Transubstantiation and Catholic Scientists

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that the key to understanding transubstantiation is that Jesus has chosen to communicate with us in forms that are familiar to us, such as baptism by water (not fire), appearing as a baby and man (as opposed to a burning bush) and in the form of wine and bread (something that we see everyday, even 2000 years later). http://www.datamar.info/avatar4.jpg
 
The way I understand it, and I might be wrong, is that My wife Lizzi is still her ‘old self’ but is also 100% physically ‘my wife’ (since we are sacramentally married!) as well as maintaining her old appearance.

I used to think that there would have to be a physical change to flesh
 
RosaryFan said:
Scrutinizing under a microscope would do nothing, since the accidents of bread and wine remain after they are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Steve Ray says in his video (and I’m paraphrasing) that if you put Christ’s flesh under a microscope while He was walking the earth, you would not have seen His divinity. Same goes for the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
You and some of the others here seem to be saying that the molecular structure of something is simply one of its “accidents”. I have trouble buying that. Physically speaking, something is what is because it has a certain molecular structure. If you try to disconnect molecular structure from the notion of “substance”, you empty “substance” of any content whatsoever. Basically, what this is all shows is that the “substance/accident” categories that Aquinas took from Aristotle cannot stand in the face of our knowledge, and that the doctrine of the Eucharist cannot be based on them.

As for the Steve Ray statement, it does not work since Christ was truly Man, but the doctrine of transubstantiation denies that the Host is truly bread.
 
I liked the explanation given by Father Barron in Catholicism. Jesus is the Word become flesh. When he speaks it has intrinsic and all powerful meaning. He tells a lame man to get up and walk, and the man gets up and walks. He tells someone who is dead to be raised and they are raised. He says a piece of bread is his body, and its becomes his body. Jesus is the Word that was spoken in the beginning that formed all of Creation in whatever manner that would have been. Objective truth is determined by Jesus’ Word not by our subjective perceptions because Jesus’ Word is the cause of Creation in the first place.
 
Schism_hater said:
You and some of the others here seem to be saying that the molecular structure of something is simply one of its “accidents”. I have trouble buying that. Physically speaking, something is what is because it has a certain molecular structure. If you try to disconnect molecular structure from the notion of “substance”, you empty “substance” of any content whatsoever. Basically, what this is all shows is that the “substance/accident” categories that Aquinas took from Aristotle cannot stand in the face of our knowledge, and that the doctrine of the Eucharist cannot be based on them.
Click to expand...
Hi SH,

I think that is a good line of inquiry. But, first I think we should explore one part of your objection more.

You say that “something is what is because it has a certain molecular structure”.

It seems to me that this statement invalidates itself in order to differentiate molecular structures from each other. What I mean is that my intuition says that in order to differentiate the various molecular structures you eventually have to talk about atoms, and subatomic particles. Atoms then, wouldn’t be differentiated by molecular structure. They would be differentiated by subatomic particles, I suppose. And this would mean – if I am right about this – that something (in this case an atom of x) isn’t what it is because it has a certain molecular structure.

And the above also makes me want to know how we are differentiating subatomic particles – like an electron from a nucleus. What makes them what they are? And what makes what they are made out (elementary subatomic particles) what they are?

Just some thoughts.
VC
 
Deconi said:
One final interesting point about the five blood clots in the chalice is that when you weigh one of them, it is the same weight as all five together, two of them together weigh the same as all five. In fact no matter what way you combine the blood clots individually or in a group to weigh them, they always weigh the same. (This shows that the full Jesus is present in a particle of the Eucharist no matter how small.)
Click to expand...
I’m very interested in the weights of clots. Did the NASA scientists video their lab work ?

I’d like to see the scale readings … as the various 5 clots are being weighed individually and in various combinations. If this video exists … it should find its way to internet. If it doesn’t, the Church should let its Vatican scientists perform a weigh-in … and video the event for the faithful !!!
 
Deconi said:
One final interesting point about the five blood clots in the chalice is that when you weigh one of them, it is the same weight as all five together, two of them together weigh the same as all five. In fact no matter what way you combine the blood clots individually or in a group to weigh them, they always weigh the same. (This shows that the full Jesus is present in a particle of the Eucharist no matter how small.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining that, Deconi. I never understood what the weight of the blood clots meant.
 
why does science feel they have to test the bread and wine? these elements are the Lord’s Supper, nothing more nothing less. Jesus died a real bloody sacrifice. His supper is a feast celebration to give thanks and praise for the suffering and dying He went through for the sins of the world. He resurrected to bring us home.
 
MaryIrene said:
why does science feel they have to test the bread and wine? these elements are the Lord’s Supper, nothing more nothing less. Jesus died a real bloody sacrifice. His supper is a feast celebration to give thanks and praise for the suffering and dying He went through for the sins of the world. He resurrected to bring us home.
Click to expand...
I don’t see any evidence that actual scientists tested anything in the case of Lanciano or Turin or any other ones that the Catholic Church has to offer.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I don’t see any evidence that actual scientists tested anything in the case of Lanciano or Turin or any other ones that the Catholic Church has to offer.
Click to expand...
Well, they have … but, we only have their written accounts, and some fotos. The actual test data exists, but any skeptic can easily disregard that, w/o other independent evidence to support. That’s why a video of the test, where the clots were weighted, would be very telling. Short of video evidence, a thorough examination by different scientists, with independent weight data, would be needed to confirm this ‘preliminary’ evidence that Deconi [in Post #34] refers to. I don’t think NASA scientists would make this up. But, we surely need more information and the Church should allow it to be gathered and presented … to the faithful and skeptics alike.

Afterall, Christ was frequently performing miracles for the Jews / Gentiles in his day … I’m sure He would have no problems allowing the Church to demonstrate to the World that He continues to perform a miracle at each/every Eucharistic Mass.
 
My super viagra arrived yesterday. It is a magic! I had an unforgettable night. I am lucky that I ordered a big package of it.
Erectile Dysfunction such as cialis super, you should feel very fine!
 
brb3 said:
Well, they have … but, we only have their written accounts, and some fotos. The actual test data exists, but any skeptic can easily disregard that, w/o other independent evidence to support. That’s why a video of the test, where the clots were weighted, would be very telling. Short of video evidence, a thorough examination by different scientists, with independent weight data, would be needed to confirm this ‘preliminary’ evidence that Deconi [in Post #34] refers to. I don’t think NASA scientists would make this up. But, we surely need more information and the Church should allow it to be gathered and presented … to the faithful and skeptics alike.

Afterall, Christ was frequently performing miracles for the Jews / Gentiles in his day … I’m sure He would have no problems allowing the Church to demonstrate to the World that He continues to perform a miracle at each/every Eucharistic Mass.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that the Church ‘responds’ to skeptics or skeptic-faithful by ‘proving this or that’, Brb3. You’ll see throughout Her history that people are left to exercise their free-will whether to believe or not believe anything they want. What She does is, just speak the truth and that’s it!

Now, She, may not have made a proclamation that Our Lord’s blood type is this or that; nor definitively settle arguments that the Shroud is indeed His burial cloth etc. But, I take confidence in what She DOES NOT say! That is, to reprimand any clergy or faithful Catholics who look to these as holy relics of the Church! I know for a fact that She CANNOT deliberately mislead me! It is IMPOSSIBLE for Her to do that! Therefore, I am free to muse as I do, plus the continuing studies of bio-physics I know on the Shroud strengthens my convictions.

Maybe the Church may allow intermittent study of Lanciano as She does Turin given that technology has progressed to much better methods in regards accuracy. What we already know is that skepticism and unbelief will remain, just as the conclusions of previous studies shows, for this Faith is not based on miracles or the understanding of them, but on the decision to accept Our Lord. He did say that even if a dead man were to be raised from the dead ‘they’ would not believe! (paraphrased)

:cool:
 
Deconi said:
Maybe the Church may allow intermittent study of Lanciano as She does Turin given that technology has progressed to much better methods in regards accuracy.
Click to expand...
She already has. The NASA scientists & others have done testing on the Eucharist clots. The Vatican should release the full data & any videos of the testing, regarding weights, etc. Then, if additional testing confirmed the original findings … firm proof would be had.

All matter has weight. This would be so simple to conduct … and such powerful evidence to the secular scientists, if confirmed by independent testing.
 
brb3 said:
She already has. The NASA scientists & others have done testing on the Eucharist clots. The Vatican should release the full data & any videos of the testing, regarding weights, etc. Then, if additional testing confirmed the original findings … firm proof would be had.

All matter has weight. This would be so simple to conduct … and such powerful evidence to the secular scientists, if confirmed by independent testing.
Click to expand...
I would like proof that NASA did testing on the clots
 
Schism_hater said:
You and some of the others here seem to be saying that the molecular structure of something is simply one of its “accidents”. I have trouble buying that. Physically speaking, something is what is because it has a certain molecular structure. If you try to disconnect molecular structure from the notion of “substance”, you empty “substance” of any content whatsoever. Basically, what this is all shows is that the “substance/accident” categories that Aquinas took from Aristotle cannot stand in the face of our knowledge, and that the doctrine of the Eucharist cannot be based on them.

As for the Steve Ray statement, it does not work since Christ was truly Man, but the doctrine of transubstantiation denies that the Host is truly bread.
Click to expand...
You may be right that we could very much use an articulation of the doctrine that does not depend so much on the philosophical categories of “substance” and “accidents.”

However, I don’t think the claim is that the molecules themselves are part of the accidents. Rather, every way we have of detecting or measuring molecular structure is only going to “see” the accidents, just as on a macroscopic scale we see, smell, and taste bread and wine. There is no bread or wine there, so there are no actual molecules that make up bread or wine there. However, just as our eyes and nose and tongue still react as though there were bread or wine there, our tests and instruments will react as though there were molecules of the expected arrangement there.

The (imperfect) analogy I always use for the Eucharist is the scene in The Matrix where Cypher is eating a steak and commenting on its sensory qualities while admitting that there’s really no underlying steak there – the look and smell and taste are all just data being fed to his brain. Presumably, if he were to take a sample of his simulated steak to be tested, the results would be as expected for steak, since scientists in the movie’s world haven’t easily deduced that they are living in a simulation. That “steak” lacks all steaky substance, and certainly contains no molecules of cow tissue, but has all the accidents of steak on every level.

So it is with the Eucharist, but instead of nothing “underneath,” there is the glorified Christ in His entirety. The original substance of the bread and wine are changed at the consecration into the substance of Jesus. God maintains the appearances of bread and wine in existence, continuing to feed data to our brains (and scientific tests/instruments) that is at odds with the underlying reality. He does this not to deceive, since He has told us the truth of the matter, but so that we may receive Him by the familiar mechanisms of eating and drinking.

Usagi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top