Has The Catholic Mass Ever Been Scientifically Studied?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkoOhNo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And why is this?

As you age, you’re still demonstrably the same person by scientific testing, but your change is scientifically measurable as well.
The change is real. Most real actions leave clues and evidence for people to strive toward finding. And the Lord calls for us to seek Him. Seems a reasonable enough conclusion.

Keep in mind that supernatural doesn’t mean it cannot be studied or observed, only that we do not have the means to do so. Much of what we take for granted today would’ve been supernatural 50 years ago. If God wills to be observed, He will be observable.
 
Last edited:
MarkoOhNo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Those miracles are called such precisely because they are rare and wondrous events. I highly doubt God is going to conveniently manifest a miracle - or indeed anything physically observable - just because you happen to have your scientific instruments ready.

Ordinarily as the Catechism teaches, the change that occurs at the consecration is NOT a physical one. The physical properties do NOT change. And that is the point - Jesus chided St Thomas for linking his faith to physical proofs.
 
MarkoOhNo said:
And why is this?

As you age, you’re still demonstrably the same person by scientific testing, but your change is scientifically measurable as well.
The change is real. Most real actions leave clues and evidence for people to strive toward finding. And the Lord calls for us to seek Him. Seems a reasonable enough conclusion.

Keep in mind that supernatural doesn’t mean it cannot be studied or observed, only that we do not have the means to do so. Much of what we take for granted today would’ve been supernatural 50 years ago. If God wills to be observed, He will be observable.
Click to expand...
No, I mean the accidents–the observable physical properties–of the bread and wine are not changed when those species undergo transubstantiation to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord. If a physical change is recorded, it logically must be due to something else. It might get warmer because it has been in the priest’s hands, but it won’t be because if transsubstantiation.
 
Last edited:
MarkoOhNo said:
Keep in mind that supernatural doesn’t mean it cannot be studied or observed, only that we do not have the means to do so.
Click to expand...
No, if I go to the dictionary and look at the definition of supernatural it us the following

“of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe”

This is not relative to our current state of technology.

So, the question you should be asking us: is transubstantiation a purely supernatural event or does it affect the natural ?
 
That’s entirely relative to our current state of technology. The idea of life on other plants was supernatural 75 years ago. Now we’re finding fossilized bacteria on Mars. No longer supernatural.
Simply because you can’t observe it now doesn’t mean you never will.

Anyway (assuming you’re Catholic) read your Catechism. There are no accidents. :crazy_face:😆 Maybe you meant “species”? That’s what the bread and wine become body and blood are called. And - yes - they are substantially changed. Not just in our belief, but wholly transformed.

In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. " “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
 
Last edited:
MarkoOhNo said:
That’s entirely relative to our current state of technology.
Click to expand...
If we could just set aside the issue if transubstantiation fir a moment, it us you opinion that if our technology was advanced enough, we could observe such things as demons, angels, our souls, even God?
 
MarkoOhNo said:
That’s entirely relative to our current state of technology. The idea of life on other plants was supernatural 75 years ago. Now we’re finding fossilized bacteria on Mars. No longer supernatural.
Simply because you can’t observe it now doesn’t mean you never will.
Click to expand...
I really hope you’re not arguing that one day technology will evolve to the point where we can see transubstantiation happen and then it won’t be “supernatural” any more.

Anyway, the reasons we don’t do scientific experiments on the Consecration at Mass are:
  1. It’s not necessary. Those of us with faith don’t need the science, and those who don’t have faith won’t be convinced by science. There is also no reason to “prove” what goes on at Mass because it’s been established Church teaching for 2000+ years based on Jesus’ own words that he is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament. It’s public revelation. It’s not like someone made a new private revelation claim that Mary appeared on a hilltop and we need to get to the bottom of this and see whether it’s okay for the faithful to believe Mary appeared there or go and pray there.
  2. It’s unlikely to bear good fruit. If science found something, it would just invite more scientists to experiment with the Mass and scrutinize it and try to disprove it. If science didn’t find anything, then it would look like the Church was seeking proof of their God and failed to find any. See also (1).
  3. It’s not the reason we have Mass, and is somewhat disrespectful/ irreverent to be carrying on a scientific experiment while people are trying to sincerely worship God.
  4. If God really wanted you to see a flash of light, or anything else, at the transubstantiation, he would give you that ability without you needing to use scientific instruments.
 
Last edited:
  1. Being closer to God is never an issue of necessity or requirement. We’re not required to attend adoration. We’re not required to pray a rosary. We do these things to know God better. He also calls us to know ourselves and our environs better. It’s the entire reason scientific study was born of people of faith in the first place. Contrary to popular belief, it is not an entity outside of our faith.
  2. It “invites” nothing. Or do you honestly believe our church does not have the knowledge it would need accessible without having to look outside the church? It’s not an effort to prove or disprove anything. Not all science is about that. Most is science of discovery. Discovering facets of truth about the world around us adds to the wonder of creation, not detracts. If nothing is detected, the only thing proven is that out technology did not find anything we’re capable of detecting. It would do nothing to cheapen or weaken anything. Consecration is literally the heart of the mass. Don’t you think God would WANT us to be curious about this particular moment? Anti-Christians look at everything we do with eyes of skepticism and mockery, but if we let fear of that dictate our faith, we lend them too much validity.
  3. The Eucharistic miracle is THE reason we have mass. Knowing God better and growing closer to Him is part of the experience. There world be nothing invasive at all about having unnoticeable sensors out of plain sight. Up in the choir loft, for instance.
  4. If God really wanted you to be able to visit the Moon, He’d just let us snap our fingers and be there.
    If God really wanted us to walk, we’d be born walking.
    If God wanted us to travel the Earth more quickly, He’d have given us wheels instead of feet.
    Some things, God wants us to earn through our labors.
 
MarkoOhNo said:
  1. Being closer to God is never an issue of necessity or requirement. We’re not required to attend adoration. We’re not required to pray a rosary. We do these things to know God better. He also calls us to know ourselves and our environs better. It’s the entire reason scientific study was born of people of faith in the first place. Contrary to popular belief, it is not an entity outside of our faith.
  2. It “invites” nothing. Or do you honestly believe our church does not have the knowledge it would need accessible without having to look outside the church? It’s not an effort to prove or disprove anything. Not all science is about that. Most is science of discovery. Discovering facets of truth about the world around us adds to the wonder of creation, not detracts. If nothing is detected, the only thing proven is that out technology did not find anything we’re capable of detecting. It would do nothing to cheapen or weaken anything. Consecration is literally the heart of the mass. Don’t you think God would WANT us to be curious about this particular moment? Anti-Christians look at everything we do with eyes of skepticism and mockery, but if we let fear of that dictate our faith, we lend them too much validity.
  3. The Eucharistic miracle is THE reason we have mass. Knowing God better and growing closer to Him is part of the experience. There world be nothing invasive at all about having unnoticeable sensors out of plain sight. Up in the choir loft, for instance.
  4. If God really wanted you to be able to visit the Moon, He’d just let us snap our fingers and be there.
    If God really wanted us to walk, we’d be born walking.
    If God wanted us to travel the Earth more quickly, He’d have given us wheels instead of feet.
    Some things, God wants us to earn through our labors.
Click to expand...
God wants us to be curious about everything- life, love, philosophy. Not everything is or should be the subject of scientific exanimation though.

Try putting a joke under a microscope.to try to find out exactly why it is funny - preposterous. Try putting your wife and yourself under a microscope to try to find out exactly why you love her - again, ridiculous.

See, I think the Eucharist is called ‘the mystery of Faith’ for a reason - like all mysteries, it is not MEANT to be scientifically probed.
 
Last edited:
Scientific investigation is exactly that: curiosity and understanding. Our faith is not blind nor should it be blind. Faith and reason are inseparable when done right.

www.livescience.com

Laughing Matter: Finding the Roots of Humor in the Brain

Scientists scanned the brains of professional comedians to understand how the brain generates jokes.
www.livescience.com www.livescience.com

www.frontiersin.org

Frontiers | Love-related changes in the brain: a resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study

Romantic love is a motivational state associated with a desire to enter or maintain a close relationship with a specific other person. Functional magnetic re...
www.frontiersin.org www.frontiersin.org

Not as ridiculous as you seem to think. Science exists to understand the ‘how’, not the ‘why’. That’s what has most people tripped up today in their understanding.

“Like all mysteries, it is not meant to be scientifically probed”
😆🤣
Sorry, I’m just wondering if you read that out loud to yourself before you submitted it. lol What’s the purpose of a mystery if not for it to be made known? I mean gosh… we’d never find a missing person with that attitude. 😁
 
MarkoOhNo said:
Scientific investigation is exactly that: curiosity and understanding. Our faith is not blind nor should it be blind. Faith and reason are inseparable when done right.

https://www.livescience.com/48775-humor-brain-activity.html

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00071/full#h2

Not as ridiculous as you seem to think. Science exists to understand the ‘how’, not the ‘why’. That’s what has most people tripped up today in their understanding.

“Like all mysteries, it is not meant to be scientifically probed”
😆🤣
Sorry, I’m just wondering if you read that out loud to yourself before you submitted it. lol What’s the purpose of a mystery if not for it to be made known? I mean gosh… we’d never find a missing person with that attitude. 😁
Click to expand...
I suggest you read a dictionary - a mystery is something difficult OR impossible.to understand or explain. I will change so far as to say some (not all) mysteries are not meant to be solved or known in this.life. And I would suggest that when the Church declares.something to be a myatery it is sheer arrogance not to listen.

There is One - and only One - whose task.it is to explain the inexplicable and He is certainly not bound to use methods comprehensoble.to human science to do so. To suggest that He us is to fall.into the sin of Adam.and Eve and think that we can be all-knowing. It is effectively to usurp the role of God.

Our faith HAS at times to be blind. We cannot observe not explain heaven, he’ll, the Trinity, the Incarnation, eternity satisfactorily
 
Last edited:
MarkoOhNo said:
“Like all mysteries, it is not meant to be scientifically probed”
😆🤣
Sorry, I’m just wondering if you read that out loud to yourself before you submitted it. lol What’s the purpose of a mystery if not for it to be made known? I mean gosh… we’d never find a missing person with that attitude. 😁
Click to expand...
You’re just not getting that it’s inappropriate to be scientifically probing a sacred mystery, something given us by God, like it’s some paranormal event from the X-Files, when there is no reason to do so except to just randomly add to your store of scientific knowledge.

The fact that you post laughing emojis at the other poster trying (like I and several people already did) to explain that to you is disturbing.

You don’t seem to have any sense of the sacred.

Muting this thread because I think this discussion is pointless, as your mind is made up that this is a good idea, and you are going to do nothing but laugh off anyone else’s good arguments and concerns to the contrary. Your posts seem very irreverent. Maybe you should discuss this with a priest so you better understand why others are not embracing the idea.
 
Last edited:
I’m laughing because basically it was said a mystery is not meant to be investigated. Which you have to admit makes no sense. Why would we call it a mystery if it’s meant to be left alone? 🤦‍♂️ That would have to be a poorly chosen word. But such is not the case. Nowhere in the Catechism does it say mysteries must be left as-is. They must be believed with eyes of faith - yes, I don’t question that - but it does not follow that they should not be studied and better known - unless you can find a reference, because I’m finding zilch on that. You can simultaneously have faith and curiosity in your Lord’s actions.

I see nothing inappropriate about looking more closely at something wondrous from God. But my question wasn’t about appropriateness. My question was if anyone knows if this has ever been done because it makes sense that it would. All I’ve been receiving, instead of responses, is shame. For what? Wanting to see my Father at work? 🤦‍♂️ Thank you for muting though if that’s all you intended to contribute and had nothing more but repetition. Hopefully someone out there can answer the actual question.
 
Last edited:
That example is the opposite of transubstantiation.

As we grow and age, our accidents change, but our substance remains the same, because we are the same person.
 
Then why is this an analogy I’ve often heard Fr Mitch use on the radio, and our parish priest in homily, in reference to the Eucharist? As they’d said, though, our physical properties remain the same (DNA does not change from conception to death) but our substance - who we are - changes with experiences, knowledge, upbringing, wisdom, etc.

Why do people keep calling the Eucharist an accident?? I’ve never heard this term used in this context and can find no use of it in the Catechism.
 
Last edited:
@MarkoOhNo

I would like some clarification on your views regarding the supernatural and science,. Would you mind answering my last question?
 
Found it. Must’ve been buried by other replies.

“…if our technology was advanced enough, we could observe such things as demons, angels, our souls, even God?”

If it’s God’s will, sure. If not, no. Would we be able to handle seeing these…? If not, again, I’d say it would not likely be God’s will and the tech would just never be made obtainable. The physical and spiritual are both creations of God. He’s called us to study His creation, so I see no reason to believe it could not be possible. If it was implied that we’re only called to study specifically His physical creations and leave the spiritual unseen, I’ve never been made aware. Considering Christ’s death tore the veil separating us from Him, again, it makes sense to me that He might be willing to let us advance enough to eventually study the spiritual.
 
“Accident” is a term in aristotelian metaphysics, which the Church uses to explain the transubstantiation. It means appearance.

If I can, I will respond the rest of your post later…
 
You stressed the word substantial(ly( in quoting the CCC), you do realize the Church’s use if that term is because if aristotelian metaphysics definition of substance and accidents? If we can detect a change in the physical properties of the host, then the Church’s teachings that the accidents remain the same is wrong. Which is why I would be surprised that we would detect any change via scientific investigation.

Now, this is not an absolute, every case teaching, the Church does not say the Eucharistic miracles where the accidents did change are bogus, it accepts them as worthy of belief. The substance always change, normally the accidents do not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top