Re: Modern Physics and Transubstantiation

Joseph,

I was listening to Catholic Radio this morning, and there was an interview of Fr. Michael Kirkland, an  Orthodox Archpriest and author of the website one-catholic-church.com. He talked about how the Western and Eastern churches differ in their approaches to the mystery of the True Presence. The primary point he was trying to make about this was that in the Eastern churches, they actually do not frequently refer to the consecration of the Eucharist with the term "Transubstantiation," in part because they want to emphasize the fact that it is a mystery. As I understood, he was suggesting that by using a term such as "transubstantiation," there is a danger that one might reduce the mystery to something other than a mystery - namely, something that is entirely comprehensible if one analyzes it in the proper fashion. The interviewer and the Fr. Kirkland agreed that the East and the West could benefit from a deeper consideration of each other's approaches to the matter.

To bring my focus back to your original questions, I revisited your original post. My current thoughts - which by no means do I communicate with the intent of having any sort of finality - on these questions are:

"Thus, would the way in which we explain the mystery of the Eucharist itself need rework?"

My opinion is that the explanation of the mystery doesn't need to be reworked, strictly speaking, but I suspect this is obvious. I do, however, think that it may be intellectually and spiritually rewarding for people to continue to give the question consideration.

"Perhaps I am misreading how the Church has interpreted substances and accidents and they are a different concept from the one used in the physics of old?"

This is a possibility, but I would guess that the current ideas used closely resemble the ancient ones. I would think that if they changed the ideas employed, that they would also change the language.

"I was wondering if anyone in the last few hundred years had tried to work out a way to make sense of the real, physical presence of Christ that was not totally dependent on concepts from medieval/ancient physics, but equally as powerful as the traditional explanation. In your opinion, does this need to be done?"

I am not aware of anyone who has done so. As with the response to your first question above, I don't think such a new explanation needs to be offered. However, it could be an endeavor that is rewarding (possibly even very rewarding) in ways that we can't accurately foresee. (Of course, it may instead be an endeavor that is a complete waste of one's time. :)

"If nobody that we know of has, are there any ways in which we could start?"

I think that doing so would first call for an in-depth study and thorough understanding of both the line of reasoning underlying the logic of Transubstantiation (preferably from a primary or secondary source), the theories of physics employed (which may differ in subtle but important ways from pure Aristotelian physics, I don't know), and how these theories differ from recent theories in physics.

---

I revisited the passage you referenced in your original post from the book The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages. Something about it caught my attention. It says:

"In fact, they [the accidents of the host] inhere to nothing, which was a nonsensical statement in Aristotle's physics."

I had to look up the word "inhere," which dictionary.com defines as "to exist permanently and inseparably in, as a quality, attribute, or element; belong intrinsically; be inherent." Given this definition, the statement above is odd to me. Accidents as I understand them are, by definition, transitory aspects of an entity. Using the terms above, they "inhere to nothing." But I am sure that Aristotle knew this was true in some cases, no? Do his physics really claim that accidents inhere to something? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the above statement.

"As I was writing this I had a thought. Perhaps if we view modern science as having receded in scope from the study of substances to the precise, mathematical study of the accidents, we can render the concept of transubstantiation more intelligible. It would be simple to say that substance is a truth that lies outside of the scope of physics then, would it not?"

Here I believe you are touching on a question of fundamental importance in philosophical inquiry regarding the nature of mathematics. Is math itself something invented - that is, something that humans create - or is it something discovered? What is its relation to the physical world? In a way, I believe math blurs the line between forms and physical entities, since it seems to be the language by which physical entities can be accurately explained. I remember that one of my coworkers in the past who seemed to have an aversion to religious belief sometimes expressed his sentiment that mathematics are entirely made up by humans. He ran into a bit of trouble when I asked him the question, "Well then why is pi irrational?" Stephen Barr, whom I mentioned in a previous post in this discussion, addresses topics relevant to such questions in a chapter of his book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (I believe it was in the chapter "Can Matter 'Understand'?"). For a more in depth consideration of these questions from the perspective of a scientist addressing atheism, I recommend having a look at that chapter.

Patrick

Re: Modern Physics and Transubstantiation

I recently met a Benedictine monk who serves a Catholic community near where I live. I spoke with him and found out that he is a scholar of the High Middle Ages, having written or contributed to some books on the subject. I believe he said that in his studies his primary focus was Dietrich of Frieberg.  The High Middle Ages are actually relevant to our discussion, since, as I understand, this is when the idea of transubstantiation to explain the True Presence arose.

One point on which he corrected me was on my thinking that St. Thomas Aquinas was the one to formulate transubstantiation: that is, the use of principles from the ancient Greeks to offer an explanation of the True Presence. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions Hildebert of Tours as the first to use the term "transubstantiation" in this article on the True Presence.

A point that the priest offered for consideration is that advancements in physics (and science in general) are arguably not all that relevant to questions regarding the True Presence. Although I am paraphrasing here (I don't have an exact record of what he said), my understanding of the point he was making was that the explanation of the True Presence using transubstantiation will always have some merit, in that part of the nature of the mystery is that there will always be a undetectable aspect of what has happened during the consecration of the bread. What we see (the "accidents") will never completely reflect what has happened to the object's essence (its "substance"), regardless of how advanced our techniques, theories, or formulas become.

An engineering student happened to be in this conversation also. He added to Father's perspective in a way that I found somewhat helpful. He reminded me that science is not a means to establish a complete explanation of anything. It is, rather, a means to proposing principles to better understand what we have observed. As I understand, science by definition is not capable of providing us with understandings of "essences" or the like.

Now, in spite of the fact that this is an insightful response with points to be kept in mind, I still find this answer still a bit lacking. My response to it was that our models of the physical world have indeed improved and have indeed proved more useful. These improvements have provided much greater understandings of the physical world. Even if these improved theories can never fully explain the True Presence, can they at least shed light on the doctrine and help us to better understand it and the implications of it on our lives? After all, even philosophy, which I suspect many, if not most, would argue is ill-equipped for fully explaining some mysteries of the Faith such as the True Presence, is nonetheless employed to help us better understand the general nature of these mysteries and how they effect our lives (consider, for example, St. Augustine's De Trinitatis).

It occurred to me that one interesting aspect of conversations on this topic is that even when one sets out to have a discussion that is anchored upon science and its recent advancements, it seems that it inevitably ends up becoming philosophical. This may very well be due to the fact that I am not a physicist and my knowledge of physics - especially the physics established in the last century - is quite limited. Now, I'm not a philosopher either, but I think in a way the only requirement to do philosophy (albeit maybe not necessarily good philosophy) is to be a rational being (note that young children are notorious for asking philosophical questions!).

Perhaps part of what I am getting at might be this question: what are the minimum qualifications in the field of science to be able to have this discussion? I think I may be far from qualified even to approach it from the scientific perspective! Or maybe I've digressed. If so, please feel free to get me back on track.

Joseph,

I'm glad to see you chime in. Physics and philosophy are inherently head-hurting, which I must confess is part of the fun of them for me. That said, their pursuit is necessary and is a serious endeavour for me, though I can only do it in passing.

I guess the root of the matter, and why I brought up the question, is that the Church teaches things as true which we then try our best to explain or understand. To seek to understand is part of our humanity. In doing so, at least in this particular instance, we invoked the language of the science of the day. This science has long been discredited, but we still use its language and terminology due to the clarity with which they convey the truths that the Church intends to teach. However, since the science has changed and one of the ways in which transubstantiation was made so powerful of a tool has gone from the common parlance, we ought to think of ways in which that same truth might be conveyed, or perhaps ways to explain and thus re-enervate the underlying concepts and principles behind St. Thomas's work and that of the other scholastics.

This need not be a discussion just for dealing with troublesome protestants. I guess that having thought about the nature of the Eucharist and how it might be understood by us humans would probably be beneficial for us as well. This is the central mystery of our faith.

Iosephus Minor

From Joseph Richardson:

Both physics and philosophy (especially Aristotle) make my head hurt. I take a much simpler approach, especially to Protestants who come at me with the cudgel that in such-and-such a year the Church "invented transubstantiation." No, the Church did not "invent transubstantiation."

Transubstantiation was Thomas Aquinas's best, most worthy attempt to explain in philosophical terms what the Church has always believed: that when Jesus said "this is My Body," that is exactly what He meant — not "this symbolizes my body"; not "this contains my body." The importance of transubstantiation is that it states clearly and precisely that belief: that the Host becomes His Body and Blood and is no longer bread and wine. Beyond that, despite our best human understanding, the Eucharist is a mystery. If the Aristotelean underpinning of transubstantiation is lacking, that is not a problem for the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is at best an approximation, an attempt to wrap our minds around the mystery of the divine. It works well for stating our precepts, but anybody who thinks they are undermining the Eucharist by undermining Aristotle is misunderstanding.
So in short, if somebody has a better idea with which to state what we believe while retaining the theological precision of transubstantiation, that's great. But it isn't necessary. I am comfortable believing in the Eucharist as the mystery of our faith.

--The Other Joseph P.S. Before I became Catholic, I thought my name was fairly uncommon. It was only when Baxley was around that I had a problem. Now, I've learned not to turn my head when somebody calls my name, since there are bound to be a dozen or so Josephs in the room.

Patrick,

Thank you for the response. I look forward to reading what you will write when you have time to make a more in-depth exposition of your views and opinions. It is very pleasant to find that I'm not alone in having found and identified this question. The articles you sent me are very good, though I have not had the time to watch the lecture yet. I do intend to, and once I have I may have a more detailed response.

I don't reckon that medieval physics being disproved is cause for saying we can't use transubstantiation anymore as a way of understanding the mystery. When explained in its classical form it is the most potent form of explanation for the True Presence that I have come across. It is unfortunate that it has lost some of its might over the centuries, since it must have been that much more powerful to our elders when everyone assumed a world of substance and accident.
One thing that I do not understand is that in the article about quantum physics, when Dr. Barr tries to show specific formulations by which the Real Presence could be conveyed without the language and tooling of Aristotle's physics, all of the examples of alternative beliefs about the Eucharist that he gave have been condemned as heretical at one time or the other. I didn't see an example of how to construct transubstantiation without Aristotle.

