Does Latin Rite Catholicism require acceptance of Aristotelian philosophy?

[carefullytread]

In the Catechism, we are told:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

In looking for explanations for what this means, the apologists always turn to Aristotle and I believe he was influential on the development of this doctrine based on my limited understanding of Church thinking at the time.

In a non-religious context I had studied a bit of philosophy and I concluded, along with, I think, most modern philosophers , that his philosophy wasn’t useful. We don’t need to be sidetracked into debating the merits of the theory of accidents. What I’m curious to know is if the Faithful must accept it or a substantially similar philosophy.

I’ve read that in Eastern Rites as well as the Orthodox Churches, that the doctrine of Real Presence is accepted while leaving exactly what that means to be a mystery. Something like “the nature of what is occurring is unknowable”, which is similar the understanding I had as a child.

In contract, everything I’ve read about the doctrine in the Latin Rite returns to the Aristotelian explanation and when I read Luther’s comments on rejecting transubstantiation, he specifically singles out Aristotle as being used to introduce a doctrine he rejects.

So what is faithful Latin Rite Catholic required to believe? Are they allowed to say “this is a mystery” or must they think it terms of accidents and substances? If they believe in the Real Presence, but consider talk of accidents to be semantic confusion, are they heretical?

 

[catholic1seeks]

In the Catechism, we are told:

In looking for explanations for what this means, the apologists always turn to Aristotle and I believe he was influential on the development of this doctrine based on my limited understanding of Church thinking at the time.

In a non-religious context I had studied a bit of philosophy and I concluded, along with, I think, most modern philosophers , that his philosophy wasn’t useful. We don’t need to be sidetracked into debating the merits of the theory of accidents. What I’m curious to know is if the Faithful must accept it or a substantially similar philosophy.

I’ve read that in Eastern Rites as well as the Orthodox Churches, that the doctrine of Real Presence is accepted while leaving exactly what that means to be a mystery. Something like “the nature of what is occurring is unknowable”, which is similar the understanding I had as a child.

In contract, everything I’ve read about the doctrine in the Latin Rite returns to the Aristotelian explanation and when I read Luther’s comments on rejecting transubstantiation, he specifically singles out Aristotle as being used to introduce a doctrine he rejects.

So what is faithful Latin Rite Catholic required to believe? Are they allowed to say “this is a mystery” or must they think it terms of accidents and substances? If they believe in the Real Presence, but consider talk of accidents to be semantic confusion, are they heretical?

I’ve always seen it as a culturally-accepted language used to explain common sense. And in this sense: The Real Presence means that Christ is really present, fully, in the Eucharist – and yet what we receive is not mere bread and wine anymore.

Yet we see, touch, taste everything that is bread and wine.

Transubstantiation just uses terms like substance, meaning what something is, and accidents, what something’s physical properties are.

That’s why the Orthodox ultimately end up accepting the Catholic understanding because at its core, transubstantiation is is simply saying that we are no longer receiving bread and wine – Christ is present.

Specific terms like “accident” and “substance” set aside, there really aren’t any other options for explaining the Real Presence if by “Real Presence” one means that which looks like bread and wine is no longer bread and wine: It’s Christ’s body and blood.

Once you understand what the terms mean, the terms themselves aren’t as scary.

 

[utunumsint]

Hi carefullytread,

I agree with what catholic1seeks says. I would also add that you could use other jargon to say substantially the same thing that might fit into some other philosophical framework. So to use Aristotelian terms, Aristotelian philosophy is accidental to the way Latin Rite Catholicism has developed, but the substance is the deposit of faith.

Having said all that, I am personally convinced that Aristotelianism and Platonism has a lot to offer to modern philosophy. In fact, I would go further and say one can hardly make sense of much of what is discussed in modern philosophy without having a strong background in classical philosophy.

Also, Platonism and Aristotelianism has permeated the early church’s quest to understand the revelation of God in sacred tradition and in sacred scripture. This isn’t something we need to be ashamed of. To jettison any understanding of Platonism and Aristotelianism would be a great loss in helping us understand very foundational thinkers like Augustine, Thomas, Bonaventure, and so on. And many of the official documents produced in church history are permeated with philosophical concepts, like the necessity of accepting God’s simplicity. For example, this is from the first Vatican Council:

1. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.

How does one understand this if not in the terms of classical theism that Aquinas, Augustine, and Bonaventure would have immediately recognized? At the very least, if we don’t want to accept their philosophy, we are going to have a lot of work to do to translate Aristotelian and Platonic concepts into the new philosophy of our choice. And we also have to recognize that if we are going to be faithful Catholics, that many of the modern philosophies in vogue today are simply incompatible with Catholicism. We have to decide whether we are going to be true to our faith and pick and choose from what is good in these philosophies or true to our philosophies and pick and choose from what is of the faith.

God bless,
Ut

 

[carefullytread]

Thank you for the reply Ut.

Let me ask my question in a different way. I believe it is orthodox to say “A consecrated host will behave in every way like an unconsecrated host.” Meaning, all its physical properties are unchanged. It’s physical properties are what Aristotle would call it’s “accidents”.

I believe many (not all) modern philosophers might say at this point “Well, Aristotle was confused about what words are. When someone says bread, all they mean are the physical properties of bread. There is nothing else to mean but a semantic handle to a set of properties that often go together and humans have found it useful to which to attach a word.” I think this is a common, though not universal, view of semantics.

But if you were then to say “So, a consecrated host is bread”, have you now committed heresy?

We can even try to make our philosopher a believer who says “I still belief in the real presence, but my use of the word bread doesn’t involve that at all. Something mystical has happened, I don’t know what, but it’s unrelated to calling the host ‘bread’.”

Is that a heretical statement? I believe Church does condemn interpretations of the Eucharist that say things like “There is a spiritual presence of Jesus, but it’s still bread”. This looks exactly like what my believing philosopher said above, although you could equivocate here and say that Church’s condemnation is based a different use of words than our philosopher is employing.

All of which is another way of asking, does having a theory of semantics similar to what I’ve outlined imply heresy? Do you have to believe that words are chasing after some Platonic Ideal or Aristotelian Substance to be orthodox on transubstantiation?

 

[powerofk]

Hi carefullytread,

I agree with what catholic1seeks says. I would also add that you could use other jargon to say substantially the same thing that might fit into some other philosophical framework. So to use Aristotelian terms, Aristotelian philosophy is accidental to the way Latin Rite Catholicism has developed, but the substance is the deposit of faith.

Having said all that, I am personally convinced that Aristotelianism and Platonism has a lot to offer to modern philosophy. In fact, I would go further and say one can hardly make sense of much of what is discussed in modern philosophy without having a strong background in classical philosophy.

Also, Platonism and Aristotelianism has permeated the early church’s quest to understand the revelation of God in sacred tradition and in sacred scripture. This isn’t something we need to be ashamed of. To jettison any understanding of Platonism and Aristotelianism would be a great loss in helping us understand very foundational thinkers like Augustine, Thomas, Bonaventure, and so on. And many of the official documents produced in church history are permeated with philosophical concepts, like the necessity of accepting God’s simplicity. For example, this is from the first Vatican Council:

How does one understand this if not in the terms of classical theism that Aquinas, Augustine, and Bonaventure would have immediately recognized? At the very least, if we don’t want to accept their philosophy, we are going to have a lot of work to do to translate Aristotelian and Platonic concepts into the new philosophy of our choice. And we also have to recognize that if we are going to be faithful Catholics, that many of the modern philosophies in vogue today are simply incompatible with Catholicism. We have to decide whether we are going to be true to our faith and pick and choose from what is good in these philosophies or true to our philosophies and pick and choose from what is of the faith.

God bless,
Ut

Not only this, but St. Paul himself drew from many branches of Greek philosophy (especially Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics) when spreading the gospel to the Greco-Roman Gentiles, to show them how their own philosophy (not just the Jewish scriptures, which they would have been relatively unfamiliar with) pointed toward Jesus being the Christ. Also, during the Middle Ages in the West, Plato and Aristotle’s philosophical works were kept from complete destruction by religious communities copying them in an effort to preserve the works of classical civilization (had they not been continuously copied, their works would have been lost forever in the fire of the Great Library of Alexandria). Of course, continually copying the works of Plato and Aristotle made the religious communities (of which St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure were a part) very familiar with them - almost as familiar with the Greek philosophers as they were with the Bible. And of course, St. Augustine of Hippo lived during the dying days of the Western Roman Empire, and the classical Greek philosophers were part of his formal education. Since these great Church Doctors had so much familiarity with the classical Greek philosophers, it’s no wonder why they used Plato and Aristotle as jumping-off points in their theological works.

 

[utunumsint]

Thank you for the reply Ut.

Let me ask my question in a different way. I believe it is orthodox to say “A consecrated host will behave in every way like an unconsecrated host.” Meaning, all its physical properties are unchanged. It’s physical properties are what Aristotle would call it’s “accidents”.

I believe many (not all) modern philosophers might say at this point “Well, Aristotle was confused about what words are. When someone says bread, all they mean are the physical properties of bread. There is nothing else to mean but a semantic handle to a set of properties that often go together and humans have found it useful to which to attach a word.” I think this is a common, though not universal, view of semantics.

But if you were then to say “So, a consecrated host is bread”, have you now committed heresy?

We can even try to make our philosopher a believer who says “I still belief in the real presence, but my use of the word bread doesn’t involve that at all. Something mystical has happened, I don’t know what, but it’s unrelated to calling the host ‘bread’.”

Is that a heretical statement? I believe Church does condemn interpretations of the Eucharist that say things like “There is a spiritual presence of Jesus, but it’s still bread”. This looks exactly like what my believing philosopher said above, although you could equivocate here and say that Church’s condemnation is based a different use of words than our philosopher is employing.

All of which is another way of asking, does having a theory of semantics similar to what I’ve outlined imply heresy? Do you have to believe that words are chasing after some Platonic Ideal or Aristotelian Substance to be orthodox on transubstantiation?

Well, as far as I understand it, you have to believe that after the bread and the wine are consecrated, that they are truly the body and blood of Christ. Its not bread or wine anymore. Its just the appearance of bread and wine.

There is no Aristotle or Plato in these statement. That is what the church teaches. And what Jesus teaches in John 6. It is a mystery.

Your philosopher who insists that the bread is still present and that Jesus is only there spiritually would not be accepting Catholic teaching. Technically, we would call that consubstantiation I believe.

But for me, it isn’t Aristotle’s theory of substance/accidents or Plato’s theory of forms that convinces me that this transformation has happened. It is my faith in Christ that convinces me.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Pray to Jesus for faith. All of this rests on what you make of him. Do you trust him enough to believe what he says about himself. Or, if that is too much, do you trust him enough to bring you to faith eventually about this one particular part of the faith, even though you don’t fully understand or have difficulties believing it?

Having this attitude is enough.

God bless,
Ut

 

[carefullytread]

Hi Ut,
Again, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

As you rightly guess, my own state of believe is murky, but I want the thread to be about this theological question rather than my own beliefs. Nonetheless, thank you for your prayers on the matter.

Another way to reframe my question again might even be “What does the Church mean when it requires you to believe in the Real Presence?” As you rightly point out, it is a mystery. There seems little doubt that Christians have historically believed in the Real Presence since very early practices, but the exact nature of that believe doesn’t seems to be nailed down. The word transubstantiation doesn’t appear until the 1200s I believe.

This is why Eastern Churches can teach the Real Presence without using Aristotle. The relevant councils come after the Schism. And, I believe the particular framing of the Real Presence in terms of transubstantiation is what Luther was rejecting when he talks about the evils of Aristotelian ideas. And, yes, I think you’re right that Lutherans call it consubstantiation these days.

However, it’s not clear to me that what the difference is between the two ideas if you don’t have an Aristotelian view of the word. If you don’t have a philosophical system in which an object has a ‘substance’ that is distinct from the sum of its ‘accidents’, what does it mean?

I don’t believe Orthodox Christians or Eastern Rite Catholics specify what the belief means exactly. You have to believe in the Real Presence, but it’s exact meaning is not expounded upon. However, as I quoted in my original post, the Latin Rite is very specific in using the word ‘substance’ (at least in English) and every apologetic I’ve read using Aristotle to explain what that means.

Hence, I’m trying to understand if this means that in order to be an orthodox Latin Rite Catholic, you must subscribe to Aristotelian ideas. Are you allowed to reject Aristotle and simply say “Transubstantiation is a mystery” or do you have to more precise in your beliefs in a way that is only coherent in some semantics and not others?

And, I’ll note that in my earlier example, my believing philosopher was saying something like "The consecrated host still has all the physical properties of bread. . That is what I mean when I say the word bread. Therefore, although a miracle has occurred and there is the Real Presence, which is myster, that does not affect my use of the word bread to describe it as bread simply refers to the physical properties [This seems to be heretical]"

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Ut,
Again, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

As you rightly guess, my own state of believe is murky, but I want the thread to be about this theological question rather than my own beliefs. Nonetheless, thank you for your prayers on the matter.

Understood.

Another way to reframe my question again might even be “What does the Church mean when it requires you to believe in the Real Presence?” As you rightly point out, it is a mystery. There seems little doubt that Christians have historically believed in the Real Presence since very early practices, but the exact nature of that believe doesn’t seems to be nailed down. The word transubstantiation doesn’t appear until the 1200s I believe.

Agreed. The church doesn’t often nail things down until there is a controversy. In this case, they use Aristotelian jargon to clarify the subject.

This is why Eastern Churches can teach the Real Presence without using Aristotle. The relevant councils come after the Schism. And, I believe the particular framing of the Real Presence in terms of transubstantiation is what Luther was rejecting when he talks about the evils of Aristotelian ideas. And, yes, I think you’re right that Lutherans call it consubstantiation these days.

I’m not sure about the Eastern Churches, but perhaps they did not have the same historical conflicts to make this into an issue that required more specificity. That said, I don’t think this is a theological sticking point between Catholics and Orthodox.

I’m also not sure what Luther’s reasons where for rejecting transubstantiation. Do you have any text I could look at?

However, it’s not clear to me that what the difference is between the two ideas if you don’t have an Aristotelian view of the word. If you don’t have a philosophical system in which an object has a ‘substance’ that is distinct from the sum of its ‘accidents’, what does it mean?

Its hard for me to understand what a thing would be without understanding a thing as a substance. But maybe it would be enough if you just accepted that what the Eucharist is no longer what it appears to be to the senses after consecration.

I don’t believe Orthodox Christians or Eastern Rite Catholics specify what the belief means exactly. You have to believe in the Real Presence, but it’s exact meaning is not expounded upon. However, as I quoted in my original post, the Latin Rite is very specific in using the word ‘substance’ (at least in English) and every apologetic I’ve read using Aristotle to explain what that means.

Agreed. As I said, there are historical reasons for this.

Hence, I’m trying to understand if this means that in order to be an orthodox Latin Rite Catholic, you must subscribe to Aristotelian ideas. Are you allowed to reject Aristotle and simply say “Transubstantiation is a mystery” or do you have to more precise in your beliefs in a way that is only coherent in some semantics and not others?

Eh, here is a quote from the wiki on this topic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

The Council of Trent in its 13th session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.[20] This council officially approved use of the term “transubstantiation” to express the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding Christ’s presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.[8] It did not however impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents: it spoke only of the species (the appearances), not the philosophical term “accidents”, and the word “substance” was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West,[21] as shown for instance by its use in the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ having the same “οὐσία” (Greek) or “substantia” (Latin) as the Father.

Here is a link to footnote 21 link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02785911

The theology of transubstantiation by Charles Davis. Perhaps he can provide a more specific answer.

And, I’ll note that in my earlier example, my believing philosopher was saying something like "The consecrated host still has all the physical properties of bread. . That is what I mean when I say the word bread. Therefore, although a miracle has occurred and there is the Real Presence, which is myster, that does not affect my use of the word bread to describe it as bread simply refers to the physical properties [This seems to be heretical]"

I think that would be OK. But I’m no expert. You may want to ask your question in the Ask and Apologist forum. They provide pretty accurate responses: forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4

I’d be interested in hearing more about your philosophical background, if you are willing. Where did you study philosophy? What is philosophy interests you the most? What was it about Aristotle and Plato that made you think they aren’t worth consideration?

God bless and good luck!
Ut

 

[Petaro]

This was a hard saying and many walked no more with Him. So we attempt to use our reason to clarify a mystery. No harm in that. You do not need to believe the Aristotelian framework. You just need to believe that the consecrated host is indeed the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ our Saviour.
Looking at the glass darkly is like jumping through the mirror in one of our very minor classics. We cannot frame the Eucharist within the wisdom of man. We must believe for He has the words of eternal life. The Orthodox are right in their beautiful simplicity of a child in saying simply - it is a mystery. Shame they did not leave the Trinity alone. LOL

 

[carefullytread]

Hi Ut,

Thank you, and I will consider asking an apologist!

I’m also not sure what Luther’s reasons where for rejecting transubstantiation. Do you have any text I could look at?

Here is a good Catholic explanation of Luther’s thoughts.

As you note, the Church often doesn’t define a teaching for centuries until a council decides an issue. This was one of them. The Eucharist was a tradition dating back to the earliest Christians who believed in the Real Presence, but weren’t explicit in what that meant.

I believe that’s why the Latin Church doesn’t have a problem with the Eastern Churches in regards to their teachings about the Eucharist. They never adopted the later councils, but neither did they reject them.

Luther on the other hand says that the Church made a mistake introducing Aristotle, but he gives his own explanation of the Eucharist. I suspect just like the Latin Church says they are in agreement with the Orthodox Church, the Lutherans would say that their understanding is an agreement with Eastern beliefs. This last point is speculative on my part as I don’t have great understanding of either Lutheran or Orthodox teachings.

Its hard for me to understand what a thing would be without understanding a thing as a substance. But maybe it would be enough if you just accepted that what the Eucharist is no longer what it appears to be to the senses after consecration.

The link above paraphrases Rahner

To this objection, Rahner answers that if by bread is meant the reality, which comes under sense experience, then the dogma of transubstantiation has not been contradicted. However if by bread is meant the true reality of the bread, then the dogma, which teaches that an ontological change takes place in the bread has been denied. Moreover the person who upholds that interpretation has said more than the data of the senses reveals to him, and which is in conflict with the words of institution. If the object offered were truly bread, it would not be the body of Christ.

Rahner says having a theory of semantics that says words refer to accidents is fine and orthodox. But he also says someone who holds such an idea about semantics still needs an ontological Aristotelian view of the world. He doesn’t seem to accept “There is a mystery, but I reject the idea that the phrase ‘true reality’ * carries ontological weight”. At some point, without an Aristotelean philosophy, it seems there is no difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation. And the Church is clear that consubstantiation is heresy.

You are right that the Church never used the name Aristotle. But is this similar to saying “You must believe in the Categorical Imperative, but you don’t need to be a Kantian.” There are moral theories that are not Kant’s, but have a categorical imperative. But there are other moral theories that don’t have a categorical imperative, in which formulating beliefs about it aren’t possible.

Perhaps Latin doctrine, while still claiming there is a mystery, defined the doctrine in such a way that you need at least pseudo-Aristotelean philosophy to be orthodox? Without it, the Lutheran doctrine and the Latin doctrine look more or less the same.

I’d be interested in hearing more about your philosophical background, if you are willing. Where did you study philosophy? What is philosophy interests you the most? What was it about Aristotle and Plato that made you think they aren’t worth consideration?

I don’t think Aristotle and Plato aren’t worthy of consideration. I think in many areas we’ve long surpassed their understandings and interest in them is mostly historical.

You can see this in one of the famous arguments for God, that of the Prime Mover. A physicist might ask why anyone would think that’s a good argument. And you need to look into the history of science to understand why they don’t understand.

Aristotle believed the natural state of things was to be at rest. If something is moving, it will stop unless something else pushes it. So where does the original push come from?

Well, we’ve known since Newton that actually, the natural state of things is to conserve momentum. You’ve heard “objects in motion tend to stay in motion, objects at rest tend to stay at rest”. This turns out to be a very basic, deep truth that comes from Noether’s theorem. And like that, a huge problem that existed in Aristotelean physics just goes away.

Now, there is still the question of “Why is there a universe at all?” And physics has no answer for that. But the Prime Mover question is gone.

Aristotle was brilliant, much more so than I am, but I can look at his ideas about science and with the benefit of thousands of thinkers after him see that he just doesn’t get it.

In philosophy, in some fields there is progress and others it’s confusing. Moral philosophy is hard. You can still read Aristotle and get insights from virtue theory I think. But in some other areas, we’ve made progress and his questions don’t even really make sense anymore.

There’s a very insightful book on semantics by Korzybski on these ideas. It’s long, but I think if you were able to sit down and study it carefully, you couldn’t come out on the other side without seeing that Aristotle ideas were primitive. Not stupid, but primitive and we can do better now.

There’s an essayist who I like and here’s a post where he talks about how the question “What something really is” is often not a useful one. You can ignore the lesson he draws about mental illness (he’s a psychiatrist); it’s his observations about the misuse of ‘categories’ that I want to draw attention to.*

 

[MPat]

In a non-religious context I had studied a bit of philosophy and I concluded, along with, I think, most modern philosophers , that his philosophy wasn’t useful. We don’t need to be sidetracked into debating the merits of the theory of accidents. What I’m curious to know is if the Faithful must accept it or a substantially similar philosophy.

If you think that Aristotle’s philosophy is not useful, then you (and those modern philosophers) are clearly wrong. Just look:

I believe many (not all) modern philosophers might say at this point “Well, Aristotle was confused about what words are. When someone says bread, all they mean are the physical properties of bread. There is nothing else to mean but a semantic handle to a set of properties that often go together and humans have found it useful to which to attach a word.” I think this is a common, though not universal, view of semantics.

We can even try to make our philosopher a believer who says “I still belief in the real presence, but my use of the word bread doesn’t involve that at all. Something mystical has happened, I don’t know what, but it’s unrelated to calling the host ‘bread’.”

So, Aristotle’s philosophy allows one to explain transsubstantion to some extent, while your philosopher can’t even start to do that, as he has no suitable words. I guess it is obvious that in such case Aristotle’s philosophy is useful and your philosopher’s philosophy is useless and not vice versa.

Not to mention, that Aristotle’s philosophy has many other applications. For example, take any introductory textbook of Chemistry, and you will see comparison of “physical change” and “chemical change” (for example, chem4kids.com/files/matter_chemphys.html). Isn’t that suspiciously similar to “change of accidents” and “change of substance”? And that is not the only case where Aristotle’s philosophy is applied (without being referenced by name) in natural sciences.

It also gives us Natural law and proofs of God’s existence. As you can see, it is very useful. On the other hand, how many useful applications of philosophy of those “modern philosophers” you mentioned can you list…?

Is that a heretical statement? I believe Church does condemn interpretations of the Eucharist that say things like “There is a spiritual presence of Jesus, but it’s still bread”. This looks exactly like what my believing philosopher said above, although you could equivocate here and say that Church’s condemnation is based a different use of words than our philosopher is employing.

All of which is another way of asking, does having a theory of semantics similar to what I’ve outlined imply heresy? Do you have to believe that words are chasing after some Platonic Ideal or Aristotelian Substance to be orthodox on transubstantiation?

Maybe it is possible to avoid heresy while talking in such way, just saying “I have no words I can use.” or “My philosophy is too incomplete to be useful here.”. But if you already know your philosophy is incomplete and you are aware of a more complete philosophy, why stay with the one that is incomplete and less useful?

 

[carefullytread]

This was a hard saying and many walked no more with Him. So we attempt to use our reason to clarify a mystery. No harm in that. You do not need to believe the Aristotelian framework. You just need to believe that the consecrated host is indeed the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ our Saviour.
Looking at the glass darkly is like jumping through the mirror in one of our very minor classics. We cannot frame the Eucharist within the wisdom of man. We must believe for He has the words of eternal life. The Orthodox are right in their beautiful simplicity of a child in saying simply - it is a mystery. Shame they did not leave the Trinity alone. LOL

Yes, it is hard teaching. It is a belief one must struggle with. But a belief that is definitely worth struggling to hold. I am clearly sympathetic to the idea that it is simply a mystery. One worships the Eucharist because it is Christ. You commune with the Real Presence. But what that means is impossible to understand.

The question I’ve been trying to explore is if the Latin Rite demands more of its followers than that. That the mystery, while still a mystery, is not completely opaque. There is a form to the believe and that form is Aristotelian. I don’t know, but I pray for understanding.

 

[e_c]

It is certainly not required, but it is certainly helpful for making sense out of things. The Church was almost entirely without this language for some 1100 years, and we did fine.

FWIW, when his works were rediscovered, the injection of Aristotle into these discussions during the 12th century was WILDLY controversial. St. Thomas was considered an absolute nutcase (and possible heretic) by most of his contemporaries for using pagan - and even MUSLIM - texts to explain and defend Christian doctrine. His works were blacklisted after his death for this reason, together with serious pressures put on the University of Paris NOT to teach his system.

Google “Condemnations of 1277”

But anyway, truth is truth, no matter whence it cometh.

 

[carefullytread]

Maybe it is possible to avoid heresy while talking in such way, just saying “I have no words I can use.” or “My philosophy is too incomplete to be useful here.”.

Hi MPat,
Thanks for your reply.

I hope to avoid having the thread turn into a debate about the merits of Aristotle or not. This question you ask here is really the point I’m curious in. Namely, can you avoid heresy by saying those things? Can you not have Aristotelian beliefs and still be an orthodox Latin Rite Catholic? It seems to me that you can be an orthodox Orthodox or orthodox Eastern Rite Catholic, but you might not be able to avoid heresy in this case.

Whether you agree with me with about Aristotle or not, that’s fine either way. I respect your opinion and certainly many other people agree with you. What I’m curious to know is if the Church allows it.

Now, I obviously don’t mean to ask if the Church goes around excommunicating people who argue against Aristotle. Clearly they don’t. But if a believer, for the sake of their own soul, wishes to submit to the doctrines of the Church, are they required to have Aristotelian like philosophy?

The Church is quite clear that consubstantiation is heresy. If one says “I can’t understand the difference the between consubstantiation and transubstantiation because they aren’t different in my understanding of the world, but I am happy to be silent and simply contemplate the mysteries of the Real Presence” has one committed heresy?

 

[carefullytread]

It is certainly not required, but it is certainly helpful for making sense out of things. The Church was almost entirely without this language for some 1100 years, and we did fine.

FWIW, when his works were rediscovered, the injection of Aristotle into these discussions during the 12th century was WILDLY controversial. St. Thomas was considered an absolute nutcase (and possible heretic) by most of his contemporaries for using pagan - and even MUSLIM - texts to explain and defend Christian doctrine. His works were blacklisted after his death for this reason, together with serious pressures put on the University of Paris NOT to teach his system.

Google “Condemnations of 1277”

But anyway, truth is truth, no matter whence it cometh.

Hi e_c,
Thank you for your reply.

In regard to the doctrine being undefined before the 13th century, one thing I’ve noticed when studying the history of the early Church, is that sometimes as doctrines got hammered out, certain positions that had been orthodox in the past became heretical. I think the history of Christology is a great example. As the Councils solidified beliefs, ideas that were acceptable to hold earlier ceased to be as the Church has worked out its dogma.

A second century Christian could hold the beliefs that would later be called Arianism with no conflict. A modern Christian would be a heretic to do so. It seems to me that the Councils that organized the ideas of transubstantiation quite possibly defined the doctrine in such a way that earlier, looser ideas which had been orthodox became heretical.

Again, I just don’t know. In an earlier post I quoted the Catechism on this subject and it seems to me that the exact statement may be difficult to formulate without accepting certain other (Aristotelian) philosophical ideas.

And just as I think one is allowed to say that the Trinity exists, but is a mystery, one is not allowed to simply say the nature of God is just a mystery. You must at least accept the dogma of the Trinity.

Many things about the Faith are mysteries, but they are mysteries with structure and I am trying to understand how much structure is required versus what is allowed to remain a mystery.

 

[MPat]

Hi MPat,
Thanks for your reply.

I hope to avoid having the thread turn into a debate about the merits of Aristotle or not. This question you ask here is really the point I’m curious in. Namely, can you avoid heresy by saying those things? Can you not have Aristotelian beliefs and still be an orthodox Latin Rite Catholic? It seems to me that you can be an orthodox Orthodox or orthodox Eastern Rite Catholic, but you might not be able to avoid heresy in this case.

Whether you agree with me with about Aristotle or not, that’s fine either way. I respect your opinion and certainly many other people agree with you. What I’m curious to know is if the Church allows it.

Now, I obviously don’t mean to ask if the Church goes around excommunicating people who argue against Aristotle. Clearly they don’t. But if a believer, for the sake of their own soul, wishes to submit to the doctrines of the Church, are they required to have Aristotelian like philosophy?

The Church is quite clear that consubstantiation is heresy. If one says “I can’t understand the difference the between consubstantiation and transubstantiation because they aren’t different in my understanding of the world, but I am happy to be silent and simply contemplate the mysteries of the Real Presence” has one committed heresy?

If you are saying “My philosophy is too incomplete to be useful here.” and that really is true, then no, it is not heretical.

That is, “Transsubstantion and consubstantion are not different.” is heretical, but “I am not able to describe the difference between transsubstantion and consubstantion.” is not - by itself it mostly says that you have a problem, and you really do. “Physical properties of the bread are still the same after the consecration, and there is nothing else that could change.” is heretical, but “Physical properties of the bread are still the same after the consecration, and my philosophy does not indicate anything else that could change, but I know that something did change.” is not - by itself it mostly says that your philosophy is incomplete at best, and it really is.

In other words, if you are really only saying that there is a problem with your philosophy, you are not committing any heresy.

But if you would be saying that there is nothing wrong with your philosophy, that it is not incomplete and it needs no more work here - then we would have a problem…

 

[utunumsint]

Hi carefullytread,

I’m short of time today to respond to your post. I want to absorb what you’ve written first.

For now, I just want to agree with what MPat says. I think if you are not making the statement that the doctrine of transubstantiation is wrong, only that you don’t understand it, then you are still on solid ground.

God bless,
Ut

 

[carefullytread]

Hi Ut,

As always, I appreciate your charitable comments. And I just wanted to stress again that I don’t wish to argue against Aristotle or argue about ontology at all, but rather just try to understand what sort of ontology is required by the Church. My response to you reads a bit argumentative at the end as I answered your question about my own beliefs and I’m worried that will distract from the question at hand.

That said, after doing some reflecting and rereading the Council of Trent, I’m convinced that an ontology that’s non-Aristotelian in the sense of rejecting the idea of substance is in fact heretical. My thinking on this turned on the relevant section of the Council of Trent:

If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and unique change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood while only the species of the bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

I read this as saying that if you don’t believe discussing the “whole substance” is ontologically meaningful, you commit heresy. A Latin Rite Catholic cannot simply state it is a mystery; there is a specific formula for the Real Presence to which they much submit.

It seems you are allowed leeway semantically, but not ontologically.

I’m sure you can surmise this saddens me, but my feelings don’t affect the content of the Faith.

 

[carefullytread]

I wanted to share one last article I found. Here we have the opinion of a philosopher monk which I think is in agreement with my last post.

Namely, that doctrine of the Real Presence does not depend on Aristotelian ontology, but that transubstantiation does.

 

[powerofk]

Here’s the thing. Most people will be confused if the idea of “accidents” (I don’t really know what is meant if someone says “the accidents of bread and wine”, and I’d suspect the vast amount of lay people would hear that and confuse consubstantiation w/ transubstantiation). Pretty much, all I say is that, after the consecration, the Body and Blood of Christ might still look like bread and wine, smell like bread and wine, taste like bread and wine, and even digested like bread and wine, but are no longer bread and wine. They’ve fully become Jesus Himself. And yet, our physical bodies can’t tell the difference - only our souls can.