Experiment with the eucharist

[N0X3x]

I used to attend catholic youth rallies, where there could be powerful responses to the presence of the Eucharist. This response got me thinking about a potential scientific experiment. Which I want to make clear is merely an interesting thought experiment. It raises too many ethical problems to actually do.

suppose you took a group of people who typically react strongly to the presence of the eucharist and sat them down for a session of adoration, but instead of putting a consecrated host in the monstrance, an unconsecrated host was put in, without the knowledge of the group. Would the group experience and react the same way to the unconsecrated host as they would to a consecrated host?

please feel free to explain your answer to this poll in the thread.

 

[edward_george]

You ask two questions–would they experience the same thing, and would they react the same way. They might react the same way, thinking that it was the Host, when in fact it was not. This is on the level of emotions and feelings. They would not experience the same thing objectively, because the Eucharist simply is not there, whether they thought it was or not. Perhaps the promptings of grace could lead them to realize that this is the case, but in general, I say they might react the same way, but not experience it.

-ACEGC

 

[JamalChristophr]

On a um contralateral (?) note, throwing regular water on unclean spirits, or should I say, people possessed by devils, is noted by the devils, as opposed to scalding them with holy water. They have said so themselves.

 

[Gorgias]

suppose you took a group of people who typically react strongly to the presence of the eucharist and sat them down for a session of adoration, but instead of putting a consecrated host in the monstrance, an unconsecrated host was put in, without the knowledge of the group. Would the group experience and react the same way to the unconsecrated host as they would to a consecrated host?

Your question, then, is whether the felt experience of adoration – in those who have pronounced (emotional?) reactions to adoration – is due to the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or if it’s due to the person’s emotional state based on his understanding that he’s in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Yeah… good luck with that question.

One thought: a psychosomatic reaction is a truly felt and a real (and empirically measurable!) reaction. It isn’t triggered by external stimuli, but the reaction caused in the person’s body is real (and identical to the reaction caused by the corresponding external stimulus). If you’re asking simply whether the physical/emotional reaction would be different, then the (trivial) answer is ‘no – the source of the stimulus doesn’t necessarily cause the felt reaction to be different’. However, that – I suspect – isn’t what you’re trying to ask.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Time spent in Eucharistic adoration is not at all about feelings.

God gives sensible consolations, generally speaking, to those still immature in their faith.

Some people are going to have emotional responses regardless of the real presence or not.

Others are gong to have sensible consolations that can come only from being in the presence of the Eucharist.

But essentially, God can give graces whenever He wills.

Adoration of the Eucharist is about faith and not the human senses. Though we may not feel anything at all, we are still getting a Son tan. Adoration changes people who are open to grace.

In any case, it is not really possible to conduct such an experiment. Doing so, it seems would be testing God, wouldn’t it?

 

[QuestLove]

I used to attend catholic youth rallies, where there could be powerful responses to the presence of the Eucharist. This response got me thinking about a potential scientific experiment. Which I want to make clear is merely an interesting thought experiment. It raises too many ethical problems to actually do.

suppose you took a group of people who typically react strongly to the presence of the eucharist and sat them down for a session of adoration, but instead of putting a consecrated host in the monstrance, an unconsecrated host was put in, without the knowledge of the group. Would the group experience and react the same way to the unconsecrated host as they would to a consecrated host?

please feel free to explain your answer to this poll in the thread.

You mean like a placebo effect? I could see that happening. The mind is powerful indeed.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Nothing against teens, but as an age group, they tend to be more emotional than your normal run of the mill 20 something or older.

I’m guessing you’re talking about something like this video below, maybe. But God does actually speak to young people through these retreats. And yes, He is indeed there in the Eucharist.

youtube.com/watch?v=JUTgX9RHWXE

 

[mikekle]

Time spent in Eucharistic adoration is not at all about feelings.

God gives sensible consolations, generally speaking, to those still immature in their faith.

Some people are going to have emotional responses regardless of the real presence or not.

Others are gong to have sensible consolations that can come only from being in the presence of the Eucharist.

But essentially, God can give graces whenever He wills.

Adoration of the Eucharist is about faith and not the human senses. Though we may not feel anything at all, we are still getting a Son tan. Adoration changes people who are open to grace.

In any case, it is not really possible to conduct such an experiment. Doing so, it seems would be testing God, wouldn’t it?

I dont know, Ive heard both sides on similar discussions, but I tend to think the human body and the soul act in harmony, they are one being, as the soul cannot be in just one spot in the body, its all over, thru and thru so to speak, so any presence close to God, whether its the Eucharist or something else, I think would definitely generate some kind of feeling in the person.

Furthermore, if one was given a placebo eucharist and another given a real blessed eucharist and the results were the same, something must be wrong somewhere, as that does not make sense to me, surely the soul/ body can recognize when its in the presence of God himself.

Keep in mind though, nothing supernatural or from the spiritual realm can be explained by science, or scientifically tested, these are just things that cannot be explained or identified, they do not adhere to the physical laws of our world.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I dont know, Ive heard both sides on similar discussions, but I tend to think the human body and the soul act in harmony, they are one being, as the soul cannot be in just one spot in the body, its all over, thru and thru so to speak, so any presence close to God, whether its the Eucharist or something else, I think would definitely generate some kind of feeling in the person.

Furthermore, if one was given a placebo eucharist and another given a real blessed eucharist and the results were the same, something must be wrong somewhere, as that does not make sense to me, surely the soul/ body can recognize when its in the presence of God himself.

