Catholic World News reports that Fr. Michael Kelly, S.J. the CEO of the Asian Catholic News agency, finds the Catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation” meaningless in this “post-Newtonian world of quantum physics”. Since I use quantum mechanics every day in my work, I think I can match my understanding of this post-Newtonian world of quantum physics against Fr. Kelly’s, and I do not find the doctrine “meaningless”.
Here is what CWN reports:
Stating that “Catholics can become fanatical about one form of the Body of Christ in the bread of the Eucharist as the REAL presence of Christ,” Father Michael Kelly, the Jesuit CEO of the Asian Catholic news agency UCA News, criticized the doctrine of transubstantiation in a May 24 column.
In his column– a critique of the new, more accurate liturgical translations that reflect the content and dignity of the original Latin– Father Kelly writes:
“Regrettably, all too frequently, the only Presence focused on is Christ’s presence in the elements of bread and wine. Inadequately described as the change of the ‘substance’ (not the ‘accidents’) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, the mystery of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist carries the intellectual baggage of a physics no one accepts. Aristotelian physics makes such nice, however implausible and now unintelligible, distinctions. They are meaningless in the post-Newtonian world of quantum physics, which is the scientific context we live in today.”
It was a standard maneuver of dissident theologians in the 1960s to affect incomprehension of binding doctrine rather than honestly and forthrightly saying that they rejected it. No one is fooled by that transparent ploy anymore, and one assumes that Fr. Kelly realizes that. It must be, therefore, that he is genuinely confused. I will try to unconfuse him.
The Church has made it clear that one does not have to accept all of Aristotelian philosophy to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. The substance of the doctrine (so to speak) is easily explained without the Aristotelian terminology. To say that ‘the accidents of bread and wine’ remain after consecration means that empirically the consecrated elements are completely indistinguishable from bread and wine. They taste like bread and wine; they look like bread and wine; they would, if made to react chemically or placed in a mass spectrograph, behave in every way just as bread and wine do. To say that ‘the substance’ of the consecrated elements is the Body and Blood of Christ, means that in reality the elements are no longer bread and wine but are the Body and Blood of Christ.
If one looks at the consecrated elements and asks ‘What are these?”, the correct answer (according to the doctrine of transubstantiation) is “These are the Body and Blood of Christ.” If one asks, “What do these appear to be under any empirical test?”, the answer is “bread and wine.” Basically, that is all there is to it. The dogmatic definition used Aristotelian terminology to express this, but it can be expressed without that terminology.
Some alternative beliefs to transubstantiation are the following:
(a) The consecrated elements not only appear to be but are bread and wine, and only symbolize the Body and Blood of Christ.
(b) The consecrated elements are not in themselves the Body and Blood of Christ, but spiritually and in effect are for the believer who consumes them, in the sense that when the believer consumes them he is united in a spiritual manner with the Body of Christ. (The corollary being that if the elements are not consumed or are consumed by a non-believer, they are not the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus the “presence” of Christ depends on both what is done with the consecrated elements and on the internal disposition of the recipient.)
(c) The consecrated elements are still bread and wine, but in some way the Body and Blood of Christ is also present with them or in them in a manner that is objective in that it does not depend on the disposition of the recipient (“consubstantiation”).
In short, one can explain the doctrine of transubstantiation and distinguish it from other beliefs about the Eucharist without any use of the Aristotelian apparatus. I don’t know what quantum mechanics has to do with any of this. If anything, quantum mechanics makes a straightforward connection between what appears empirically and what is “really there” more obscure than it was in Newtonian physics, and to that extent would make it easier rather than harder to affirm the doctrine.
May 25th, 2010 | 2:18 pm
For one thing, the distinction between substance and accident is made in his Categories, part of the Organon; viz. in one of his logical treatises. So it is a conception of philosophy proper, not natural science. That we cannot predict the positions and momentums of subatomic particulars perfectly, but within a probability distribution, is perfectly irrelevant to the nature of being qua being and human reason, which are the subjects of the Organon.
May 25th, 2010 | 2:55 pm
But, but… “Post-Newtonian world of quantum physics” makes one sound smart enough to not believe in stoopid medieval stuffs anymore!
Oh wow, and this guy is a Jesuit?
May 25th, 2010 | 3:00 pm
“….the substance of the doctrine is easily explained…” Stick to physics, professor.
May 25th, 2010 | 3:55 pm
Some how injecting science into what is faith and expecting them to be “=” does neither subject the relevance of their position. Scripture and tradition direct us to the unseen/outside science. While science directs us to the observable/quantifiable. We are made of matter yet something more much more. When does conception/life occur? There is no new element observed to lead us to make that statement. I yield to science to explain creation, but I believe in the Creator because of Faith.
May 25th, 2010 | 4:32 pm
Excellent point: “If anything, quantum mechanics makes a straightforward connection between what appears empirically and what is ‘really there’ more obscure than it was in Newtonian physics, and to that extent would make it easier rather than harder to affirm the doctrine.”
May 25th, 2010 | 4:52 pm
One can only wonder how Fr. Kelly understands this belief – that the Church “is an organism of the Holy Spirit, something alive encompassing us all from within. … The Church “is not an institution that was thought out and constructed…but a living being. It lives again through time; becoming, just as everything alive becomes, changing … and nevertheless always the same in essence, for its innermost core is Christ.” (Romano Guardini) The Church “is the mystical body, i.e. Christ grounds it ever anew, in it, he is never just past but always and above all present and future. The Church means the presence of Christ, our contemporaneity with him, …The Church’s first word is Christ and not itself …Because Christ is the light of the world, there is the mirror of his glory, the Church, which transmits his splendor.” (Pope Benedict, writing in Communio). The Pope has written elsewhere that any attempt to explain the Faith using the methods of science makes us “ridiculous”. He also suggests that if we are going to trade the deposit of Faith piece by piece for the conclusions of, say, physics, we would be well-advised and more honest to admit that we have reached “the end of the road.” Faith in God, faith in the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the altar, is proclaimed by the Church as settled doctrine, known by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by human power.
May 25th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
So a priest is claiming a doctrine to be meaningless by appealing to something (in this case, quantum physics) that he doesn’t understand the meaning of….
Makes sense.
May 25th, 2010 | 5:32 pm
[with tongue firmly planted in cheek]
a more shocking headline would read…
Jesuit Order Affirms Catholic Church
May 25th, 2010 | 5:49 pm
Ever wonder why Thomas Aquinas did not complete his great work? He himself tells all with this statement. Roughly quoting, “What has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw. I will write no more, I go to await my death” In his day straw was used as floor covering in stables and peasant huts. Some thing perhaps revealed to him the awful truth that there is no awful truth. Personally I think our real creators paid him a visit and knocked the props from under all his contorted and false logical reasoning’s.
May 25th, 2010 | 6:02 pm
[...] Stephen M. Barr at First Things looks at Does Quantum Physics Render Transubstantiation Meaningless? His analysis goes to prove once again that almost every time a theologian or others wade into [...]
May 25th, 2010 | 6:07 pm
The other alternative is to reject Aristotilean metaphysics in trying to explain Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. You can’t say you toss out Aristotle and still keep the language… that’s just disingenuous.
This has been the Lutheran and (seemingly from a pretty thorough reading of the Fathers) pre-Lateran position of the Church. The problem with ascribing “consubstantiation” to those that reject transubstantiation and hold on to Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist is a bit of a straw man.
St. Paul speaks of the Eucharist in terms of “the bread we break” while at the same time also repeating the Words of our Lord, “This is my body.”
Personally, I have very little use for Greek philosophical categories (though still much more use for that than post-enlightenment-continental philosophy). The big issue… as you said, is when asked “What is this,” the answer is “The body and blood of Christ.” And when the notion of “empirically examining” the elements comes up, I just go back to our Lord’s Word… “Take eat,” etc., not “take and place under a microscope.”
May 25th, 2010 | 8:29 pm
To be fair to Father Kelly, If I understood him correctly, he believes that the doctrine of transubstantiation articulated by the Council of Trent presupposes the categories of scholastic philosophy, particularly Thomism. Father Kelly also seems to believe that scholasticism in general and Thomism in particular incorporated intellectual constructs from Aristotle, particularly the categories of Aristotelean physics. Father Kelly seems to believe that the caregories of “substance” and “accident” are relics of Aristotelean physics implicit in the definition of transubstantiation given by the Council of Trent, and that such categories of Aristotelean physics as “substance” and “accident” (and for that matter “cause”) are no longer posited by many contemporary scientists and philosophers of science.
It appears to me he is right.
If I understand him correctly, he is not denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, but pointing out that the philosophical lingo of scholasticism, which incorporated the categories of Aristotelean physics, does an inadequate job of articulating the mystery of transubstantiation in our intellectual context with the kind of language currently in use.
It appears to me that he is right.
May 25th, 2010 | 8:51 pm
[...] Read here. [...]
May 25th, 2010 | 9:15 pm
You can’t say you toss out Aristotle and still keep the language… that’s just disingenuous.
But of course you can; the use of the term arose not out of the application of Aristotelian metaphysics but primarily out of the attempt to tread a middle ground between Berengar’s claim that the Real Presence was purely virtual and Humbert’s claim that the Christ was present ‘sensualiter’; use of Aristotle’s metaphysics to explain matters came later. Thinking of it as deriving from Aristotelian metaphysics has things exactly backwards; the term was used to make a purely theological distinction, and this theological distinction was later clarified by comparing, contrasting, and developing Aristotle’s account of substance.
May 25th, 2010 | 9:47 pm
Quantum physics suggests the universe percolates multiple paths of causality. If no one is there to see, the tree in the forest both falls and does not fall. Hiker A from New York may find it fallen, Hiker B from California who never talks to A may find it standing, but they can still be said to live in the same world. Similarly, when you and I look at a waterfall, the water molecules may take different paths and arrangements for each of our observations; since we would never know, the effect is the same. And, string theory suggests our experience is a surface view of a deeper dimensional reality, which may not be entirely local, in which there may be incredible energy and potential for pattern organization. I saw the clouds take the shape of the boy Jesus, singing, down to his eyebrows and the buttons on his tunic. Why not trans-substantiation? Why not real corporeal immortality? The energy is available, if someone is under there to apply it.
http://vids.myspace.com/hedges333
http://www.uschristiandemocrats.org/
May 25th, 2010 | 9:55 pm
Dear Rev. Lorfeld,
What the fathers of the Council of Trent did in using the word “substance” is not greatly different from what the fathers of the early Councils did in using terms like homoousios, hypostasis, prosopon, physis, etc and consubstantial, person, nature, etc. They had to find words to express certain distinctions. What matters is the ideas they were trying to express, not the provenance of the terms.
Moreover, the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident actually fits quite well the distinction that was being expressed. Even today, we often use the words ‘substance’, ‘substantial’, ‘essence’ and ‘essentiallsy’ in ways not significantly different from their meaning in Aristotelian metaphysics, and by doing so we do not commit ourselves to the mistakes of Aristotelian Physics.
The word Logos was used in Greek philosophy five hundred years before St. John wrote his gospel. Heraclitus had used it, and it became a technical term in Stoic philosophy. Does accepting Logos as an apt term for the Second Person of the Trinity commit us to “Greek metaphysics”?
May 25th, 2010 | 10:22 pm
Dear Picky Dog,
If the doctrine itself “presupposes … categories” (your words) that are either no longer tenable or no longer meaningful — the clear implication of Fr. Kelly’s words — then the doctrine itself is undermined.
That Aristotelian physics was wrong — as it was — does not mean that all the categories of Aristotelian philosophy are “meaningless”.
Let me use an analogy: Newtonian physics was also wrong in some respects. But that doesn’t mean that all the concepts that were first formulated in Newtonian physics, such as momentum, force, mass, energy, and so on, are therefore meaningless. They continue to have meaning in post-Newtonian physics. Though the concepts of Newtonian physics are not completely adequate, they were sufficient to express certain genuine insights and truths about the world. In the same way, even were it the case that Aristotelian concepts were not completely adequate, they could be sufficient to make the distinctions that the fathers of Trent wanted to make.
May 25th, 2010 | 11:47 pm
Thank you Mr. Barr. It is a pleasure to converse with a gentleman of great learning.
