How do I reconcile this doctrine with Aquinas?

[MikeInVA]

I answered that way because the OP stated that what the pope said was infallible. A full answer would have required me to research to determine what the pope said and how his statement has been addressed over time. I thought it was sufficient to indicate that not everything a pope says is necessarily infallible.

 

[Jshy]

Sorry I missed over your reply . Thanks for also pointing that out … but my confusion was on the Later statement in 284 Where he says three substance : word, body and soul … not the two fold statement but the one later where he says Jesus is made up of three substances … one of the word , one of the body and one of the soul. Therefore stating that the body and soul are superare substances. But I guess we can say matter ( body) and form are two desperate substances That became one substance … but the only confusion I have on that is the term body as a substance because once the matter becomes the form of a body then it is part of the one substantial form .( substance ) . But the body is the matter so , I guess you could say it’s a separate substance in a analogous way. But I rather call matter the part of the substance.

(II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”
CCC)
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

 

[Vico]

But 535 ( the doctrine I posted ) isn’t infallibly defined is it ? And I know Christ has two natures I was just wondering these words : Three Substances ( the body and soul being two different substances) I know this was before Aquinas came along . What are yalls thoughts ?

Per Aquinas he soul has its own act of existence but without the body it is not a complete substance. Yet there is both the incorporeal and corporeal parts to the person.

S.T. I, Question 75. Man who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance: and in the first place, concerning what belongs to the essence of the soul
Article 2. Whether the human soul is something subsistent?

… as the human soul is a part of human nature, it can indeed be called “this particular thing,” in the first sense, as being something subsistent; but not in the second, for in this sense, what is composed of body and soul is said to be “this particular thing.”

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm

 

[Jshy]

Right , so would it be fair then to say that what Adeodatus II meant when he said “ three substances “ the body being its own substance and the soul beings it’s own. That what he really meant was that the matter ( body) is of its own substance until it becomes part of the form ( soul) and then it is one complete substance? Because the soul is the substantial form… and matter can be part of another substance before joining the form that makes it the body… would that be philosophically correct ? Lol for me to take his words in a sort of analogous way of saying “ the body is of a different substance but then once it joins the soul … and the matter actual becomes a body … it is then one substance . As Christ is a twofold substance ( two natures ) on substance being man. And the other being divine ( the word ) ?? ?? Because in 284 he says three substance : word, body and soul… and then in 285 he said it’s a twofold substance , implying that soul and body are one substance, the human nature substance

 

[AlbMagno]

Thomism is inferior to the Magisterium, the Church only picks the theories of Aquinas that “her” sees fit for being official. And Thomism was decalared by Leo XIII to be the preferred philosophical base for speculative (i.e. academic) Theology, not exactly for all the Magisterium.

Many people don’t seem to understand this, and now there seems to be a cult of intellectuality behind Thomas Aquinas, to the point that Catholics in internet now give him more authority than Patristic Tradition.

 

[Vico]

Right , so would it be fair then to say that what Adeodatus II meant when he said “ three substances “ the body being its own substance and the soul beings it’s own. That what he really meant was that the matter ( body) is of its own substance until it becomes part of the form ( soul) and then it is one complete substance? Because the soul is the substantial form… and matter can be part of another substance before joining the form that makes it the body… would that be philosophically correct ? Lol for me to take his words in a sort of analogous way of saying “ the body is of a different substance but then once it joins the soul … and the matter actual becomes a body … it is then one substance . As Christ is a twofold substance ( two natures ) on substance being man. And the other being divine ( the word ) ?? ?? Because in 284 he says three substance : word, body and soul… and then in 285 he said it’s a twofold substance , implying that soul and body are one substance, the human nature substance

He expresses it as two and as three.

[283] … “For God the Word has not received the person of man, but the nature, and to the eternal person of divinity He has united the [284] temporal substance of flesh.”

God the Word

• Divine person
• Human nature (soul-body)

[284] “Christ in these two natures exists in three substances; of the Word, which must refer to the essence of God alone, of the body, and of the soul, which pertain to true man.”

