Has The Catholic Mass Ever Been Scientifically Studied?

[MarkoOhNo]

I didn’t stress it. I copy/pasted that section from the Catechism as it was.

The substance changes, yes. But is it not possible that substantial change could also impact the physical? Using people as an example again, experiencing moments of great distress creates change in a person at a substantial level. But at times this also seems to trigger some physical changes like hair losing melanin, turning grey in patches. It just seems worthy of research to me. If nothing comes of it, no harm is done. If something wondrous is discovered, on the other hand, it would only do good so far as I can imagine. Like with genealogy - it doesn’t disrespect your Father to seek a better or clearer understanding of Him. Most knowledge of Him available to be understood we’ll never understand within our mortal lifetimes, but it still seems to me that we honor Him by at least striving to do so.

Not that I personally have any means by which to do this. As I said before, it’s purely speculative.

 

[tafan2]

I didn’t stress it. I copy/pasted that section from the Catechism as it was.

Sorry, I assumed you added the italics.

The substance changes, yes. But is it not possible that substantial change could also impact the physical?

That would imply the accidents also change. Possible? Yes, in the rare cases of what are commonly referred to as Euchastic miracles. Normally? No, the accidents do not change.

Using people as an example again, experiencing moments of great distress creates change in a person at a substantial level.

No, you are using a different definition for substantial (substance) than what the Church is using when it uses the word with regards to the teaching of transubstantiation. When we experience a great stress, our substance does not change. We are the same person, the same being.

 

[MarkoOhNo]

Okay, I guess I’m just confused on substance. I’d swear I recall Father Mitch using this as a Eucharistic analogy on his program…

They don’t normally change, right - not at an observable level. The question I’m pondering however is perhaps the unobservable change creates an observable effect. We can’t observe gravity, but we can observe it’s effect. We can’t readily observe UV rays, even though they’re all around us. We can’t observe gamma radiation, but we have technology which can detect it. Jesus came to Earth the first time heralded by light. Light seems to be a repeatedly intrinsic quality of the Lord. It stands to reason that a light of some sort might be observable as He enters our presence as the Eucharist, but not readily observable though, since flash and flare has never been His style so much. (Unless, again, I’m misunderstanding transubstantiation.) Again… just a thought. Whenever I get ideas this strongly immediately after Communion they always feel inspired. I thought it might be worth putting forth this time. But I’m barely a scholar let alone a Theological one. lol

 

[tafan2]

It’s fine, I am certainly no metaphysical expert, so I could have some if this wrong also. Hence, while I have disagreed with your theory about science observing a change at the point if consecration, I have tried not to be too absolute and definitive.

 

[Dovekin]

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.

This is the point.

Transubstantiation asserts that what happens at the consecration does not need sensory confirmation. Sometimes there are Eucharistic miracles where the senses confirm the change, but those are extraordinary, miraculous. If scientific equipment were to detect a change, it would be considered miraculous, not ordinary. If it were ordinary, it would be a denial of transubstantiation.

The Eucharistic miracle is THE reason we have mass.

We have mass to recall the sacrifice of Christ and join ourselves to it. The Eucharistic miracle is a consequence of Christ being present to us and a grace to unite us in the one Body of Christ.

 

[Cruciferi]

Perhaps in the future, respectful study and research of these miracles will benefit humanity. God has been very generous!

 

[Sursumcorda1]

Given the radiant face of Moses in Exodus 34:29-35 after speaking with God and other possible related stories such as priests entering the Holy of Holies with a rope tied around their waist to pull them out in case they died from seeing God and compare those to radiation exposure symptoms which don’t exactly match, I conclude that God is on a different energy spectrum. The image on the Shroud of Turin has been theorized to be a radiation-projected image.

 

[PetraG]

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.

No, that really isn’t what mystery means in the Catholic sense–that is, it is not a who-dunnit that is meant to be “solved.”

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.

The concern is that subjecting the Holy Mass to experimental examination when there is no belief that there even are physical changes to observe will shift the focus from adoration to investigation. The moment that is the Mass is not a moment for investigation, but a moment for worship and thanksgiving.

No, we’re not going to put priests in MRIs and watch which parts of their brains light up while they offer the Mass, either. It is not appropriate. It is fine to turn the mind of science to this kind of thing, but actually doing the experiments you’re suggesting presents a serious problem in terms of reverence and the disposition of the faithful that every Mass deserves.

 

[Pattylt]

You commented earlier that even if the science came up negative that there would be no harm. I suggest that there would be. Any Catholic that wavers on whether a change takes place would be harmed. The non Catholics that would point it out as proof that nothing happens would have further ammunition. There could be great potential for harm. Why would the Church attempt this with the potential for so much harm? The risk is too high. The Eucharist is to be taken on faith. Stick with that.