I do not doubt that there are truths that cannot be demonstrated from within the realm of the natural sciences. I do wonder though if the Eucharist can be explained intelligibly using any of the modern framework for the natural sciences that we have today, or if anyone has tried. I did not much appreciate Fr. Kelly's remarks assuming that just because Aristotle has been proven wrong we can't intelligibly believe Christ to be truly present. That's acknowledging a potential problem (with Aristotle) and then just giving up on finding a solution.

As I was writing this I had a thought. Perhaps if we view modern science as having receded in scope from the study of substances to the precise, mathematical study of the accidents, we can render the concept of transubstantiation more intelligible. It would be simple to say that substance is a truth that lies outside of the scope of physics then, would it not?

These are my preliminary reactions, thoughts, and follow-on questions, and as time goes on I may have deeper ones. Thank you very much for the thought provoking response. Discussions like this are fun and edifying.

God Bless,

Joseph

Re: Modern Physics and Transubstantiation

Joseph,

Thanks for the message. Good to hear from you. I would like to send a more in-depth response. However, I've been fairly busy in the past few weeks, so I may not get a chance in the near future to do so. Nonetheless, I wanted to send at least a brief response with my initials thoughts, as I have asked similar questions before regarding transubstantiation. 

Stephen Barr, who is a Catholic, a particle physicist, a professor at the University of Delaware, and author of the book 'Modern Physics and Ancient Faith,' wrote a short post at the 'First Things' website entitled 'Does Quantum Physics Render Transubstantiation Meaningless?' that is relevant. Barr responds to some of the comments given in the combox of his article, and the discussion is worth consideration.

Personally, I don't believe that a disproof of medieval physics is sufficient to nullify the merit of transubstantiation as a model for developing a deeper understanding of the True Presence. There are some realities that can be proven by methods outside of the realm of physics. A paradigm for understanding the physical world based on substances and accidents, although lacking as a way of thinking about subatomic phenomena or something of that nature, may still be a worthwhile for gaining insights into metaphysical truths.

A basic example I used in one of the very old DCMission videos was the change that occurs between two people after they get married (Note that the quality of DCMission videos improved quite a bit since those early videos!) Most of the content of the DCMission video above is not directly relevant to the question on Transubstantiation. To save you the trouble of having to watch the material that isn't directly relevant, here is a transcript of the talk in the video. The part on Transubstantiation begins in the seventh paragraph.

Anyhow, I realize that these are far from comprehensive answers to your questions, but maybe they will get you started.

On a different note that might be of interest to you, I will also send a link to a talk by Stephen Barr titled "Physics, the Nature of Time and Theology." He gave the talk in 2011 at Steubenville's Science and Faith Conference. HD Video recordings of all of the talks from the conference are available online.

Another resource that I have found helpful for questions like these is Oxford's Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion. Fr. Andrew Pinsent B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Ph.B., S.T.B., Ph.L, Ph.D. (he has PhDs in both physics and philosophy) is the director of the Ian Ramsey Centre. They post video recordings of many in-depth lectures on various topics within the area of science and religion. There are a few of Fr. Pinsent's talks posted.

 Thanks again for the note.

God Bless,
Patrick

• Conversation started Monday
• 

  2/24, 10:01pm

  Joseph Baxley
  

  
  

  Hey,
  
  I have been reading "The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages" and this afternoon it gave me an interesting question that I wondered if any of you had thought about. I'm asking y'all because you're the most thoughtful Catholics on my friends list and I figured you might be as intrigued by the question as I am. I may bring it up to some people who are not on Facebook as well.
  
  When discussing how theologians had used Aristotelian Philosophy to explain questions in theology, one of the examples that Dr. Edward Grant gave was the theology surrounding the Eucharist. They used Aristotle to explain the transformation of the Eucharist thusly: When the Eucharist is consecrated, the substance of the bread is removed and replaced with the substance of Christ. In this way he is said to be substantially present. The accidents, that is the feel, taste, and form of the bread remain. The accidents however do not inhere to the substance of Christ. In fact, they inhere to nothing, which was a nonsensical statement in Aristotle's physics. Here, they said, was the miracle of God's work.
  
  That is now pretty much the textbook explanation for how Christ is made present in the Eucharist. The difficulty that I see is that medieval physics and its definitions of substances and accidents has been shown to be a less than adequate model for the workings of the universe. Thus, would the way in which we explain the mystery of the Eucharist itself need rework? Perhaps I am misreading how the Church has interpreted substances and accidents and they are a different concept from the one used in the physics of old? I was wondering if anyone in the last few hundred years had tried to work out a way to make sense of the real, physical presence of Christ that was not totally dependent on concepts from medieval/ancient physics, but equally as powerful as the traditional explanation. In your opinion, does this need to be done? If nobody that we know of has, are there any ways in which we could start?
  I hope this message finds you well.
  
  Sincerely,
  Joseph