Christ:

• The Word
• Human Body
• Human Soul

 

[Jshy]

Right , but the problem I’m having is the body and soul are not two separate substances but one Thomas Aquinas holds … the substance is incomplete . Without the body . But the body ( matter) itself isn’t a substance . It’s only a substance when combined with a form ( soul) , only they are just parts and not substances in and of there selves . So the problem I’m having is not saying Christ has two substances/ natures ( one human and One divine ) but that the human is made up of two substances ( body+soul ) . Because I think ( correct me if I’m wrong ) but Aquinas believed that these two parts make up a substance . I don’t think you can say Multiple substances make up a substance composite . Which it then becomes one substance . And that’s basically what the pope is saying … so I’m trying to figure out how to think of Aquinas view now on substance and hylomorphism

 

[Jshy]

Because the church is built off of his philosophy . If you destroy his arguments and philosophy it destroys a lot of the church and the way we make sense of these things . He is very important but I agree he is not as important as the magisterium. But he helped change the way the church views these things ( bishops were gonna do away with Aristotle during the Averroism problem ).and then He fixed the problems and we all ran with it and built our further philosophy and theology off of it . He is a doctor of the church .

 

[Vico]

Right , but the problem I’m having is the body and soul are not two separate substances but one Thomas Aquinas holds … the substance is incomplete . Without the body . But the body ( matter) itself isn’t a substance . It’s only a substance when combined with a form ( soul) , only they are just parts and not substances in and of there selves . So the problem I’m having is not saying Christ has two substances/ natures ( one human and One divine ) but that the human is made up of two substances ( body+soul ) . Because I think ( correct me if I’m wrong ) but Aquinas believed that these two parts make up a substance . I don’t think you can say Multiple substances make up a substance composite . Which it then becomes one substance . And that’s basically what the pope is saying … so I’m trying to figure out how to think of Aquinas view now on substance and hylomorphism

Note what Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:

As the principle of a nature, its nature is to be the formal element of a complete substance. Consequently, it doesn’t have its own nature and is not a substance in its own right, even if it is capable of subsisting apart from the living body. It is because it is naturally incomplete as subsisting apart from the body that Thomas sees this state as unnatural for it, and an intimation of, but not an argument for, the resurrection of the body.

If the soul is incomplete substance then there is another part to the substance.

However, Denzinger (old numbering) has:

COUNCIL OF VIENNE 1311-1312

481 [The soul as a form of the body]. Furthermore, with the approval of the above mentioned sacred council we reprove as erroneous and inimical to the Catholic faith every doctrine or position rashly asserting or turning to doubt that the substance of the rational or intellective soul truly and in itself is not a form of the human body, defining, so that the truth of sincere faith may be known to all, and the approach to all errors may be cut off, lest they steal in upon us, that whoever shall obstinately presume in turn to assert, define, or hold that the rational or intellective soul is not the form of the human body in itself and essentially must be regarded as a heretic.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Because the church is built off of his philosophy . If you destroy his arguments and philosophy it destroys a lot of the church and the way we make sense of these things .

This is incorrect.

The Church is not built off of St. Thomas’s philosophy. Most people don’t realize that St. Thomas was largely ignored from almost immediately after his death when one bishop declared some of his philosophical and theological points heretical (they weren’t, in reality. It was just one Bishop’s view of things) until the mid 1800s. It wasn’t until Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris in 1879 that Thomas was held up as an exemplar of a theological exposition of Christian doctrine. It wasn’t necessarily the exact philosophical arguments which were honored but rather the Reducio ad Absurdum approach which formed the basis for the modern view of Systematic Theology.

Today, many who study St. Thomas view his writings in an anachronistic fashion. It is believed that they have constantly had an impact upon the Church since their writings. This is incorrect. If you would ask the theologians of the late 18th century, they would tell you that it is actually St. Augusine, Peter Lombard and William of Ockham who had the greatest impact upon Christianity up to that point. St. Augustine and Peter Lombard were positive influences upon Christian Theology and William of Ockham provoked much of the development of Christian Theology up to that point by the very nature of a vast number of Christian theologians (known as ‘Manualists’) arguing against him.

There are a number of points in St. Thomas which the Church has said are outright incorrect. Thomas’s primary contribution to the Church was rather the way in which Theology is approached and presented, not necessarily the actual content of the Theology.

 

[Dolphin]

I thought it was only twice? Marian doctrine and immaculate conception. What is the third?

 

[CRM_Brother]

Ironically, the third was the actual definitive declaration of Infallibility, itself.

 

[AlbMagno]

Thank you for correcting that notion about Aquinas.

Who would say that Ockam had any positive impact on the Church? , from my reflections about philosophy I usually blamed Ockham as the responsible for modernity and posmodernity, with his criticism of Scholasticism (and not Descartes, as many Catholic thinkers say; Descartes to me was more like the sacrificial lamb for his association with skepticism).

I never heard about the manualists , I will investigate about them.

 

[Jshy]

COUNCIL OF VIENNE 1311-1312

481 [The soul as a form of the body]. Furthermore, with the approval of the above mentioned sacred council we reprove as erroneous and inimical to the Catholic faith every doctrine or position rashly asserting or turning to doubt that the substance of the rational or intellective soul truly and in itself is not a form of the human body, defining, so that the truth of sincere faith may be known to all, and the approach to all errors may be cut off, lest they steal in upon us, that whoever shall obstinately presume in turn to assert, define, or hold that the rational or intellective soul is not the form of the human body in itself and essentially must be regarded as a heretic.

So hylomorphism is a infallible teaching then ? That’s neat. Good work finding this . Would it be ok for me to say that when Adeodatus said three substances ( two of them become one substance / human nature ) is philosophicaly wrong but the teaching on morals and faith remain infallible ? Just not the exact term ? Because correct me if I’m wrong , isn’t infallibility only on the Matter of faith and morals. Or is the Entires wording ( terms )infallible Also?? I just don’t see how two substances can form one . That’s not possible With Hylomorphism ( which is infallibly defined it seems ) . They are part of a substance but body itself is not a substance .the soul (form ) would be a incomplete substance Without the body . like we already discussed. The body parts are parts of the substance ( form ) but they are not substances in and of themselves For example a arm is not a substance , it’s sort of the human substance as a whole … Now matter wouldn’t Exist without a form. And The body isn’t a substance apart from the soul .

 

[Vico]

… I don’t think you can say Multiple substances make up a substance composite …

St. Thomas Aquinas in On Being and Essence:

“Form and matter are found in composite substances, as for example soul and body in man. But it cannot be said that either one of these alone is called the essence.’

The substance that is not made of another substance has only “prime matter”. Prime matter has no substantial form of its own.

Catholic Encyclopedia

St. Thomas’s doctrine is briefly as follows:

• the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;
• the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;
• though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;
• the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.

Maher, M., & Bolland, J. (1912). Soul. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

 

[Richca]

I would not take what Pope Adeodatus II says here in around the 7th century concerning the three substances to mean the same thing as the more precise and articulated philosophical terminology as the scholastics and St Thomas Aquinas. Concerning human nature here, I don’t think Adeodatus here was trying to define or articulate whether the whole individual human being is one substance or a composite of two substances. The human soul and the human body (the form and matter) are the substantial parts of the human person and in a certain qualified sense are substance but not a complete substance or what primarily exists which is the composite of soul and body and which is one unified being or substance.

 

[Jshy]

“Form and matter are found in composite substances, as for example soul and body in man. But it cannot be said that either one of these alone is called the essence.’

Yes what he is saying is That form and matter make substances . It’s a composite substance of form and matter … not that substances composite into a bigger substance …

The substance that is not made of another substance has only “prime matter”. Prime matter has no substantial form of its own.

Correct , this is how Edward Feser puts it in his book : For a ball to be melted into goo is for its matter to lose one substantial form and take on another, thus becoming a different kind of substance altogether , namely a puddle of goo. Now the food itself might be broken down into more basic chemical components . BUT what that would involve is the matter underlying the good taking on yet different substantial forms. To be sure , Aquinas tells us that “ what is in potency to exist substantially is called “ PRIME MATTER” (DPN 1.2). Or in other words that we can distinguish between matter having no form whatsoever ( “prime matter”) and the various substantial forms that it has the potential to take on . In reality however matter may be transformed , it will ALWAYS have Substantial form or other, and thus count as a substance of some Kind or other ; strictly speaking , “ Since all Cognition and every definition are through form, it follows that prime matter can be known or defined , not of itself , but through the composite “ The notion of prime matter is just the notion of something in pure potentiality with respect to having a kind of form , and thus with respect to being any kind of thing at all. WHAT IS PURELY POTENTIAL HAS NO ACTUALITY AT ALL, AND THUS DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL. As this indicates that hylemorohism is anything but a reductionistic metaphysical position. END QUOTE.
So what this tells me is that all matter is part of a substance ( form) Which is what our soul is and that a body is not a substance but part of a substance . So therefore it’s incorrect to say that parts of a substance ( body) is a separate substance that belongs to the substance called a soul . They are not two different substances that create a big Composited substance. Our substantial form ( soul) is not complete without its body ( which is its parts or Material aspects ). Therefore Thomas says it’s a incomplete substance …the composited substances are made up of both matter and form… The only way for you to get a new substance is if one substantial form changes into another( By a potential becoming an actual) We cant say the body is a separate substance from the soul and they composite into one substance because the body is not a Separate substantial form , because the soul is it’s form
Edward Feser puts it this way: “ there can be forms without matter , thus immaterial substances - namely angels and postmortem human souls , just as act can exist without potency even though potency cannon exist without act . So too form can exist without matter even though matter cannot exist without form “.

 

[Jshy]

Right I agree . They are parts Or aspects of a substance But they are not substances of themselves . But belong to the incomplete substantial form ( soul) and once we get our bodies back after death our form them becomes completed ( a complete substance once again) a body and soul are not two supérate substances because the body is part of the soul ( substantial form) so I guess we have to just say well Adeodatus wasn’t defining philosophical terms . Only the faithful and moral teaching of Christ’s divinity . Because it’s also infallibly defined that the body is part of the soul which is its form. Therefore like Aquinas teaches ( it’s part of a substance and not a separate substance like Descartes teaches ) Or otherwise we either have a big problem that conflicts between these two Infallible definitions And with all catholic teaching on when it comes to terminology Of the word substance

 

[Vico]

…
Yes what he is saying is That form and matter make substances . It’s a composite substance of form and matter … not that substances composite into a bigger substance …
…

Not two substances combining to make one composite, but rather prime matter and substantial form are the composite.

Now, there are different senses of substance used.

Catholic Encylopedia

The Scholastics, who accepted Aristotle’s definition, also distinguished primary substance (substantia prima) from secondary substance (substantia secunda): the former is the individual thing — substance properly so called; the latter designates the universal essence or nature as contained in genus and species. And, again, substance is either complete, e.g. man, or incomplete, e.g. the soul; which, though possessing existence in itself, is united with the body to form the specifically complete human being. The principal division; however, is that between material substance (all corporeal things) and spiritual substance, i.e. the soul and the angelic spirits. The latter are often called substantiœ separatœ, to signify that they are separate from matter, i.e. neither actually conjoined with a material organism nor requiring such union as the natural complement of their being (St. Thomas, “Contra Gentes”, II, 91 sqq.).

Munnynck, M.M. (1912). Substance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

 

[francisca.chapter3]

A judgment as to whether a proposition is a dogma is not the same as instituting the dogma. If I tell you the animal below is a horse and not a pig, it doesn’t mean that I have just now invented horses. I have simply judged that this animal is a horse. Horses pre-exist me. The Pope’s definitive judgments as to whether a proposition is a dogma or not are infallible. But the dogmas pre-exist him.

It is a very good analogy there.

And if a dogma has created a horse that has never been there before, we then can be sure that such horse is not, and is a falsehood.

When theology add too much to the word of God, it creates a new horse: a new species that does not exist before.

And what principle Jesus gave to theologians to follow?

John 8:28
So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me

Study the bible is best. We understand God from what He reveal to each of us.