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