Transubstantiation And Where We At With Understanding Substance

[cooterhein]

Ok, so substance theory. An ontological theory of objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. We know a lot more about "substance" now, but the Aristotelian way of thinking (rediscovered by the Latinate church in the 12th century) was limited to describing substance as the stuff that made something what it is, regardless of how the appearance may change. So for example, when Aristotle would look at water and watch it freeze then watch it melt then watch it evaporate, he knew the appearance (the "accidents") of the water would change, but he posited that there must be something about the water's "objecthood" that made it what it is regardless of how it looks.

Fast forward to 4th grade science in 21st century America. Turns out, we found out quite a bit of info on what Aristotle referred to as "substance." We call it "molecules" and "atoms" and "subatomic particles." In a more modern sort of parlance, we talk about two hydrogens and one oxygen bonding in a certain way so as to form a molecule that we call "water." It might be frozen, it might be liquid, it might be gaseous. But it's all water, and the common substance is a water molecule made up of two different kinds of elements. That's what the substance is. It's the starting point.

According to our modern understanding of what physical substance is, all of it can be mapped out on the periodic table of elements. We can even predict what kinds of properties (or, in older terms, "accidents") a given element will have based on the atomic weight and the number of subatomic particles that comprise it. There's even one element that used to exist but no longer does due to its instability and the passage of time....but we still know exactly what it looked and felt like, based on the starting point of knowing its atomic weight and so forth. In Aristotelian terms, we're able to work backwards in a way that was completely unavailable to him- we can start with what a "substance" is on the atomic level and work from there to know what its "accidents" are. Even with elements that no longer exist and never will exist again. Even with much heavier elements that have to be created artificially but haven't been created yet.

This fundamental change in our understanding of substance happened pretty recently- Rutherford and the gold foil thing with the atomic nucleus happened late in the 19th century well after the close of Vatican I, and the only major council since then has been Vatican II. Before it closed under Pope Paul VI, he reaffirmed the 12th-century Latinate understanding of substance theory as it relates to transubstantiation- thus, Catholics continue to believe in some kind of change that is physical and substantial but still invisible to the senses. He did have to address this specifically, as I'm sure you know.

So how does this work, exactly, in light of our current understanding of substance and atomic theory and the periodic table of elements? Description of "mystery" used to be more easy back when things were more mysterious, but the table of elements has really cleared up a lot of that. People used to talk about "substance" and "essence" in a way that was very mysterious and unknowable. But we know a lot more about substance now. We know there isn't any "essence" to speak of; instead, we talk about tiny subatomic particles.

It took me awhile, but I'm finally getting to my question, I promise. In light of all this new information about substance, where exactly does the Catholic apologist go with this as you reaffirm a fairly specific doctrine concerning the Real Presence? If you don't mind, I'd like to try and give you two broad categories. I don't want to present a false dichotomy; I just want to suggest a couple of different ways you can go with it in general.

Broad Avenue Number One: Molecules, elements, atoms, subatomic particles....that isn't really all there is to physical substance. There's a lot that scientists don't know, especially concerning dark matter, dark energy, quantum mechanics, string theory....so Catholics just have to have faith in the wisdom of the Church that guides them. Just because the "elements of the elements" don't change (literally, the atoms), that doesn't mean there's no substantial transformation. We are aware of no change by our senses, and we're not aware of any change as far as we can now understand the particles that comprise substance. But there's still a lot of mysteries that scientists haven't uncovered, and there's still a kind of "essence" out there to which Catholics continue to credit the change. There is a physical aspect to the transformation, and we may one day uncover what that entails. For now, though, we just know it has nothing to do with what we perceive by our senses [b]or[/b] what kind of atom or molecule it is on the atomic or molecular level. It continues to be a mystery, like it always was. Science has cleared up some things we didn't know, but at this time, the exact nature of this miraculous change isn't something that's known to science. Atoms and molecules were unavailable for study until quite recently, and there's a lot more to this "substance" thing that continues to be quite unavailable.

Broad Avenue Number Two: Long story short, the transformation [b]does[/b] entail a change to the atoms and molecules of the Host. The change is real, we just can't see it or feel it with our senses. Likewise, we fail to perceive it at the atomic/molecular level when we look through various instruments or run different kinds of tests. The change is real, and the substance (that is, the atoms/molecules) are not what they appear to be. [b]All of it is an illusion.[/b] The mystery lies in just how God maintains that illusion, and that's something we'll never have an answer to. It's just something God does. It's a miracle. How or exactly why God does it that way will always be a mystery. Any way we have to look at it- unaided with our eyes, with an electron microscope, by means of some kind of spectrometer- God still upholds the illusion. No matter how we look at it, we aren't able to see what's truly there- you know, like we normally can. This is a special scenario where God blinds us to any and all physical [b]evidence[/b] of the change, even though the physical change is completely real.

Here's the reason why I'm asking. Suppose you're a scientist, and suppose you have an already-blessed Host that you're examining very carefully. As a scientist, your job doesn't stop when you've commented on how it appears to your senses. Noooo way. You're attempting to uncover what Aristotle referred to as its "substance." The atoms. The molecules. All those little particles that are the [b]reason[/b] why physical objects look and feel the way they do. Along with pointing me in the general direction of the correct avenue, the 64,000 dollar question is this: [b]When you, the scientist, examine the Host in order to see what sorts of particles comprise its physical existence, are you capable of seeing what's really there as you normally are, or is there some kind of God-induced illusion that prevents you from seeing the substance as it really is?[/b]

Thanks for whatever help you can give me.

[CatherineM]

Transubstantiation basically means that the items that we can perceive as the host and the wine remain the same to our senses, while the substance itself has changed to the body and blood of Christ. Any scientific observation is still based on our senses. Electron microscopes may greatly magnify our vision, but it is still dependent on our sense of sight. Catholics believe that the host contains both species, the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ, as does the cup. This miracle is also imperceptible to our senses.

Hopefully someone else can add something.

[CatherineM]

Since cooterhein couldn't post a follow up to my answer and had to PM me, I thought I would post it.
[quote]
In your reply to my question about transubstantiation, you said any scientific observation of substance is "based on our senses." This is not strictly true in the specific example of an electron microscope, and it's completely untrue when speaking of several other methods of determining what kinds of atoms/molecules you're dealing with. And in any case- as I hope I made clear in my question- we're not dealing with "accidents" in the Aristotelian sense just because we're looking at some kind of thing. What I hoped to make clear was that atoms and molecules ARE THE SUBSTANCE of which Aristotle knew basically nothing. Again, they ARE the SUBSTANCE. Back in the day, you could look at "accidents" and know what they were but you couldn't really know anything about the "substance." BUT NOW YOU CAN. You aren't limited to studying the accidents. You can study the substance. Take carbon, for example. Is that an accident? Black, dirty, shiny like a diamond, granular....these are accidents. But the carbon? No, that's the substance. Whether it looks like something dirty or something shiny or like a Bucky ball, it's carbon. It has eight protons and usually eight neutrons in the nucleus, and it has eight electrons swirling around it. These are not accidents in any sense. That atom, whatever molecule it's a part of, the subatomic particles that comprise it....

THAT'S SUBSTANCE.

This is what I'm after. I'm asking you if you believe this substance I speak of- these atoms, molecules, subatomic particles- are you saying scientists are GENERALLY INCAPABLE of telling them apart? Or are they only incapable of doing this in one very specific kind of situation where God renders them incapable?
[/quote]

Again, to our senses, the consecrated bread and wine appears as simple bread and wine. Scientists do in fact use their senses while doing even sub-atomic research. My brother in law works at the Ferme Lab in the particle accelerator. He has to use his senses of sight and touch. Someone who looks at something under an EM still has to look at it. If he put a consecrated host in an EM, he would see bread, or the atoms that make up bread. The same for wine. So far scientists have been unable to see the human soul. So it would also be impossible for them to see Jesus' soul in the consecrated host under the best microscope in the world.

If you are trying to have me see the error of my backwards beliefs about transubstantiation, you will have a long wait. I am not capable of explaining a miracle from a scientific basis. That's kind of the definition of a miracle. It's something that we can't explain scientifically. Perhaps you would have a more suitable discussion of this by posting in the debate table where everyone can explain their beliefs, rather than in the Q & A where just a few can answer.