I would like to try to defend Father Kelly in a more satisfactory fashion, if I can.
I think that any language is insufficient to perfectly communicate any genuine mystery (transubsantiation or the Trinity or any other). However, there are degrees of adequacy and inadequacy in our use of language. Language and intellectual life change over time. One need not deny any truth of faith to believe that linguistic formulations may meet with varying degrees of success in communicating the truths of faith in different intellectual milleux. I think this was the point Farther Kelly was trying to make about the translation of Christian doctrine into Japanese.
I agree with you in not believing that because “Aristotelian physics was wrong…” it “does not mean that all the categories of Aristotelian philosophy are “meaningless”". I think there is much that can be gained from Aristotelian ideas like the Golden Mean or hamartia.
The belief that I hold, and that I suspect Father Kelly was trying to state, was that the distinction between substance and accident was never perfectly adequate to articulate the mystery of transubstantiation. Nonetheless at the time of Trent, it was the best philosophical vocabulary they had. Since the language of Aristotelian physics has been eclipsed in the intervening centuries in a way that the language of Aristotelian poetics or ethics has not, I believe that the lingo of Aristotelian physics is now even less adequate to the task of articulating the mystery of transubstantiation than it was in the past, and I wonder if there may possibly be ways of articulating such mysteries of sacred doctrine, now or in the future, which might be more adequate, if admittedly still imperfect.
I apologize if I have given any offense or if I have misunderstood either Father Kelly or yourself. It is a pleasure to have genuine discussion in such a dismal age.
May 26th, 2010 | 12:21 am
Would someone be willing to answer a foolish question?
I am in the position of trusting what the Church teaches about the Eucharist because I trust the source of her authority (Christ).
But I know there’s something I’m missing, when it comes to understanding the Eucharist.
Is the consecrated host called the Body of Christ because it is, in some sense, “possessed bread?” Or, “haunted bread?”
I mean absolutely no sacrilege. And of course I realize I’m making analogies between what is evil, and what is the greatest of all goods, which is admittedly bizarre.
All the same, it is for my own clarity about the Eucharist that I ask: Is the consecrated host “possessed bread” or “haunted bread”; and, if that is not correct, HOW is it not correct? (Apart from the obvious incongruity of comparing evil with good.)
What I mean is: My arm is made of meat and bone. You could say the same of my whole body. When I am dead, but my body is not yet decomposed, one could say that it was nothing but so much meat and bone and cartilage. But while I live, one cannot truthfully, justly, look at me walking around and say, “Look at that walking sack of meat.” One instead says, “Look at that person.” And if someone says, “How do I look at the person? I can’t see a soul!” the just reply is: “A person is not merely a soul, he also has a body, and you can look at that.” If the someone replies “At that? You mean at that walking sack of meat?” one should reply: “That’s his BODY, because HE is there. Because HE is there, it is not just some sack of meat. His BODY.”
What makes the “meat” into someone’s “body?” That it is united to a soul, or maybe to that person’s spirit, correct? What then makes the host Christ’s body? That it is somehow animated or infused with his soul and divinity?
Is the reason that it’s not right to call the consecrated host “mere bread” the same as the reason it’s not right to call my body “mere meat?” Because He is there?
Is His Real Presence therefore something like a divine and holy reversal of a ghost or poltergeist lingering in a place? A holy haunting of bread?
Or, in another way, is it a holy and good opposite number of what happens when someone plays with some cursed item, like a Ouija board, and becomes thereby prey to a demonic infestation or possession, where the demon takes over his body? Does Christ somehow “take over” or “possess” the bread, making it “His flesh” in the same way my flesh is “my flesh?” …and then, through the agency of the bread, does He “infest” (but in an act of perfect authority and righteousness) the person who eats the bread, thus residing “in” the person in a fashion greater and opposite to that in which a demon possesses a person?
Again, I feel the scariness of drawing such a comparison.
But I wonder if possession and the like aren’t rather the devil’s “aping” of Christ? The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, and the Eucharist came first, came before all: And ever since, the devil tries to imitate and satirize what Christ does, just as satanists try to ape divine liturgy through having a “black mass.” It is THAT thought which makes me think perhaps it is okay to draw such comparisons as I have drawn: Not to suggest that Christ ever imitates the devil, but rather to suggest that the devil has been aping Christ.
If this thought is horribly off-base, please explain to me why.
May 26th, 2010 | 2:36 am
If I understand the donatist heresy correctly, if Fr. Michael Kelly, S.J. confected the elements, communion participants would still receive the Real Presence even though Fr. Kelly doesn’t believe in transubstantiation.
Is that correct?
May 26th, 2010 | 2:55 am
R.C. writes: Is the consecrated host called the Body of Christ because it is, in some sense, “possessed bread?” Or, “haunted bread?”
I think you’ve described consubstantiation and its metaphysical problems in layman’s terms. I think in Catholic understanding the bread is gone.
At the risk of accidentally falling into heresy, I will attempt my own somewhat blasphemous attempt at understanding that which cannot be understood.
A witch casts a spell on a prince and trans-forms it into a frog (which cannot talk). The poor frog-prince has the form of a frog but the substance of a prince.
Imagine if someone could take an ordinary frog and turn it into a frog-prince. The substance would be changed but not the form.
May 26th, 2010 | 3:12 am
Is this the Fr Kelly late of ‘Eureka Street’ magazine [Melbourne]? If so, that would explain a lot.
May 26th, 2010 | 9:36 am
Dear Picky Dogs,
What you say is very reasonable. I would like to think that your interpretation of Fr. Kelly is correct. What makes me doubt it is the context: he is attacking what he takes to be excessive — almost “fanatical” — reverence for the Christ present in the Eucharistic elements. That suggests to me that he is not concerned so much with terminological issues and adequacy of expression, but with the doctrine itself. He talks about different forms of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist — presumably he has in mind the truth that Christ is also present in the congregation. He seems to think that undue emphasis is given (“Catholics can become fanatical about”) “one form of the Body of Christ in the bread as the REAL presence.” That suggests that his problem is with the “objectivity” of the Real Presence according to the doctrine of transubstantiation — i.e. that Christ is present despite the spiritual dispositions of the congregation or even the existence of any congregation. (e.g. Transubstantiation says that Christ is present even in reserved hosts when no one is around.) But the doctrine of transubstantiation is “objective”, whether expressed in Aristotelian language or not. So it is hard to see his statements as being anything other than an attack on the doctrine itself, rather than merely a criticism of the words used to express it.
Yours is a more charitable interpretation, and I hope it is right.
In any event, Fr. Kelly, as a person who is part of the media, has an especially great obligation to express himself carefully and not in a manner that lends itself to the interpretation that he calling into question a central truth of the faith.
May 26th, 2010 | 10:17 am
Mr. Barr,
Of course I would not toss out Logos. But I don’t use it because of its Greek philosophical origins, but because of its Scriptural origins. I would say that the early councils did tread some dangerous water in their adaptation of Platonic language (Gregory of Nyssa lamented of the absurdity of things as he couldn’t even buy bread from his baker without being asked if Christ had one will or two).
But let’s stick to the issue of transubstantiation. The problem isn’t solely in the use of Aristotelian language, it is also in asking questions that need not be asked let alone answered as they simply arise out of doubting Christ’s very Word. Furthermore, transubstantiation makes a mockery of Aristotle. Substance and accidents aren’t merely swappable (as the Wondertwins would have us believe).
Philosophical gymnastics simply are not necessary to affirm that what we receive in the bread and wine of the Eucharist is certainly Christ’s true body and blood. The effects of this were seen throughout the middle ages. While it certainly was necessary to defend Christ’s presence (over and above ideas of the Eucharist as memorial or symbol), the other extreme of denying the reference of our Lord’s Word: “this” referring to the bread, not just accidental bread, and the (contents of the) cup, not just accidental wine.
Simply put, the Church did fine not to bother dragging Aristotle into the Eucharist for nearly 12 centuries, maybe She should be content to close this chapter and not unnecessarily assert what is philosophical dogmatically.
May 26th, 2010 | 1:02 pm
A Note on Newtonian Physics:
It is not fair to say that Newtonian physics has been superseded. Mechanical Engineers, and all other engineers for that matter, use Newton’s formulation, as well as the equivalent energy formulations of Laplace and Hamilton, when dealing with speeds much less than light or sizes much larger than atoms; which is to say, in almost all cases. In this way Newtonian mechanics can be viewed as a qualified form of Relativistic and Quantum Mechanics.
Rev. Lorfeld,
How can you know what is meant by “logos” without regarding its pre-Biblical meaning? It was used by John, it stands to reason, because it conveyed a certain idea to those who read it, presumably a Greek audience or one knowledgeable of Greek ideas.
You claim, “Philosophical gymnastics simply are not necessary to affirm that what we receive in the bread and wine of the Eucharist is certainly Christ’s true body and blood. ” If that is the case, what is necessary? Merely faith? Is not that fideism?
May 26th, 2010 | 1:19 pm
Suppose a cradle Catholic, baptised and catechised, eventually does not believe in transubstantiation or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Let’s say that he or she thinks it’s symbolically meaningful.
Does this Catholic still receive the Real Presence even though she or he doesn’t believe in the Real Presence?
If so, and he/she still receives the Real Presence despite not believing in the Real Presence, why does the doctrine of transubstantiation matter?
Furthermore, let’s say that there are some Catholic priests who don’t believe in transubstantiation either when they confect the elements. It doesn’t matter, right?, because the elements will still have the Real Presence for the partakers of Communion.
So if I understand this correctly, you could have a Catholic priest who doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation, but his confected elements still have the Real Presence, AND you could have a Catholic communion participant who likewise doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, and he or she would still receive the Real Presence anyways.
Soooooo, why all the hullabaloo over the doctrine of transubstantiation when by the Eucharistic dogma of the Church the priests and the people still receive the Real Presence whether they believe in it or not?
May 26th, 2010 | 2:04 pm
Dear Mr. Lorfeld,
It is not that Lateran IV and Trent raised “questions that need not be asked”. The questions had already been asked by others, as Brandon above correctly points out.
The first use of the word “transubstantiation” by a council was in 1215, by the Fourth Lateran Council, which said simply “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood.” In 1215, the Catholic Church had hardly canonized the philosophy, let alone the physics, of Aristotle! Recall that in 1210 a local council at which the Bishop of Paris was present forbade the teaching of Aristotelian physics: “Neither the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy [i.e. science] nor their commentaries are to be read at Paris in public or secret, and this we forbid under penalty of excommunication.” And St. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t born until 1225, ten years after the word transubstantiation was used by Lateran IV.
No, the use of transubstantiation by Lateran IV hardly entailed a wholesale acceptance of Aristotelianism.
It is true that the doctrine of transubstantiation came to be seen as an endorsement of Aristotelian/Thomistic thought. But the original reason for the Council’s use of that word was to express the idea that the elements themselves underwent a CHANGE at the consecration. I don’t propose to argue here about the Scriptural and patristic evidence. Suffice it to say that there is considerable evidence to be found in those sources for the idea of a change taking place of the bread and wine themselves. It the prefix “trans” that is important in this regard. The Orthodox use other terms that have the equivalent prefix “meta”.
Some Protestant controversialists in the past said that the doctrine of transubstantiation either (a) entails making Aristotle’s metaphysics an article of faith, or (b) involves an attempt to give a theoretical, quasi-scientific explanation of HOW the Real Presence occurs, HOW God does it, and thus remove the mystery. The Catholic Church has officially disavowed the intention of doing either of those things. But apparently some will insist nevertheless that the Catholic Church is doing these things. Attributing beliefs to church bodies that they do not themselves avow is not, I think, a helpful thing. It does not promote greater mutual understanding.
My post was not directed at Protestantism. It was directed by a Catholic (me) against the statements of another Catholic who appeared to be confused about Catholic teaching and was confusing others. Given the ecumenical nature of First Things, I will not allow myself to get drawn into an inter-confessional dispute that has little to do with the purposes of my original post.
May 26th, 2010 | 2:42 pm
Dear Truth Unites and Divides. If a man pushes someone out of a window of a building, the victim will hit the ground whether or not he or the man who pushed him believe that he will. Does that in any way imply that it is unimportant whether the victim will in truth hit the ground? Does it in any way imply that it is unimportant what the two people involved believe? Facts are important and whether we know facts is important.
Why is it important whether Christ is truly present? Well, for one thing, if Christ is truly present, we have an opportunity to worship him in a way that we otherwise could not — an opportunity that we will not avail ourselves of if we do not know that he is there.
Moses saw a burning bush. Suppose that, not realizing that God was there, Moses had said, “Oh that is just a brush fire” and walked on?
Would that have made a difference? As it happened he approached the bush, and God told him that it was holy ground (due to God’s being present) and that Moses should remove his footwear on that account. Would it have been holy ground even if Moses had disbelieved God? Or had misunderstood what God was saying? Wouldn’t it have been holy ground as a matter of fact regardless of what Moses thought of the matter? Surely it would have been. Was it important that it was holy ground? Surely it must have been if God saw fit to inform Moses of the fact. What difference did it make that it was holy ground? Well, different behavior is appropriate. If the ground is holy, then one shows respect by removing footwear, if it isn’t holy one doesn’t.
May 26th, 2010 | 3:08 pm
Dear Stephen Barr,
Thanks for your response. I think I understand what you’re saying.
“Well, different behavior is appropriate.”
Yes, I see what you’re saying. And with regards to the relationship between facts and behavior, don’t you agree that the “fact” of the Real Presence is still in the Communion Elements per Magisterial dogma even if the Catholic priest and some of the Catholic laity misbehave by not believing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
The title of the post is “Does Quantum Physics Render Transubstantiation Meaningless?” Your answer is no.
I’m asking this: “Does Not Believing in Transubstantiation Render Transubstantiation Null and Void?” Would your answer be no as well?
May 26th, 2010 | 6:57 pm
Dear Dr. Barr,
It is always a pleasure seeing your name heading a blog and/ or articles in these pages of First Things; especially so, for the clarity you bring to these difficult subject matters.
Here is my contribution to this blog:
One time while kneeling in the pew and contemplating on Transubstantiation during the Consecration, a thought welled up in my mind; by analogy, in the virtual world of the Internet I can type First Things; however, now, I will consecrate the typed word First Things by hyper-linking the word and voila … as by magic, a whole new wonderful world of Ideas spring into being.
Sincerely yours,
Frans Monnereau
May 26th, 2010 | 8:41 pm
Stephen Barr: “It was directed by a Catholic (me) against the statements of another Catholic who appeared to be confused about Catholic teaching and was confusing others.
I do understand that.
I was thinking about the pastoral aspect that comes from clearing away confusion by parishioners. Eg., if Fr. Kelly’s parishioners were concerned that they would not be receiving the Real Presence because Fr. Kelly who doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation had confected the elements, they needn’t worry. They’ll still receive the Real Presence even if the priest doesn’t believe it.
And if these parishioners are concerned about family and friends receiving the Real Presence in the Eucharist, yet their family and friends don’t believe in the Real Presence, well, their family and friends still obtain the Real Presence too.
Of course, as you said, the worship behavior may be altered because these folks don’t believe in the Real Presence, but the fact remains that they still receive the fullness of the Real Presence whether they believe it or not (per Eucharistic dogma of the Catholic Church).
May 28th, 2010 | 1:39 pm
@ Larry, 05/25/2010
Your comment seems to illustrate a very small understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas and his contributions to theology. According to Fr. Torrell’s biographical account, St. Thomas ceased to write after encountering the Beatific Vision of God while celebrating the Mass. In context, everything that can be said about God falls short compared to the Beatific Vision. All of his life, St. Thomas spent time writing about the Lord as his first love. Can anyone blame St. Thomas for ceasing to write after having a direct encounter with the Lord?
Furthermore, the Church has upheld St. Thomas’ writings as par excellence for the formation of seminarians and theologians. I invite you to take a closer examination of St. Thomas’ works and see the depth of love that flows throughout.
I will not speculate further whether you arrived at your opinion through a firsthand examination of St. Thomas or not; however, I do ask that you reserve judgment until you have a more informed knowledge.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact