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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment