Archbishop Muller: “These are not criticisms, they are provocations.”

[ProVobis]

They mostly don’t have a general, lay audience in mind, so it makes sense that what they write isn’t always accessible to lay people. The fact that it is easy to get a hold of Vatican documents doesn’t mean they are always meant for us to read directly and understand without any additional training or “translation”.

I don’t see why not. Maybe there is some additional training required (depends on what you mean by “additional”) but many people can understand very well without the translations. It is precisely the translations which can be controversial, not that this is what happened here.

Speaking of NASA, I studied nuclear physics when I was still in my teens. And that required a lot of prerequisites, including other high level physics classes. There would be no possible way to explain the concepts of nuclear physics without those prerequisites.

 

[thistle]

Our priest did mention him on Sunday before the sermon, he sounds to be very supportive of the traditional faith.…

There is only one Catholic faith which does not change.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Sounds like y’all should stop with the “half-studying” and pick a topic

I am not trying to impugn anyone’s mental capacity or education; however, studying a bit of something in college is very different from being a specialist in a subject who has studied and taught for many years.

I just don’t get the reaction that says that if I don’t understand something written by an Archbishop who is a scholar that was not intended for me, that therefore the man must be bonkers and going off into heretical territory and so I need to alert the world.
Why not say instead, I don’t understand this, let me go privately to my priest or bishop for an explanation. Or I don’t understand this, but it isn’t really relevant to my life so I’ll set it aside.

What is embarrassing about reading the SSPX objections to Archbishop Muller is that anyone with a modicum of theological training ***can ***interpret what he is saying as being in accordance with Catholic theology. It’s not that difficult. And the Muller critics in the SSPX do have that training. So what were they about?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

What is embarrassing about reading the SSPX objections to Archbishop Muller is that anyone with a modicum of theological training ***can ***interpret what he is saying as being in accordance with Catholic theology. It’s not that difficult. And the Muller critics in the SSPX do have that training. So what were they about?

Spot on.

 

[Andre1000]

Sounds like y’all should stop with the “half-studying” and pick a topic

I am not trying to impugn anyone’s mental capacity or education; however, studying a bit of something in college is very different from being a specialist in a subject who has studied and taught for many years.

I just don’t get the reaction that says that if I don’t understand something written by an Archbishop who is a scholar that was not intended for me, that therefore the man must be bonkers and going off into heretical territory and so I need to alert the world.
Why not say instead, I don’t understand this, let me go privately to my priest or bishop for an explanation. Or I don’t understand this, but it isn’t really relevant to my life so I’ll set it aside.

Many people who calls Müller a heretic are priests and they have studied theology.

 

[Melchior_1]

Many people who calls Müller a heretic are priests and they have studied theology.

And which side are they on? Are they on the same side as the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI? Or are they seeking some other agenda?

It seems to me this is being done in an attempt to discredit His Grace Müller somehow. But make no mistake; BXVI would not appoint him to his current role if he was not doctrinally sound.

 

[Dee_S]

There is no such thing as a German theologian who speaks in muddled fashion.

As my many German friends would say, “this is not possible”.

Truth to say…it is not:tiphat:

My post on another thread in this forum on July 30, raised this issue of why the SSPX (and I see now the Remnant, a Traditionalist journal), would try to discredit this Bishop. Therein lies the question…

“Bishop Mueller denies in his Dogmatik [currently a standard work in Germany about Dogmatics] the dogma of the Virginity of Mary”
sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr…r_7-6-2012.htm

It is interesting to note that Archbishop Muller is not bothering to dignify them with a reply. He is quoted as saying several times in the media
Müller on SSPX challenge: "I must not give an answer to every stupidity"

I think this is relevant to the thread, as it followed immediately after the communique, raising the question "Where exactly do they (the SSPX) hope to go with this line of conduct?
IMO they must ‘fear’ him in some way, probably his immense and capable knowledge,

or, as we see in this interview with CNA…

“As prefect of the Congregation, Archbishop Muller is also the President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” the Vatican body responsible for dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X.” catholicnewsagency.com/news/vaticans-doctrine-chief-pius-x-society-must-accept-vatican-ii-teachings/

Perhaps they now have no place to hide? So far the “doctrinal issues” they complain of that need sorting out before they submit to Rome have not to my knowledge been stated The world awaits…

 

[Dee_S]

There is only one Catholic faith which does not change.

:thumbsup:Hear, hear
(this by way of a distinction, not intended to criticize the previous poster who’s meaning appears to be the ‘traditional practice of the Faith’ and not the “traditional Faith”

“The Church’s magisterial authority cannot be frozen back in time in 1962 – the Fraternity should get this clear. But those who put themselves across as great defenders of the Council should recall that the Second Vatican Council encapsulates the Church’s entire doctrinal history. Whoever wants to obey the Council must accept the faith professed over the centuries and cannot sever the roots which give the tree life."

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

 

[JReducation]

Many people who calls Müller a heretic are priests and they have studied theology.

Actually, this is not quite accurate, close, but not the whole truth. To be a priest one must study theology, but one need not be a theologian or have a degree in theology. Most priests (99%) do not have degrees in theology. They Master’s in Divinity, which includes theology and other subjects as well. Therefore, they do not qualify as theologians.

Most of these critics belong to this group. This may be one of the issues between the SSPX and the Vatican. The SSPX does not have too many theologians. They certainly have none at the level of men like John Paul II or Paul VI. Nor do they have many canon lawyers, especially none at the level of Paul VI who was a Doctor of Canon Law and Jurisprudence.

Our last five popes have not only been scholars, but they have also been teachers: Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII.

People should stop and consider the fact that unlike their predecessors, these popes have surrounded themselves with men from the world of education, such as Archbishop Muller. Today’s theologian does not write for the laity. He write for the university.

I know this from personal experience. When I write for you guys here, I keep it very simple. When I write for the brothers, I write like a dog without a leash. I can use the language of Augustine, Bonaventure, Lawrence of Brindisi, Catherine of Genoa, John of the Cross, John Newman, Anthony of Padua, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola or Teresa of Avila. I’m not writing for the average Catholic. I’m writing for a very small group of people who have read the same works that I have read and who write the same way when we write for each other.

This was one of the distinctive marks of the Scholastic Period. These teachers wrote for the layman, not for the theologian. Aquinas used a system that was tried and proven to work and that the educated layman could follow. Whereas, Bonaventure wrote on the same subjects as Aquinas, but uses Augustine’s system and Francis’ of Assisi’s language, neither of which are well known to the average layman. But Bonaventure had no interest in educating the average laymen. He was the superior general of a large religious order and his interest was in educating his brothers. You had these two great Scholarstics, writing at the same time, on the same subject, but they are writing for different populations and with different goals in mind.

These realities have not changed. Archbishop Mulller writes in a manner that someone like Augustine, Bonaventurre, Lawrence of Brindisi, Anthony of Padua, John Paul II and Benedict XVI who are all in the same school would understand, but an intelligent man in the pew might be asking himself, “What did he say?” That man in the pew, as intelligent as he may be, may not be part of this school of thought, may not use these systems, may not use language the same way, or may not even be an expert in the particular subject.

Archbishop Muller is a Doctor and professor of Dogmatic Theology and Spiritual Theology. There are not that many of those around in the Catholic Church. Dogmatic Theology and Spiritual Theology do not rely heavily on Aquinas, especially Spiritual Theology. They rely more on the Augustinian, Franciscan and Carmelite schools. None of those are Thomists. None of them are trained in Aquinas. It’s not a requirement and never was for these orders. Those diocesan priests who trained under them, trained in their systems, language and methodology. It’s very clear from Archbishop Muller’s use of language that this is where he is coming from.

This places the rest of the Catholic world at a disadvantage, because it’s not the approach to theology that the rest of the Catholic world is used to and yet, it is the approach that is going to have to get used to, because this is what’s going to keep coming out of the Holy See.

If you want to read confusing theology, pick up any of Pope Benedict’s books. You think he’s saying that fish can swim. However, in his school of theology, fish and swim do not mean the same as in Thomas Aquinas’ school. You have to go back and read the early Augustinians and Franciscans and find out from them what they meant when they said, “fish” and “swim”.

I think rather than call the man a heretic or question his orthodoxy, it would be more constructive to ask where one can learn to think as he thinks in order to understand what he’s saying OR just let it go. I for one just let it go, because what he’s writing about is not interesting to me and has nothing to do with me. If he were writing about the anatomy of the soul, man’s journey through the mind of God, the structure of grace, the stages of virtue, then I would be interested. That’s my field. The rest,

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Iotaunum]

I have not read any of Archbishop Muller’s works so I will not even attempt to comment on them, or on his interpretation of various doctrines. I will say this though; those who have a problem with them obviously think they are contrary to traditional teachings. If they are not, and it is simply a case of misunderstanding, then the problem that traditionalists still have is the ambiguity. I get the arguments about interpretation and the language used, but as you can understand traditionalists get very wary around what they consider ambiguity in doctrine. I don’t think it is a matter of theological language either – unable to be interpreted by the mere layman or priest. One does not need a degree or doctorate in theology or philosophy to understand a theological text or work. In any case, a more in-depth reading in context should be relatively understandable to anyone who has even a mediocre knowledge of theology and philosophy. The problem seems to be a movement towards more and more ambiguity. And being wary of liberalism and modernism in all its forms, most traditionalist feel uncomfortable around this kind of language. Sure, if the writings were meant for those who are of the same way of thinking and know how the language is used this may explain some of the confusion, but certainly I think when explaining certain key doctrines a good theologian – from whatever school – should strive to be understood in the clearest way, lest any confusion arise in such important matters.

So when reading the explanation of a doctrine one should not have to wonder whether or not the interpretation is in conformity with what has always been held. It is like when a Church of Ireland minister said to me when discussing the faith: “we believe in the real presence too”. I then asked what he meant by “real presence”. I think everyone knows it is radically different from the true meaning. This is what makes the confusion run deeper. The same terminology and theological speak in used but is understood differently by different people.

When the bread is consecrated at Mass it becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord. Although under the “appearance” of bread – it is actually and quite physically really the body and blood etc of Christ. People have said to me before such things as: “a certain Eucharistic miracle took place and the host turned into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus” – I always responded that this was not infact the unique miracle. That happens at every valid Mass. The unique miracle here was that the accidedents of the bread were made to manifest the substance and the miracle of consecration was no longer hidden to our senses. The body and blood of Christ were always really physically there. When the bread was broken, Christ’s body was broken. But many in the Church today are saying they believe in the real presence, but do not think Christ is really and truly physical present under the mere appearance of bread and wine. They think that somehow the substance of the bread is still there, but Christ somehow is spiritually present in the host. They too call this “real presence”.

Anyway, the point is most traditionalists hate ambiguity in the explanation of these doctrines. They seen for years how people professed openly the same Catholic teachings but understood them in a different sense. This is why they are always asking for clarification. Again, I am not addressing Archbishop Muller’s writings – I admit I have not read them –I just think theological writing in these areas needs to move back towards the clarity of the past, and I think an emphasis on St Thomas’ method is the remedy for this for the most part.

 

[JReducation]

I have not read any of Archbishop Muller’s works so I will not even attempt to comment on them, or on his interpretation of various doctrines. I will say this though; those who have a problem with them obviously think they are contrary to traditional teachings. If they are not, and it is simply a case of misunderstanding, then the problem that traditionalists still have is the ambiguity. I get the arguments about interpretation and the language used, but as you can understand traditionalists get very wary around what they consider ambiguity in doctrine. I don’t think it is a matter of theological language either – unable to be interpreted by the mere layman or priest. One does not need a degree or doctorate in theology or philosophy to understand a theological text or work. In any case, a more in-depth reading in context should be relatively understandable to anyone who has even a mediocre knowledge of theology and philosophy. The problem seems to be a movement towards more and more ambiguity. And being wary of liberalism and modernism in all its forms, most traditionalist feel uncomfortable around this kind of language. Sure, if the writings were meant for those who are of the same way of thinking and know how the language is used this may explain some of the confusion, but certainly I think when explaining certain key doctrines a good theologian – from whatever school – should strive to be understood in the clearest way, lest any confusion arise in such important matters.

So when reading the explanation of a doctrine one should not have to wonder whether or not the interpretation is in conformity with what has always been held. It is like when a Church of Ireland minister said to me when discussing the faith: “we believe in the real presence too”. I then asked what he meant by “real presence”. I think everyone knows it is radically different from the true meaning. This is what makes the confusion run deeper. The same terminology and theological speak in used but is understood differently by different people.

When the bread is consecrated at Mass it becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord. Although under the “appearance” of bread – it is actually and quite physically really the body and blood etc of Christ. People have said to me before such things as: “a certain Eucharistic miracle took place and the host turned into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus” – I always responded that this was not infact the unique miracle. That happens at every valid Mass. The unique miracle here was that the accidedents of the bread were made to manifest the substance and the miracle of consecration was no longer hidden to our senses. The body and blood of Christ were always really physically there. When the bread was broken, Christ’s body was broken. But many in the Church today are saying they believe in the real presence, but do not think Christ is really and truly physical present under the mere appearance of bread and wine. They think that somehow the substance of the bread is still there, but Christ somehow is spiritually present in the host. They too call this “real presence”.

Anyway, the point is most traditionalists hate ambiguity in the explanation of these doctrines. They seen for years how people professed openly the same Catholic teachings but understood them in a different sense. This is why they are always asking for clarification. Again, I am not addressing Archbishop Muller’s writings – I admit I have not read them –I just think theological writing in these areas needs to move back towards the clarity of the past, and I think an emphasis on St Thomas’ method is the remedy for this for the most part.

I understand what you’re saying about ambiguity. It’s a legitimate complaint. When something is meant for me and is written in a way that I am not sure if it means “to, too, or two” then I have a problem and a legitimate complaint.

If something is not meant for me, and I don’t understand if it means “to, too or two” I could care less. The writer didn’t mean for me to read it in the first place.

The first scenario is a legitimate complaint. The second scenario happens very often and it’s just a griping session. Many things are not written with the average Catholic in mind. They’re written for scholars. When things are written for scholars, all bets are off. The part that is exciting about scholars writing for scholars is to tease the mind. Theologians who write for other theologians are not trying to teach doctrine that has already been taught. They are commenting. Some commentaries are right on the money, others are not as good, but they trigger thinking on the part of the next theologian who reads it, because he has to figure out how to fix it or how to respond to it. Theology is like any other discipline. It has areas, levels, and audiences.

This takes me to my last comment, because theology is like any other discipline, with so many methods and areas of expertise, not everything that is written applies to the majority. When it doesn’t apply to me, I may or may not read it, depending on my level of interest. If it’s ambiguous, but does not apply to me, I could care less. Let it be ambiguous. I have better things to think about.

You also say that the emphasis on St. Thomas is the remedy. You must remember that St.Thomas was only emphasized for secular theologians, secular clergy, and clerks regular. The orders were never obliged to study Thomas.

If you had an advanced degree in theology, you were going to have to read Thomas. But if you were a Jesuit, Franciscan or Carmelite who was destined to be a parish priest or brother, you completed an M.Div. At that level, there is very little Thomas. The focus is on the doctors and theologians of your order along with the Fathers, Scripture, Canon Law, History, Liturgy and Sacraments, Pastoral Counseling, etc, etc.

Even though the Church mandated the study of Aquinas, the mandate was never applied to the orders, only to secular men studying to be priests or regular religious studying to be priests. Friars and monks were not in that group.

Even if the Church were to say that all future priests have to study Thomas, it would still apply only to a small number, since the majority of priests do not get theology degrees. They get Divinity Degrees, not quite the same thing. The Divinity Degree is much more practical than the theology degree. They would not see more than two semesters of Thomas out of eight.

Or one could have something like I had. Thomas was distributed. In Liturgy and Sacraments, we heard what Thomas had to say on the subject along with the Franciscan Masters, always deferring to the Franciscan Masters. In Ecclesiology, the same thing, Thomas and the Franciscan Masters, with Thomas deferring to the Franciscan Masters. Scripture, you can forget Thomas there. We had Anthony of Padua who was a much better Scripture Scholar than Thomas. Philosophy, we had Augustine and Bonaventure who were just as good as Thomas, but they were our own. Thomas was taught by subjects. No one ever sat and read the whole Summa, even Dominicans. You did that if you were going to be a scholar or were interested in reading the entire Summa.

This has been the scenario for centuries. Thomas was for Diocesan priests and regular priests getting degrees in Theology, not Divinity or Ministry, which is another path that some seminarians take. The only friars who received a large dose of Thomas were the Dominicans and they did not read the entire Summa to get an M.Div. There is too much coursework required for the M.Div.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Iotaunum]

The first scenario is a legitimate complaint. The second scenario happens very often and it’s just a griping session. Many things are not written with the average Catholic in mind. They’re written for scholars. When things are written for scholars, all bets are off.

You are correct and I agree with your understanding for the most part. One theologian feeds of the writings and thoughts of others. We have seen this development even in Thomism which I believe has led to even greater clarity in terms of precision in definitions and refuting errors. I understand from what you have said that there should be therefore some distance between the layman or priest studying theology and higher level theologians who are writing in specific and technical areas – however if we have learned anything from the past, I feel, it is that confusion and ambiguity in doctrine had its roots and source in the very writings of this sort, i.e. from the high level theologians.

From whatever school they come we have seen the same trends towards a new theology. This was evident in the “ressourcement” of the last century in Thomistic circles where the theologian would sort of ignore all the later development in Thomism and re-read St Thomas’ works in light of the Greeks or Augustine etc. Leading sometimes to a theology most would not recognise as Thomistic, yet sharing the name. You can understand therefore the interest certain people take in writings of this sort therefore. Having seen high level Churchmen and theologians advocate a new theology and understanding, most traditionalists are weary of any writings on the key doctrines of the Church which have even a remote sense of ambiguity about them. I understand what you are saying, but I just don’t think these theologians should be allowed, at the same time, to run wild.

You also say that the emphasis on St. Thomas is the remedy. You must remember that St.Thomas was only emphasized for secular theologians, secular clergy, and clerks regular. The orders were never obliged to study Thomas.

I understand that, which is why I said that I think it is the remedy “for the most part” – I understand things are different in the various orders and I appreciate your vast knowledge on the subject. I just think this method would bring a greater clarity in a time where I think it is most needed. Most lay Catholics do not, as far as I can tell, know what real presence is in its details as it is, and it can only be dangerous for high level theologians to present doctrines such as this in any ambiguous way as it may eventually filter down to the priests and laity.

 

[M-Dent]

What doesn’t the Remnant understand about the Archbishop’s own words?

It does make you wonder?

(How I understand this article)

Stephen Dupuy (writing for the Remnant) is inferring, wrongfully IMHO, that Archbishop Müller is guilty of being a Modernist. (He defines: one who separates Faith and science in an effort to appease rationalists.) It’s a bit beyond insulting to Archbishop Müller and the Holy Father for that matter.

 

[JReducation]

It does make you wonder?

(How I understand this article)

Stephen Dupuy (writing for the Remnant) is inferring, wrongfully IMHO, that Archbishop Müller is guilty of being a Modernist. (He defines: one who separates Faith and science in an effort to appease rationalists.) It’s a bit beyond insulting to Archbishop Müller and the Holy Father for that matter.

Writers have to be careful to limit themselves to stating facts and not giving interpretations. That’s not good journalism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

Writers have to be careful to limit themselves to stating facts and not giving interpretations. That’s not good journalism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I liked these ‘facts’ reported (and the lack of bias) in an article in The Dialog from Archbishop Muller’s interview with CNS
thedialog.org/?p=6404

thedialog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/muller.jpgGerman Archbishop Gerhard L. Muller is pictured in Rome in a 2010 file photo. The new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano that the congregationâs discussions with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X and with the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious would focus on the fact that being Catholic means believing what the church teaches. The interview with him was published in the paper’s July 25 edition. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

"…But, in the interview published July 25, the archbishop was asked what he thought about the ongoing discussions aimed at bringing the traditionalist SSPX back into full communion with the church and about the congregation-ordered reform of the LCWR, the organization that brings together the superiors of most religious orders of women in the United States.

Apparently referring to the talks with the SSPX, which rejects certain reforms introduced by the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Muller said, “One cannot make reference to the tradition of the church and then accept only parts of it.”

"Archbishop Muller said he knows the problems and challenges facing the church are serious, including** “the problem of groups of the so-called right or left that occupy much of our time and attention.”**

"However, he said, a bigger danger is losing sight of “our principal task, which is to proclaim the Gospel and explain in a concrete way the doctrine of the church.”

"The archbishop said that for the past 15 years he has spent a month or two each year in Peru or other parts of Latin America, living simply and getting to know people.
In his travels, he said,** “this is what I’ve experienced: You can be at home anywhere. Where there is an altar, Christ is present. Wherever you are, you are part of God’s big family.”**

:ehh:Surprisingly understandable words from a man who’s theological writings appear to be confusing certain Catholics.**
**

 

[JReducation]

I liked these ‘facts’ reported (and the lack of bias) in an article in The Dialog from Archbishop Muller’s interview with CNS
thedialog.org/?p=6404

thedialog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/muller.jpgGerman Archbishop Gerhard L. Muller is pictured in Rome in a 2010 file photo. The new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano that the congregation’s discussions with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X and with the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious would focus on the fact that being Catholic means believing what the church teaches. The interview with him was published in the paper’s July 25 edition. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

"…But, in the interview published July 25, the archbishop was asked what he thought about the ongoing discussions aimed at bringing the traditionalist SSPX back into full communion with the church and about the congregation-ordered reform of the LCWR, the organization that brings together the superiors of most religious orders of women in the United States.

Apparently referring to the talks with the SSPX, which rejects certain reforms introduced by the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Muller said, “One cannot make reference to the tradition of the church and then accept only parts of it.”

"Archbishop Muller said he knows the problems and challenges facing the church are serious, including** “the problem of groups of the so-called right or left that occupy much of our time and attention.”**

"However, he said, a bigger danger is losing sight of “our principal task, which is to proclaim the Gospel and explain in a concrete way the doctrine of the church.”

"The archbishop said that for the past 15 years he has spent a month or two each year in Peru or other parts of Latin America, living simply and getting to know people.
In his travels, he said,** “this is what I’ve experienced: You can be at home anywhere. Where there is an altar, Christ is present. Wherever you are, you are part of God’s big family.”**

:ehh:Surprisingly understandable words from a man who’s theological writings appear to be confusing certain Catholics.**
**

Nice interview. I really like the fact that the writer does not speak. He lets the Archbishop speak. It’s also important to separate the Archbishop from the theologian. The theologian has a wider playing field. He can speculate, throw news ways of looking at things on the table. He can challenge the way things have been said or expound on them. He is given this room by the Church herself. He’s a man of faith and science.

The Archbishop is one who teaches. The scope of his speculation and his teaching is not as broad as that of the theologian. He’s not expected to speak as a researcher,but to speak as a churchman, which he does very well here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[fakename]

He is speaking as a theologian who understands the difference between physical presence and real presence, between matter and substance. His mistake might have been doing so in a public forum where it might confuse the laity, but what he says makes sense to theologians who understand the technical terms used and what they mean.

It’s the difference between the terms substance and matter.

In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.

“Our Catholic faith is very clear,” he explained,“that at the consecration during Mass a change occurs so that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the whole substance body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that this change is rightly called transubstantiation. And we have refused to accept all the other interpretations, consubstantiation, transignification, transfinalisation and so on.”

Theologians are careful to say that the Eucharist is the whole substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ but you will never hear them saying that the Eucharist is the entire material of Christ or that it is the entire matter of Christ. We call it transubstantiation, not transmaterialization.

There is a distinction which I don’t understand although it was explained to me once by someone much smarter than I.

Archbishop Muller is speaking as a highly specialized doctor would speak to another doctor. They language used by two doctors might scare the heck out of the patient because we really don’t understand the technical meanings of the terms, but the two doctors are speaking a highly specialized technical language. It is often the same for theologians.

Muller said:

Either they have not read what I have written or they have not understood it.”

He is probably right that they have simply not understood the technical terminology. What he is saying is not muddled to another theologian.

-Tim-

I think the problem with this interpretation, and what trads would make of it, is that matter is never actually existent unless it is substance. So why create a distinction that doesn’t really exist? Unless the Archbishop is talking about prime matter which is also something that is only potential and never is, except that it is actualized by forms.

Also, Jesus is materially present w/bones, blood, flesh, etc. in the host. So again, why contrast his material presence with his substantial presence when the two are inseparable? Unless of course, I really am quite wrong.

 

[fakename]

I understand what you’re saying about ambiguity. It’s a legitimate complaint. When something is meant for me and is written in a way that I am not sure if it means “to, too, or two” then I have a problem and a legitimate complaint.

If something is not meant for me, and I don’t understand if it means “to, too or two” I could care less. The writer didn’t mean for me to read it in the first place.

The first scenario is a legitimate complaint. The second scenario happens very often and it’s just a griping session. Many things are not written with the average Catholic in mind. They’re written for scholars. When things are written for scholars, all bets are off. The part that is exciting about scholars writing for scholars is to tease the mind. Theologians who write for other theologians are not trying to teach doctrine that has already been taught. They are commenting. Some commentaries are right on the money, others are not as good, but they trigger thinking on the part of the next theologian who reads it, because he has to figure out how to fix it or how to respond to it. Theology is like any other discipline. It has areas, levels, and audiences.

This takes me to my last comment, because theology is like any other discipline, with so many methods and areas of expertise, not everything that is written applies to the majority. When it doesn’t apply to me, I may or may not read it, depending on my level of interest. If it’s ambiguous, but does not apply to me, I could care less. Let it be ambiguous. I have better things to think about.

You also say that the emphasis on St. Thomas is the remedy. You must remember that St.Thomas was only emphasized for secular theologians, secular clergy, and clerks regular. The orders were never obliged to study Thomas.

If you had an advanced degree in theology, you were going to have to read Thomas. But if you were a Jesuit, Franciscan or Carmelite who was destined to be a parish priest or brother, you completed an M.Div. At that level, there is very little Thomas. The focus is on the doctors and theologians of your order along with the Fathers, Scripture, Canon Law, History, Liturgy and Sacraments, Pastoral Counseling, etc, etc.

Even though the Church mandated the study of Aquinas, the mandate was never applied to the orders, only to secular men studying to be priests or regular religious studying to be priests. Friars and monks were not in that group.

Even if the Church were to say that all future priests have to study Thomas, it would still apply only to a small number, since the majority of priests do not get theology degrees. They get Divinity Degrees, not quite the same thing. The Divinity Degree is much more practical than the theology degree. They would not see more than two semesters of Thomas out of eight.

Or one could have something like I had. Thomas was distributed. In Liturgy and Sacraments, we heard what Thomas had to say on the subject along with the Franciscan Masters, always deferring to the Franciscan Masters. In Ecclesiology, the same thing, Thomas and the Franciscan Masters, with Thomas deferring to the Franciscan Masters. Scripture, you can forget Thomas there. We had Anthony of Padua who was a much better Scripture Scholar than Thomas. Philosophy, we had Augustine and Bonaventure who were just as good as Thomas, but they were our own. Thomas was taught by subjects. No one ever sat and read the whole Summa, even Dominicans. You did that if you were going to be a scholar or were interested in reading the entire Summa.

This has been the scenario for centuries. Thomas was for Diocesan priests and regular priests getting degrees in Theology, not Divinity or Ministry, which is another path that some seminarians take. The only friars who received a large dose of Thomas were the Dominicans and they did not read the entire Summa to get an M.Div. There is too much coursework required for the M.Div.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

That’s a problem then, for the Church may then be compared with a school where the principal, TA, teachers, textbooks, and students are all speaking different or equivocal languages. No learning can be accomplished in such an environment. Given that I know everyone knows their Catholicism from mass, and since mass uses Thomistic language (like consubstantial, substance, person, proceeds from the Father and the Son, etc.), then the whole Church should usefully use Thomism. Again, unless of course I’m quite mistaken.

 

[Melchior_1]

That’s a problem then, for the Church may then be compared with a school where the principal, TA, teachers, textbooks, and students are all speaking different or equivocal languages. No learning can be accomplished in such an environment. Given that I know everyone knows their Catholicism from mass, and since mass uses Thomistic language (like consubstantial, substance, person, proceeds from the Father and the Son, etc.), then the whole Church should usefully use Thomism. Again, unless of course I’m quite mistaken.

I’m a percussionist, and also an Server Administrator. With the former, I use math to measure the beat, tempo, and what notes will be played (quarter notes, eighth notes, misc etc). With the latter, I use math to determine several technical functions, including sometime shaving to count in binary.

Both of these use math, but expresses them differently. So to does the Church use different Doctors, all of whom takes the Authentic Christ but expresses Him differently.

 

[JReducation]

That’s a problem then, for the Church may then be compared with a school where the principal, TA, teachers, textbooks, and students are all speaking different or equivocal languages. No learning can be accomplished in such an environment. Given that I know everyone knows their Catholicism from mass, and since mass uses Thomistic language (like consubstantial, substance, person, proceeds from the Father and the Son, etc.), then the whole Church should usefully use Thomism. Again, unless of course I’m quite mistaken.

The mass does not use Thomistic language at all. The language of the mass is purely scriptural. The language of the Creed comes from the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon. Long before Thomas came on the scene, we had the Creed as it is right now as well as the scriptural prayers.

Thomas is only used in theology, not everything he wrote and not by everyone. This has always been the case for more than 800 years. Why change it now?

What gives anyone the right to tell an order as old as the Benedictines, Carmelites, Augustinians, Cistercians or Carthusians that they have to use Thomas as their primary source? We’re talking about one thousand or more years of consecrated life here, that has produced some of the best theologians in the world, including Thomas, since the Dominicans follow Augustine.

Then you have a younger order like the Franciscans that has more doctors than any other order in the Church, including the Dominicans. What gives anyone the right to tell this order to drop their doctors and pick up Thomas, when they have always combined while deferring to their own doctors in those areas where their doctors are stronger than Thomas. At other times, they have deferred to their founder who commanded things that Thomas contradicted, but which the Church sanctioned and continues to sanction, such as the Immaculate Conception, CITH, equality between the ordained and the non-ordained religious, and being over doing.

You’re talking about turning the entire religious life of the Church upside down. That’s the last thing we need right now. We need to go back to the Middle Ages where we began or further back, not to the 1950s. What we had in the 1950s only worked for the laity. It did not work for us. It decimated us. More than half of those men who entered after 1950 left, were dismissed or remained and made life impossible for the rest of the religious community.

It’s easy for the man in the pew to want to go back to 1950. He does not have to live with a priest, brother or sister from that era. Not only were they out of compliance with the wishes and vision of their founders, but they were very difficult people for whom the most important thing in the world was their parish or their school instead of their way of life. As a result of some of this insanity, the counter reaction was to go to the opposite extreme and add insanity to the insanity.

Let us do this our way. We will go back to the origins of our specific orders and we will study what our religious ancestors studied and taught us, be it Thomas, Augustine, Bernard, Robert, Alphonse, Bruno et al.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV