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be contrary to the senses, as it is when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore it is not befitting this sacrament for the accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to remain.

[...]

Reply to Objection 2 and 3. There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception. And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.

[Geremia]

Scientist or Catholic don't deny that the accidents of bread remain. But a scientist will deny, based on observation, that this is substantially the flesh of Christ. But it is substantially, materially, the flesh of Christ.

Yes, even physically.

[GloriaPatri]

Scientists will deny the substantial reality of the Eucharist because substance is not subject to empirical testing. That's hardly surprising. Our believe in the Real Presence is a belief that has neither evidence for it or against it.

This differs from heliocentrism, Big Bang cosmology, evolution, Relativity, etc because there is evidence for these theories, which means that opposing theories cannot be held. One can believe in Transubstanation because there is no evidence against it. One can not believe in geocentrism etc because there is evidence against it.

[Heinrich]

Scientists will deny the substantial reality of the Eucharist because substance is not subject to empirical testing. That's hardly surprising. Our believe in the Real Presence is a belief that has neither evidence for it or against it.

This differs from heliocentrism, Big Bang cosmology, evolution, Relativity, etc because there is evidence for these theories, which means that opposing theories cannot be held. One can believe in Transubstanation because there is no evidence against it. One can not believe in geocentrism etc because there is evidence against it.

Is there evidence against heliocentrism? Evolution? Relativity, etc.?

[GloriaPatri]

Scientists will deny the substantial reality of the Eucharist because substance is not subject to empirical testing. That's hardly surprising. Our believe in the Real Presence is a belief that has neither evidence for it or against it.

This differs from heliocentrism, Big Bang cosmology, evolution, Relativity, etc because there is evidence for these theories, which means that opposing theories cannot be held. One can believe in Transubstanation because there is no evidence against it. One can not believe in geocentrism etc because there is evidence against it.

Is there evidence against heliocentrism? Evolution? Relativity, etc.?

Did you not read what I wrote? I explicitly stated that these theories have evidence for them (hence why they are called theories and not hypotheses). Transubstantiation lacks evidence for or against it. It's veracity is undecided. Thus one can believe in it (unless you're a radical empiricist, but that's another discussion). One cannot believe something that has evidence against it, or disbelieve something that has evidence for it. The truth of these things has already been decided on.

[Heinrich]

Thus One cannot believe something that has evidence against it, or disbelieve something that has evidence for it.

I am trying to understand, really. If heliocentrism has evidence against it, and it does, you or I can't believe it. And if geocentrism has evidence for it, and it does, we can't disbelieve it.

[Aquila]

if a statement contradicts the evidence then the statement must be false.

You're still subjecting faith to reason, as though faith derives from it, which is not faith at all.

For example: There's plenty of evidence that an unconsecrated host is no different from a consecrated one; the statement "This consecrated Host is not bread" contradicts that evidence. Thus, you'd disbelieve the transubstantiation?

What a stupid argument.

Another favorite trick of Modernists: call "stupid" or "boring" anything that sounds too "medieval" or "scholastic".

The whole point of the Transubstantion is that materially the the communion wafer remains bread,

You're espousing the heresy of impanation/consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.

but it's essence is miraculously changed into Christ.

Yes, its substance is Christ, not bread. When we say what something is, we say of what is essential to it, not accidental. So, if someone asks me what a consecrated Host is, I cannot say "bread", just like if I asked you who I am, you can't say "hair" or "skin" or anything of my other non-essential properties or accidents.

One cannot apply the scientific method to something that is essentially spiritual.

From Pascendi §17:

And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this.

Also, see this:

Benedict Ashley, O.P., in his book The Way toward Wisdom (p. 511 n. 53), cites Hume's claim, which he borrowed from Dr. Tillotson, that the transubstantiation, "since it denies the evidence of the senses on which all certitude rests," "leads to skepticism:"

I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument of a like nature, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.

[...]

Suppose, for instance, that the fact, which the testimony endeavours to establish, partakes of the extraordinary and the marvellous; in that case, the evidence, resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual. The reason why we place any credit in witnesses and historians, is not derived from any connexion, which we perceive a priori, between testimony and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity between them. But when the fact attested is such a one as has seldom fallen under our observation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences; of which the one destroys the other, as far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the force, which remains.

—David Hume's Enquiry of Human Understanding, sec. 10 "On Miracles" part 1

Benedict Ashley, O.P., responds:

Yet we experience that very unusual events do in fact occur! Why must we, then, always doubt the testimony of others about such events? Sense experiences are signs to be intellectually interpreted always in their contexts. The proper accidents of bread and wine naturally signify these substances, but for the Catholic faith the context of the Eucharist established by God permits the appearance of bread and wine to signify without deception [Summa Theologiæ, IIIª q. 75 a. 5 arg. 2 et ad 2] Christ's body and blood. Although this is not strictly a "miracle" (since the change is not evident to our senses and hence is extremely improbable as regard natural reason), as Aquinas shows [Summa Theologiæ, IIIª q. 75 a. 5 arg. 3 et ad 3], it is not impossible; and if the Catholic faith is credible, as apologetic seeks to show, reason demands that it be believed on the testimony of the Church. Similarly, the context of the Bible as read in the tradition of the Church (which one would suppose Tillotson accepted) permits it to signify the mind of God, not merely the intent of its human authors. Hume's argument amount to declaring that he is determined to interpret his experiences a way that will not disturb his "common sense" habits; but life is full of uncomfortable events.

The above-mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiæ quotes are:

Objection 2. Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then, that human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is unbecoming to this sacrament.

Objection 3. Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still it is not contrary to reason, but above it, as was said in the beginning of this work (Summa Theologiæ, Iª q. 1 a. 6 ad 2 et a. 8). But our reason has its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be contrary to the senses, as it is when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore it is not befitting this sacrament for the accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to remain.

[...]

Reply to Objection 2 and 3. There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception. And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.

I'm not the heretic here.

The material accidents of bread remain. Hence, if a scientist tested a consecrated Host, all he would find is bread.

As Catholic, we know that the essence of bread is gone and replaced with Christ. Hence, transubstantiation.

Your accusation of heresy is typical; having lost on the issues, you resort to ad hominem. You are a liar and guilty of calumny. The worst I am guilty of is not being theologically precise. My point still stands.

[GloriaPatri]

Thus One cannot believe something that has evidence against it, or disbelieve something that has evidence for it.

I am trying to understand, really. If heliocentrism has evidence against it, and it does, you or I can't believe it. And if geocentrism has evidence for it, and it does, we can't disbelieve it.

Heliocentrism has no evidence against it, egocentrism does have evidence agains it (amongst other things, geocentrism cannot explain the observed phases of Venus). There's nothing controversial about this.

Edit: Case in point: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/

[james03]

GloriaPatri states (correctly) that there is no scientific evidence for geocentrism and that there is in fact strong scientific evidence against it.

There's evidence for geocentrism.  That's why we have absurd theories on "nothing expanding" and "nothing warping".

And there's evidence for heliocentrism.  It is theoretically possible to test it.  You'd need some sort of accelerometer.  I don't think we could do it yet, as the sensitivity would have to be able to detect 0.0007 rpm.

For the record I am an heliocentrist.  The argument has more to do with logic.  If pluto was in orbit around the Earth, it would have a speed around the speed of light.  Stars further out would be insanely fast.  Now we were able to rendezvous satellites to far out planets without using insane amounts of energy.  This is the big challenge for the geocentric theorists.

As far as the movie, I'd like to see it.  You will see very intelligent physicists talking about observations that science can not explain today (without violating Greek Realism).  That's pretty cool.

[james03]

Heliocentrism has no evidence against it,

Red shift is evidence against Heliocentrism.  Unless you want to explain it with the insanity of "nothing expanding".

Actually you could explain it easily as saying our Solar System is the center of the universe and maintain heliocentrism.