The Eucharist — Fr. Spitzer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hope1960

Guest

What does the last paragraph on page 4, and the first paragraph on page 5 mean, exactly, when Fr. Spitzer says “ We might find this somewhat curious in today’s scientific worldview where space-time in the General Theory of Relativity has definite properties that are not physically collapsible in this way?”

Does he mean, or do his words suggest, that the General Theory of Relativity disproves Jesus in the Eucharist or tha time can’t or doesn’t collapse from the present into the future or the present into the past.
 
Last edited:
Without even looking at it I can almost guarantee that Fr Spitzer is not arguing against the True Presence.
 
What he is saying is to get us away from our cultural biases. He affirms that God transcends time, despite how we may view it today.
 
What he is saying is to get us away from our cultural biases. He affirms that God transcends time, despite how we may view it today.
Reading the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 4, and the entire first paragraph on page 5, it sounds to me that Fr. Spitzer is saying we are now more scientifically knowledgeable than in Jesus’ days and our worldviews are different, putting the Eucharist being Jesus into question, like its wrong or an ancient idea. Am I wrong?
I thought Fr. Spitzer, being a priest, believed in transubstantiation.
 
Last edited:
“In the Jewish view of sacred time, … a prophet could make time collapse from the present moment into the future, and from the present moment back into the past. We might find this somewhat curious in today’s scientific worldview where space-time in the General Theory of Relativity has definite properties that are not physically collapsible in this way.
Father Spitzer is describing a miraculous passage of events or knowledge through time. In the ancient Jewish culture, this was accepted more readily, because the physical properties of space and time were not yet known.

He is stating that the Eucharist is a miracle, but because the change in substance is deeper than can be physically measured, it must be accepted as a tenant of faith.
 
Last edited:
I have only read the first part before Part II. Transubstantiation. The resistance to finding truth in Thomistic theology seems the clear emphasis even before reading part two. Contemporary physics both appropriates the linear model with time consistent with coherent light. That is, energy, matter and time constructed as one holistic causal group. Where folding time has specific physical qualities far apart from the biblical time of virtue and salvation history.
I expect a further reference to the chaos and randomness of quantum principles is qualified later in this paper, also. More likely in the clear but implicit manner that Father is so adept at developing. I believe this “crafting” of words unfolds more from his contemplative life than from his formal training in physics. Take that to mean a gift of The Holy Spirit.
Time in physics since duality and moreso in relativity physics has no sacred nature, is not a fluid separable from the bodies in the universe. Saint Thomas did not have these tools of modernity with which to build up. Personally, I find his philosophy and insights the more amazing and profound in how consistent and truthful his work when these physical principles were unknown. It seems to point to The Gospel expressing how the learned of this world are shown foolish by the lowly of the kingdom. Pride goes before the fall as Proverbs reminds us. Father must have worked to keep this such an academic paper when the reality of what the closed perspective of modern physics implies is such fodder for mockery and the calumny that follows.
Hope this is helpful and not too far from Father’s goal.
 
Father Spitzer is describing a miraculous passage of events or knowledge through time. In the ancient Jewish culture, this was accepted more readily, because the physical properties of space and time were not yet known.

He is stating that the Eucharist is a miracle, but because the change in substance is deeper than can be physically measured, it must be accepted as a tenant of faith.
Is he saying that science contradicts our faith in transubstantiation in any way?
 
I have only read the first part before Part II. Transubstantiation. The resistance to finding truth in Thomistic theology seems the clear emphasis even before reading part two. Contemporary physics both appropriates the linear model with time consistent with coherent light. That is, energy, matter and time constructed as one holistic causal group. Where folding time has specific physical qualities far apart from the biblical time of virtue and salvation history.

I expect a further reference to the chaos and randomness of quantum principles is qualified later in this paper, also. More likely in the clear but implicit manner that Father is so adept at developing. I believe this “crafting” of words unfolds more from his contemplative life than from his formal training in physics. Take that to mean a gift of The Holy Spirit.

Time in physics since duality and moreso in relativity physics has no sacred nature, is not a fluid separable from the bodies in the universe. Saint Thomas did not have these tools of modernity with which to build up. Personally, I find his philosophy and insights the more amazing and profound in how consistent and truthful his work when these physical principles were unknown. It seems to point to The Gospel expressing how the learned of this world are shown foolish by the lowly of the kingdom. Pride goes before the fall as Proverbs reminds us. Father must have worked to keep this such an academic paper when the reality of what the closed perspective of modern physics implies is such fodder for mockery and the calumny that follows.

Hope this is helpful and not too far from Father’s goal.
That was waaaaaaaaaay over my head.
 
Could you or anyone, please read Part II, Transubstantiation, — the end of Page 7 through Page11 and tell me, in English:
  1. If Fr. Spitzer believes in Transubstantiation?
  2. And if science contradicts our belief in transubstantiation in any way?
 
Last edited:
He is saying that moderns might not think the Real Presence is possible, but it is possible. He then talks about why.
 
Could you or anyone, please read Part II, Transubstantiation, — the end of Page 7 through Page11 and tell me, in English:
  1. If Fr. Spitzer believes in Transubstantiation?
  2. And if science contradicts our belief in transubstantiation in any way?
  1. Yes
  2. No
Any perceived contradiction comes from misunderstanding/disagreement on what is meant by “substance”. The change in the consecrated host was never going to be detectable upon mere physical examination, no matter how extensive. As Fr. Spitzer says, it’s much deeper than that, and the faithful who receive it can and do perceive the effects of the change on the soul.
 
Last edited:
No, just that the Eucharist is not knowable to the physical sciences.
 
Fr. Spitzer clarifies by saying this:

“However God transcends time and can take any event in the future or the past and collapse it into an event in the present. This is precisely what Jesus believed and intended at the Last Supper.”

In other words, the events of the Last Supper, the crucifixion, and all subsequent Eucharists are effectively the same event, made present to every generation.
 
If Fr. Spitzer believes in Transubstantiation?

And if science contradicts our belief in transubstantiation in any way?
Yes he believes in transubstantiation.

No it does not impact in any way our belief in transubstantiation.

You are looking for something that is not there.
 
He is describing the difference between how we view time vs how they viewed time, so as to better understand how Jesus’ words sounded to the culture in which He was living His Earthly Life as opposed to how we might think of it just reading it by ourselves.

There is a reason he said God is above time.

Yes, he believes in the Eucharist.
 
Last edited:
Kei, and does science contradict our belief in transubstantiation in any way?
 
Last edited:
The Eucharist is ultimately a miraculous phenomenon. The substance of bread changes–philosophically this shouldn’t be possible except by supernatural miracle. God in Catholicism is omnipotent, you see.
 
The Eucharist is ultimately a miraculous phenomenon. The substance of bread changes–philosophically this shouldn’t be possible except by supernatural miracle. God in Catholicism is omnipotent, you see.
But what I mean, is based on what Fr. Spitzer wrote, does science contradict transubstantiation in any way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top