Has The Catholic Mass Ever Been Scientifically Studied?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkoOhNo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarkoOhNo

Guest
A thought occurred to me during mass, and I can’t find an answer anywhere: has anyone ever used scientific equipment to study the consecration? Perhaps a light spectrometer or Geiger counter? I suspect a light/energy outside of our visual spectrum might be emitted at the moment of consecration and wonder if any equipment may have ever tried to capture it?

Thank you,
Mark Elfering
 
Why would you expect such a thing? It is a supernatural event, why would any light/energy be emitted?
I would be shocked yo find out this occurs.
 
Just a suspicion. A thought I had. He is the light. Why would there not be some form of light when He enters? It’s been scientifically proven that there’s a spark of light at the moment of conception. Maybe there’s one at consecration as well?
 
Perhaps you are right. But the light at conception occurred because of a physical phenomena (zinc atoms in the egg being released). The bread and wine becoming Jesus’s body and blood is a purely supernatural phenomena. No physical change is taking place. Why look for a physical change when that is not what we believe?
 
All physical phenomena have supernatural origin. Sometimes the supernatural is physically detectable with the right tools. Maybe there’s nothing. Maybe there’s something. Because the supernatural DOES cause something to physically happen at consecration - bread and wine transubstantiates and becomes flesh and blood. Transubstantiation isn’t a supernatural action, it’s physical. It LITERALLY becomes his body and blood while retaining all outward appearances. In some miracles, the outward appearances have changed as well. I’m just wondering if anyone has ever used instruments to measure or detect any environmental effects which might possibly occur simultaneously. It wouldn’t refute anything if there’s nothing, but might be compelling evidence of there is something.
 
Last edited:
Science cannot test, prove or disprove the immaterial (i.e. spiritual). The accidents of bread and wine remain, and science - misdirected as it would be in this case - will find nothing more. In the spiritual realm, science is incompetent.
 
Last edited:
Hi Mark,

I feel I understand what and why you are asking. From time to time God has allowed science to verify certain events. Even so, there is often, bu not always, some scientific excuse to make them [the scientists] to feel better or a whole host of other things.

The Holy Mass however is sacred. Most of us I feel, I would think, that some sort of scientific intrusion on the mass would be not only unwelcome but an affront to God. I am sure you can understand that perspective.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh If only we could touch GOD or see HIM then everyone would believe! Right?
Guess what Lucifer the most beautiful Angel ever created could see HIM (GOD) and still said NO.
With faith even the senses are not needed. Pray instead to HIM to reveal Himself to you when you are attending that most sacred sacrifice during the mass. Ask to let you see HIM as HE pleases, manifest Himself to you.
You could be surprised.
Peace!
 
No, science and faith are complementary. If it wasn’t, it would not have been progressed by people of faith. We wouldn’t have been instructed to study God’s creation. EVERYTHING is supernatural in origin because everything is created by God - visible and invisible. And sometimes the invisible becomes visible to learned minds because God has granted us the ability and reason to seek them. It’s not two separate realities. Supernatural and natural coexist and interact. It’s not impossible for there to be a detectable, observable event in that moment. And, with Jesus repeatedly saying He is the light… why not use instrumentation to determine if, perhaps, this is more literal than we might ever otherwise have imagined? You may be right - there might be nothing contemporary instrumentation could detect - it wouldn’t disprove anything of faith, just prove that my idea was incorrect.
 
And it would make sense for it to have been scientifically examined, if it has, as so many other aspects of our faith are as well. Relics. Miracles. In the process of determining their legitimacy, the Vatican actively seeks alternative explanations. That’s not sacrilege, that’s diligence - which is expected of us all. We’re not called to follow blindly but with our eyes wide open, taking in all God has to show us.

God grants us talent and knowledge, and gives us these to know Him and all of His creation better. If there’s anything detectable by instrumentation, it can only be detectable because He wills it to be. Otherwise, such knowledge would be eternally beyond us.
 
Last edited:
It’s probable scientific instruments simply aren’t advanced enough yet. Take String Theory or black holes, for example. They were there all along, but God leads humanity to explore further and further. Someone may read this thread in an archive in 500 years and say, “Sure, happens all the time!”
 
Exactly. With advancements in knowledge, the invisible has been ever more visible. Singularities used to be the realm of unproven theory but now they can be seen through creative use of existing instrumentation, and technological advancements. Science is not counter to God’s will, as popular societal misconception dictates.
 
MarkoOhNo said:
No, science and faith are complementary. If it wasn’t, it would not have been progressed by people of faith. We wouldn’t have been instructed to study God’s creation. EVERYTHING is supernatural in origin because everything is created by God - visible and invisible. And sometimes the invisible becomes visible to learned minds because God has granted us the ability and reason to seek them. It’s not two separate realities. Supernatural and natural coexist and interact. It’s not impossible for there to be a detectable, observable event in that moment. And, with Jesus repeatedly saying He is the light… why not use instrumentation to determine if, perhaps, this is more literal than we might ever otherwise have imagined? You may be right - there might be nothing contemporary instrumentation could detect - it wouldn’t disprove anything of faith, just prove that my idea was incorrect.
Click to expand...
Because no-one’s faith will be created or destroyed by determining such a thing. It is as fruitless as the philosophers of old.trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As you have pointed out light is emitted at conception. No-one has been converted to pro-life by this. No-one has assumed that conception is indeed a sacred or divine event by this knowledge. Because it has a completely natural explanation.

You have faith therefore you look at a rainbow and see a sign placed in the sky by God upon His promise to Abraham. A person without faith simply sees.light being bent by a prism.in a perfectly natural way that requires no Creator.

I’m sorry but it smacks of putting God to the test.
 
Last edited:
I imagine it looks similar to the light necessary to imprint the image on the Shroud fo Turin, which research shows had to have been intense and brief…another example of a physical trace of physical matter being transubstantiated to glorified existence.
 
MarkoOhNo said:
A thought occurred to me during mass, and I can’t find an answer anywhere: has anyone ever used scientific equipment to study the consecration? Perhaps a light spectrometer or Geiger counter? I suspect a light/energy outside of our visual spectrum might be emitted at the moment of consecration and wonder if any equipment may have ever tried to capture it?
Click to expand...
I have had similar thoughts, but always reach the same conclusion.
If the accidental properties remain the same, then that is it.

There is no perceptible difference.
And no amount of scientific scrutiny will reveal anything more.
 
MarkoOhNo said:
A thought occurred to me during mass, and I can’t find an answer anywhere: has anyone ever used scientific equipment to study the consecration? Perhaps a light spectrometer or Geiger counter? I suspect a light/energy outside of our visual spectrum might be emitted at the moment of consecration and wonder if any equipment may have ever tried to capture it?

Thank you,
Mark Elfering
Click to expand...
The accidents, or physical properties, of the bread and wine do not change. With no physical change to test, what is there to test? What’s the hypothesis?

No, we know that it takes the eyes of faith to see this change: that we are given no physical proof of it. If some instrument were to pick up a change, then, we would know by logic that we were seeing evidence of the physical manifestation of something else.…maybe the spark of faith, maybe a miracle that attests to the change, but something else and not the transubstantiation itself.
 
Last edited:
Actually, they do. (Unless you’re not Catholic.) That’s actually the very meaning of the word.
Trans- change
-substant- substance (physical properties)
-iation the act of
Transubstantiation is the act of changing substance.

They’re literally the body, blood, soul and divinity in the appearance of unleavened bread and wine. In some miracles, they have not retained the appearance and are fully transformed.
 
Last edited:
MarkoOhNo said:
Actually, they do. (Unless you’re not Catholic.) They’re literally the body, blood, soul and divinity in the appearance of unleavened bread and wine. In some miracles, they have not retained the appearance and are fully transformed.
Click to expand...
The substance changes, but the accidents such as appearance and other physical properties do not.
Science can only observe accidents, such as reflectance and so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top