Incarnation and Catholic Realism versus Nominalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
Can it be shown that due to the doctrine of the incarnation, only realism can be supported and nominalism is in error?
 
Are you refering to the realism vs. nominalism debate that was going on during the Middle Ages?
 
Truthstalker said:
Can it be shown that due to the doctrine of the incarnation, only realism can be supported and nominalism is in error?
Click to expand...
Hey TS,

I think perhaps some definitions would be in order here. This discussion could prove difficult if everyone’s speaking different languages, which I think may be the cause of many Incarnation threads gone awry.

:twocents:
 
Nita said:
Hello again TruthStalker,

You keep reading that Catholic Encyclopedia, then add the early Church Fathers and you’ll be one of us Catholics yet - and with no “compelling”. 🙂

God bless,
Nita
Click to expand...
Ut unum sint.
 
To answer the OP, the answer is yes.

The other day I looked at my leg, and I said to myself, “my leg is real.” That is, it is a real leg. I have never suspected it of being a herring, for example, in disguise, or for it to suddenly call for a taxi and head for a nice Bermuda vacation without discussing it first. It is real. It acts as I expect a leg to act, thank God, and I hope it keeps up the act for a long time.

And there I go on point one. My leg, I maintain, is a real leg, yet I maintain it is actually something else: by saying it is acting, I am somehow saying it is really not a leg but only a performer: my leg is pulling my leg. I come to the conclusion then that I have a deficient view of truth. What is truth, asked Pilate, and He stood silently: here I am. I have always taken refuge in Christ as the truth that is objective beyond the subjective world, transcending it, untouched by doubt or the vagaries of this world. Those with noses will smell the smoke of nominalism here somewhere. That fire needs dousing.

Onward to point two. My leg is real. I will insist on it, because the only other course is to conclude I do not have a leg to stand on, and I am in despair. Aquinas, as Chesterton tells me, cheerfully and unhesitatingly built the Summa on the foundation that the universe is really observable, understanding by instinct that it is. Aquinas did not have the modern neurosis that hallucination and misperception were sneaking up on him like crabs ready to pinch. In contrast
postmoderns are covered with the little beasties. Catholics keep shouting that they have the truth. Very nice, some reply, what is “truth”?

Onward to point three. If my leg is real, then so are other things. No more worries about my ear, for example. Jesus took on a nature like mine. He has, or had, before He was glorified, a leg like mine. His was real like mine was real. There is truth with the same substance, with the same detectability and reality as my leg, truth you can stand on, walk on, run on, kneel on.

So here is the communication gap, or one of them: when Catholics say Christ is really present in the Eucharist, that it is really His body and blood truly present, despite all the emphasis and the affirmation, it falls on really deaf ears. I may think Christ is really there also, that there is a real presence of Christ, but I may define it differently (how I might define it differently would be off the subject). I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that when you say His body and blood are really there, they are really there in the same way a leg is here.
 
So here is the communication gap, or one of them: when Catholics say Christ is really present in the Eucharist, that it is really His body and blood truly present, despite all the emphasis and the affirmation, it falls on really deaf ears. I may think Christ is really there also, that there is a real presence of Christ, but I may define it differently (how I might define it differently would be off the subject). I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that when you say His body and blood are really there, they are really there in the same way a leg is here.
Click to expand...
Hello TruthStalker,

I’m beginning to feel like a TruthStalker stalker! 🙂

Regarding the underlined portion:
No, it is not quite in the same way. First off, your leg is still “mortal” flesh; Our Lord’s flesh is risen immortal flesh.

Now, as to the way Jesus is present in the Eucharist, the term used to describe it is “transubstantiantion”. As you know, I’ve been following you around - and I’m discovering you like to dig a little deeper than many; but I don’t know how deep. Are you familiar with the meaning of the term “substance” in metaphysics? Transubstantiation is based on that. (God loves philosophers and wants them to understand and be saved too!!!) Now, I’m only in kindergarten when it comes to philosophy - and the only reason I’m even there is because I wanted to understand Aquinas. So I’m not even going to start to give the definition of “substance”; but if you want to understand the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation from a philosophical perspective, you’ll have to do some homework in that area.

Now, having said that:
when I am present where Our Lord is present in the Eucharist, it is like --rather, IT IS – being with Him in person, whether it is at Mass, or when I stop in Church just to visit with Him present in the tabernacle. Philosphical terms and arguments just fade away and are unimportant. Have you ever gone into a Catholic Church where Our Lord is present in the tabernacle (there will be a red sanctuary candle lit to signify the presence of the Eucharist) and just sat and talked with Him. If not, why don’t you try it. It’s Jesus who knows the real questions in your heart and the right way to answer them.
But I hope he doesn’t answer them too quickly because I’d like you to keep introducing new threads. They’re thought provoking and spur one to take the time to clarify their thinking (for me anyway).

One last thing: I find your name choice interesting - TruthStalker. It’s Catholics you’re stalking!!! You suppose God’s nudging you??? 👍

Nita
 
Truthstalker said:
Concerning substance, here’s New Advent again.
newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

Thanks, Nita, for the kind words.
Click to expand...
Your very welcome.

And if you go to “Eucharist” at the New Advent sight you will get more information on transubstantiation. I should have included the definition in my previous post. We believe that at the words of consecration ("This is My body…) the “substance” of the bread is converted into the “substance” of Our Lord’s body and blood. However, the “accidents” do not change, but remain the “accidents” of bread.

Now, regarding your leg - both the “substance” and the “accidents” are those of your body.

Nita
 
Truthstalker said:
I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that when you say His body and blood are really there, they are really there in the same way a leg is here.
Click to expand...
I would say that the answer to your question is yes, Christ (body and blood) are actually there, just as your leg is really there. Every real thing has 2 components: accidents and essence. Accidents are the characteristic of a thing and are the external clues about the thing’s essence. The essence is what the thing actually is. Normally, accidents are a reliable clue about the essence of a thing.

However, the Real Presence of the Eucharist is different. (This is the point that Nita makes.) This is a mystery and a miracle. The accidents remain as bread and wine, but they are not, in essence, bread and wine. The Eucharist is Christ in every way except for the accidents.
 
“Truthstalker mutters to himself as he digs through and re-reads posts and articles on New Advent about essence, the Eucharist, substance and accidents and sundry things:” Plato ain’t Playdough. On another thread, near and dear to Petra’s heart, perhaps will spring the thought: there is real authority, as there is a real incarnation, and its accidents are found in men God has chosen. Or maybe not.
 
Truthstalker said:
“Truthstalker mutters to himself as he digs through and re-reads posts and articles on New Advent about essence, the Eucharist, substance and accidents and sundry things:” Plato ain’t Playdough.
Click to expand...
😃

As I said earlier, it was hitting all those words and some more besides that sent me into philosophy. The best books I have come upon are written by D.Q. McInerny (not to be confused with Ralph McInerny). I believe he is a professor in one of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter seminaries. I found him easier to understand than some. I ordered the books directly from:
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
Griffin Road, PO Box 196
Elmhurst, PA 18416
(This could be the only source they’re available from)

Liked especially his *Philisophical Psychology *(has nothing to do with mental problems!!) The title would have sent me running; but before that happened, in the description I saw the question “What is the soul?” That hooked me good. And I learned a lot from that book. Metaphysics is the other book that was especially helpful - with all those terms you’re bumping into.

As you can probably gather, McInerny is a Christian philosopher. That is all I was interested in; did not want to use up time reading the modern ones who are of off the wall. As another philosophy instructor said (some tapes I’d ordered) - "Nowadays before we worry about trying to convince students that God exists, we have to convince them that they exist!

Nita
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top