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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment