Transubstantiation in modern science: How can substance change without accidents
#60
(12-15-2012, 09:40 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Words can have different meanings in different contexts. So perhaps I should say Christ is physically present on the altar, when we understand what substance is and that substance is physical. But in one common use of that word today in scientific circles, referring to observable properties, Christ is not present in that way under the altar.

The word "physical" can denote such a connotation, but then only in that particular specified context. We have words for specifying what is purely physical in the abstract sense and what is physical in an empirical, quantifiable, and measurable capacity. These words exist to make this distinction. Hence, I don't think it is appropriate to say the word "physical" necessarily refers to the latter in even a general context. I think "physical" is a word used to distinguish between that which is immaterial--what is of the mind and spirit--and that which is material. It does not necessarily speak to any measurable properties of what is material. The word "tangible" is closer to fitting your objection, since it specifically denotes a perceptible quality not implied by the word "physical."
Quote:What language though, should we use, to indicate or explain that Christ is no present in a way that we could see or show by senses or physical analysis? That the weight or %carbon of the host does not change in any testable way?

This is a question of philosophy, which is why the words "substance" and "accidents" are most fitting. Substance is physical, but not necessarily measurable or tangible.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Transubstantiation in modern science: How can substance change without accidents - by INPEFESS - 12-15-2012, 04:32 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)