Keep in mind though, nothing supernatural or from the spiritual realm can be explained by science, or scientifically tested, these are just things that cannot be explained or identified, they do not adhere to the physical laws of our world.

Well, at the consecration in every mass, bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ. I know this on Faith, not from anything I sense and feel after transubstantiation has taken place.

But I do indeed feel a presence when I’m before the tabernacle or at adoration via the monstrance. I think it is more than psychological. Each person’s experience is different, though, it seems to me.

 

[N0X3x]

Adoration of the Eucharist is about faith and not the human senses. Though we may not feel anything at all, we are still getting a Son tan. Adoration changes people who are open to grace.

That simply changes what we look for in the experiment. Now, instead of feelings, we check for alterations in behavior.

In any case, it is not really possible to conduct such an experiment. Doing so, it seems would be testing God, wouldn’t it?

I assume you mean that conducting the experiment would yield no useful information, but we would get useful information either way the experiment turned out.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I used to attend catholic youth rallies, where there could be powerful responses to the presence of the Eucharist. This response got me thinking about a potential scientific experiment. Which I want to make clear is merely an interesting thought experiment. It raises too many ethical problems to actually do.

suppose you took a group of people who typically react strongly to the presence of the eucharist and sat them down for a session of adoration, but instead of putting a consecrated host in the monstrance, an unconsecrated host was put in, without the knowledge of the group. Would the group experience and react the same way to the unconsecrated host as they would to a consecrated host?

please feel free to explain your answer to this poll in the thread.

They would react the same because they came to ador Christ and Christ is spiritually present everywhere, even in an unconcecrated host.

But I would add that anyone who pulled such a devilish trick would open hiimself up to demonic presences he would regret.

Linus2nd

 

[JamalChristophr]

That simply changes what we look for in the experiment. Now, instead of feelings, we check for alterations in behavior.

I assume you mean that conducting the experiment would yield no useful information, but we would get useful information either way the experiment turned out.

When one experiments, knowledge or evidence is searched for because something is held in question. A hypothesis must be tested.

But Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. It does not contradict reason but it does not follow from or depend on reason either.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They would react the same because they came to ador Christ and Christ is spiritually present everywhere, even in an unconcecrated host.

But I would add that anyone who pulled such a devilish trick would open hiimself up to demonic presences he would regret.

Linus2nd

I meant to say that God, including the Second Person of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit are everywhere. But Christ is only Present in the consecrated species and at the right hand of the Father.

Linus2nd

 

[alphawoman]

I can’t speak for how others, or myself on a prospective basis, would feel and act, but I can share a personal story from childhood.

My maternal grandparents were baptists, and I recall joining them at church during a visit when I was 3. My mum told me that church was God’s house, and I spent all my time searching for God there, looking in alcoves and behind curtains, but was firmly convinced God wasn’t there. When I attended Catholic mass with my parents, I never had the feeling of God being absent.

I find it incredible that I have that memory from an unremarkable day when I was 3.

I also find myself craving Mass or a visit to adore the Blessed Sacrament between Sundays, even when doing so would be inconvenient. God calls us subtly in our hearts.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can’t speak for how others, or myself on a prospective basis, would feel and act, but I can share a personal story from childhood.

My maternal grandparents were baptists, and I recall joining them at church during a visit when I was 3. My mum told me that church was God’s house, and I spent all my time searching for God there, looking in alcoves and behind curtains, but was firmly convinced God wasn’t there. When I attended Catholic mass with my parents, I never had the feeling of God being absent.

I find it incredible that I have that memory from an unremarkable day when I was 3.

I also find myself craving Mass or a visit to adore the Blessed Sacrament between Sundays, even when doing so would be inconvenient. God calls us subtly in our hearts.

Yes, that obviously happens. Jesus loves company. And he reached out to you in a special way. This often happens, it is a common experience for many.

Linus2nd

 

[jmcrae]

I used to attend catholic youth rallies, where there could be powerful responses to the presence of the Eucharist. This response got me thinking about a potential scientific experiment. Which I want to make clear is merely an interesting thought experiment. It raises too many ethical problems to actually do.

suppose you took a group of people who typically react strongly to the presence of the eucharist and sat them down for a session of adoration, but instead of putting a consecrated host in the monstrance, an unconsecrated host was put in, without the knowledge of the group. Would the group experience and react the same way to the unconsecrated host as they would to a consecrated host?

please feel free to explain your answer to this poll in the thread.

It’s not actually possible to sense whether Jesus is present or not in the Eucharist - this is why St. Thomas Aquinas says, “Faith for all defects supplying where our feeble senses fail” (Tantum Ergo, Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274)

Nevertheless, from time to time people experience consolations while in the presence of the Eucharist.

This isn’t predictable, and consolations may well be indistinguishable from enthusiasm in most people; if someone thought it was the Eucharist, they might experience enthusiasm and think they were experiencing consolations; or even if they thought it was the Eucharist, perhaps they had never experienced consolations before, so it wouldn’t feel any different than normal, in any case.

I remember one time, a priest caught someone (a well-meaning idiot) putting unconsecrated hosts into the Tabernacle to replace the consecrated hosts that had been taken to the sick. He was horrified, and immediately had the person removed from duty, but who knows how long that had been going on until the person got caught. The priest felt sick to think of the possibility that he may have given out unconsecrated hosts at Mass without realizing it - there would be no way for anyone to know for certain.