Henke 2022bf
No Evidence that Anything Miraculous Occurs in Transubstantiation
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022
In Henke (2022b), I briefly comment on transubstantiation:
“Lundahl (2022a) briefly raises the transubstantiation issue with the following ambiguous and poorly written statement:
“Transsubstantiation [sic, spelling] miracles don't defy chemistry, since a tacit assumption in all natural chemical process is, God is not changing things directly - but sometimes He is.”
Well, when does God change chemical processes directly and when doesn’t he, and how does Mr. Lundahl tell the difference? If Lundahl (2022a) wants to actually demonstrate that any transubstantiation miracles occur, he needs to get the Roman Catholic Church to submit the consecrated bread and wine for a thorough analysis. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church will never do that. So, Mr. Lundahl’s claim that transubstantiation miracles don’t defy chemistry is probably only true because nothing miraculous actually happens.”
Lundahl (2022k) then replies to my statements with a lot of word play:
“Transsubstantiation is now considered to be a misspelling ...
Trans-substanti-ation
... I have shown the constituents of the Latin word correctly and the word is originally Latin. A murrain on Merriam Webster if he didn't list that as correct!
// Well, when does God change chemical processes directly and when doesn’t he, and how does Mr. Lundahl tell the difference? //
There is no chemical process involved in transsubstantiation. The sacramental one, that is. In the turning of water to wine, there is a chemical change, but not by a chemical process.
// If Lundahl (2022a) wants to actually demonstrate that any transubstantiation miracles occur, //
Let's analyse Henke's spelling, shall we ... "transubstantiation"
tran-substant-iation? There is no prefix "tran" but there is "trans"
trans-ubstanti-ation? There is no prefix "ub" but there is "sub"
trans+sub+stanti+atio = transsubstantiatio, best borrowed into English as transsubstantiation.
Now let's go to Henke's criterium:
// he needs to get the Roman Catholic Church to submit the consecrated bread and wine for a thorough analysis. //
· 1) Beside the point, since it is only the "substantia" that changes, while the chemical processes (that a thorough analysis can show) are part of the "accidentiae" which remain;
· 2) Transsubstantiations in the sacramental sense are not the only transsubstantiation miracles, like we have the Biblical narrative as showing Christ changed water to wine (a visible and analysable transsubstantiation, since there the accidents changed as well) or like events when the consecrated host has visibly changed to having also the accidents of Christ's for instance heart tissue, and this has been analysed by biologists.
// So, Mr. Lundahl’s claim that transubstantiation miracles don’t defy chemistry is probably only true because nothing miraculous actually happens. //
Above chemistry does not mean "breaking the laws of chemistry" - neither water nor wine admit an atom of Oxygen to have three bonds to three atoms of Hydrogen, for instance.”
Although my spell-checker and Google do not accept “transsubstantiation” as a proper spelling, The Oxford English Dictionary allows for it and it’s the spelling in French. So, I’ll let that slide. Now, let’s proceed on with the other claims in this quotation from Lundahl (2022k).
Lundahl (2022k) fails to distinguish between “chemical change” and “chemical process.” He’s just engaging in a meaningless word play without giving us any evidence whatsoever that any chemical magic happens to the bread and wine during a mass. Now, if some biologists have actually found heart tissue in the host as Lundahl (2022k) claims, he should cite the peer-reviewed article that confirms that miracle. I’m not interested in any hearsay or rumor from an internet website. I want to see this miracle, if it happened, confirmed in a peer-reviewed science journal. Otherwise, there’s no reason to think that anything miraculous happens during a Mass.
As I argued in Henke (2022b), instantly converting water into wine most certainly would violate the laws of biochemistry. Converting H2O to C2H5OH involves more than just oxygen and hydrogen bonds, but requires the addition of carbon. Where did the carbon come from when Jesus supposedly changed water into wine in John 2:1-11? If microorganisms were involved in the fermentation, how did they instantaneously produce alcohol without violating biochemistry? Why should we even believe that the story in John 2:1-11 actually happened? Again, if Mr. Lundahl wants magic without violating the laws of chemistry and physics, he needs to explain how that would even be possible. I’m not interested in his word-playing diversions where he throws out terms like “chemical process”, “chemical change”, “substantia” and “accidentiae” without defining them or at least giving a reference with good definitions. I’m not impressed with his use of elaborate words in a vain attempt to sound smart. He just needs to provide good and well substantiated evidence of a transubstantiation miracle in a form of English that our readers can understand. Now, I’m certainly willing to accept miracles if I’m given the evidence and I don’t care if they violated natural law. However, I don’t see how at least some miracles involving chemistry could avoid violating natural law.