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.