S
saint_rafael
Guest
I had previously downloaded two of his talks. Thanks for making this available to Catholics on this forum who will benefit from that great man.
- Status
I had previously downloaded two of his talks. Thanks for making this available to Catholics on this forum who will benefit from that great man.
G
GodIsSalvation
Guest
I have only started reading Davies over the last month or so, but the books I’ve read so far are extremely good. It is obvious that he was very well-read and extremely intelligent; a true scholar.
The thing that intrigues me, though, is that a lot of people, at least in this post, seem to be judging his work based on second-hand summaries and charactures of his arguments. I have no doubt that if people actually took the time to read some of his work, instead of judging it before they see it, there would be a lot more people classifying themselves as traditional and questioning the wisdom and fruits of Vatican II.
The thing that intrigues me, though, is that a lot of people, at least in this post, seem to be judging his work based on second-hand summaries and charactures of his arguments. I have no doubt that if people actually took the time to read some of his work, instead of judging it before they see it, there would be a lot more people classifying themselves as traditional and questioning the wisdom and fruits of Vatican II.
V
verum
Guest
What are your opinions on the late Michael Davies? Was he good for traditional Catholicism or not? I have heard many different opinions on him.
I’ve noticed that no-one has mentioned the rather bizarre episode that took place in 2004. A man called James Larson took the then Cardinal Ratzinger to task in a series of articles in “Christian Order”. Ratzinger had made a number of statements in one of his books that suggested he didn’t believe in the traditional doctrine of Original Sin or, more seriously, in transubstantiation. Davies replied to these articles, also in "Christain Order. What makes this bizarre is the fact that Davies ( contrary to his usual clear analytical approach ) makes no attempt to address the issues but stoops to insulting Larson at every turn. His only attempt at defending the Cardinal is to quote other sources to "prove " his orthodoxy, which is obviously ludicrous…what mattered was the charge at hand. Davies even short circuited any possible response by Larson by declaring that he would not waste his time replying. Larson made a good robust response but to no avail. I must admit, I have always valued and respected Davies…his books are masterpieces, but this episode disappointed me. It has been suggested that Davies did this as he was well in at Rome and didn’t want to scupper the chances of getting the TLM back…ie that he was asked to oppose Larson’s claims.
I wonder if anyone has any views on this …or indeed any information.
I’ve noticed that no-one has mentioned the rather bizarre episode that took place in 2004. A man called James Larson took the then Cardinal Ratzinger to task in a series of articles in “Christian Order”. Ratzinger had made a number of statements in one of his books that suggested he didn’t believe in the traditional doctrine of Original Sin or, more seriously, in transubstantiation. Davies replied to these articles, also in "Christain Order. What makes this bizarre is the fact that Davies ( contrary to his usual clear analytical approach ) makes no attempt to address the issues but stoops to insulting Larson at every turn. His only attempt at defending the Cardinal is to quote other sources to "prove " his orthodoxy, which is obviously ludicrous…what mattered was the charge at hand. Davies even short circuited any possible response by Larson by declaring that he would not waste his time replying. Larson made a good robust response but to no avail. I must admit, I have always valued and respected Davies…his books are masterpieces, but this episode disappointed me. It has been suggested that Davies did this as he was well in at Rome and didn’t want to scupper the chances of getting the TLM back…ie that he was asked to oppose Larson’s claims.
I wonder if anyone has any views on this …or indeed any information.
C
cothrige
Guest
I have not read the original articles, but I did read an interview with Mr. Davies about this by someone who felt that Mr. Larson was in the right. Both he and the interviewer referred to comments by then Cardinal Ratzinger regarding the Blessed Sacrament which apparently Mr. Larson said were erroneous. The point of contention, it seems, was that Cardinal Ratzinger denied a physical change in the elements of the Eucharist, and Mr. Larson implied or said this was itself heretical, or the like. But, if this is what actually happened Mr. Larson would be wrong about that. The Church has never taught that the bread changes physically, rather maintaining that in transubstantiation it is the substance which is changed, and not the accidents, which are the physical form of the matter. This means that under a microscope or if investigated in a lab the “bread” would be bread to any onlooker, regardless of how detailed his examination. Down to the molecules and atoms it would seem to be bread, but it would not be bread, and this is the miracle.
One quote from Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned in this interview, and apparently used by Larson, was this:
This is the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. If this is what Mr. Larson was alleging, then he would be wrong.
D
Dauphin
Guest
The contradiction is very clear. The subject has been covered extensively on these forums. There can be absolutely no doubt that Dignitatis Humanae contradicted the teaching contained in Immortale Dei, Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of errors:
"Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state… When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
Condemned Errors:
*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
- Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.*
“Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles…Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.” - Excerpt from Dignitatis Humanae
The contradiction couldn’t be more obvious. If you want to disagree, don’t just post an article - make an argument yourself.
V
verum
Guest
.
The Church has never taught that the bread changes physically
Forgive me if I am being a little obtuse here, but how do you reconcile this statement with the Council of Trent’s anathema against those who deny that "the entire substance of the bread " is being changed? How can that be if there is no physical change? Are you saying that the bread and wine remain?..isn’t that consubstantiation? I have always believed that Our Lord IS physically present, though it is an impassible presence. Are you telling me that the bread and wine actually remain and the presence of Christ is merely “spiritual”? Isn’t that what many Protestants believe? The Catechism says Christ is present in a “true, real and substantial manner”…does that mean non-physical.?It specifically states ( quoting Ambrose ) that “By the blessing itself NATURE IS CHANGED”
Returning to my main point, have you any suggestions, if it is as simple as you say, as to why Mr Davies refrained from stating this, and instead sank to (many) personal insults? The full text of both articles is at www.christianorder.com.
I hope you have the time to read them as I would be interested in your comments.
The Church has never taught that the bread changes physically
Forgive me if I am being a little obtuse here, but how do you reconcile this statement with the Council of Trent’s anathema against those who deny that "the entire substance of the bread " is being changed? How can that be if there is no physical change? Are you saying that the bread and wine remain?..isn’t that consubstantiation? I have always believed that Our Lord IS physically present, though it is an impassible presence. Are you telling me that the bread and wine actually remain and the presence of Christ is merely “spiritual”? Isn’t that what many Protestants believe? The Catechism says Christ is present in a “true, real and substantial manner”…does that mean non-physical.?It specifically states ( quoting Ambrose ) that “By the blessing itself NATURE IS CHANGED”
Returning to my main point, have you any suggestions, if it is as simple as you say, as to why Mr Davies refrained from stating this, and instead sank to (many) personal insults? The full text of both articles is at www.christianorder.com.
I hope you have the time to read them as I would be interested in your comments.
S
Silver_Thread
Guest
When your right your right! Davies spoke the truth and for that he will be criticized. In the end he will be proven right.
C
cothrige
Guest
Yes, entire “substance” but not the accidents. The accidents, that is the physical parts, stay the same, but the substance is changed entirely. Substance is a deeper reality than are the accidents. The entire substance and accidents issue is part of the metaphysical language behind the doctrine of transubstantiation, and shouldn’t be confused with any modern ideas about these words.
The truth is that God changes the substance of the bread into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, but the accidents remain the same. What this means is that the bread will look, taste, smell and in all other physical ways remain identical to bread, but in reality it is not. How? Of course this cannot be known, but it is so, and is revealed truth. If you take a consecrated host and take it to a lab it will not have Jesus’ DNA. It will not have a blood type. It will, for all intents and purposes of scientific understanding, be simple wheat bread. Of course, in reality though, there is no wheat bread at all present, only the physical accidents of such, and what is really present is the body and blood of Christ.
BTW, if you are interested you can find, or at least could at one time, a number of posts by Father Levis on EWTN regarding this. He spoke very strongly very often against the idea of a physical presence. He used, IIRC, words like heresy in this. Very fascinating stuff, and his answers on that were what got me to considering the differences between physical and substantial.
Yes, substantial. Please remember that these are not words used in the same way as we do now. And yes, the “nature” is changed. But why do you insist that the nature of a thing is physical? Why do you say that the substance of a thing is physical? Was not Christ in substance God here on earth? But, his physical body was not divine. It was human. He also had a divine nature, as well as a human one, but these are also not physical or else his physical body would have had to reflect his divine nature. God the Father is also substantially divine, or course, and His nature is divine as well. However, he has no physical matter whatsoever, and so again these words clearly do not mean anything physical. These are all mysteries which cannot and should not be simplified into mere physical and fleshly ideas.
But, let me add this. These are my understandings of these issues gleaned from reading books and articles, as well as the words of priests like Father Levis. This also seems to be the understanding of our Holy Father in Rome. However, with that said, if I am wrong and am shown that I will certainly correct my understanding to match whatever Holy Mother Church should reveal to be true.
I will certainly read them, as I have not to date. Honestly, I have no real knowledge of Mr. Davies in any real way, and only know what I have read in a couple of brief comments here and there, as well as that interview I mentioned. Briefly, given what little I know, and assuming the statements about his vitriol are accurate (which I don’t really doubt) it would sound like Mr. Davies simply fell prey to emotion and engaged in unchristian language. We have all done so I would imagine, and in the end answer for it. However, I don’t think it changes whether or not he or the Pope is right regarding physical presence in the Eucharist. That would seem to be another issue.
O
Ohwesty
Guest
Michael Davies was a brilliant writer, speaker, thinker. He was a man obviously in love with the Church and lived his faith. I “discovered” him in the late 70s when I got hold of some tapes and books by TAN publishers. Many of these included the “Keep the Faith” series with Dr. William Marra, Fr. Vincent Micelli S.J., and Dr. Alice von Hildebrande.
Countless nights I listened to these tape recordings and found myself nodding my head in agreement. Mr. Davies had many strong and valid arguments in favor of tradition. I credit him for implanting in me a love for tradition and a sympathetic heart for traditionalists as a whole. He was also sympathetic toward Abp Lefebvre, though I do believe he distanced himself from supporting the SSPX after the excommunications of 1988.
May he rest in peace.
Countless nights I listened to these tape recordings and found myself nodding my head in agreement. Mr. Davies had many strong and valid arguments in favor of tradition. I credit him for implanting in me a love for tradition and a sympathetic heart for traditionalists as a whole. He was also sympathetic toward Abp Lefebvre, though I do believe he distanced himself from supporting the SSPX after the excommunications of 1988.
May he rest in peace.
- Westy
V
verum
Guest
Yes, entire “substance” but not the accidents. The accidents, that is the physical parts, stay the same, but the substance is changed entirely. Substance is a deeper reality than are the accidents. The entire substance and accidents issue is part of the metaphysical language behind the doctrine of transubstantiation, and shouldn’t be confused with any modern ideas about these words.
This is exactly what I have always believed. I am glad we share precisely the same belief. However, I am puzzled as to why you wrote, “The Church has never taught that the bread changes physically” when you now say "the bread will look, taste, smell and in all other physical ways remain identical to bread, but in reality it is not…in reality though, there is no wheat bread at all present, only the physical accidents of such, and what is really present is the body and blood of Christ.
It occurs to me that the problem ( between you and I at least…and the same may perhaps be true of Mr Larson and MD?)is in the use of the word “physical”. I am using it in the ordinary everyday sense…ie that Christ is “solidly” present in a way that is not “non-material” or merely spiritual. I would have thought by “accidents” was meant the appearences ie. what appears to be so but isn’t. You are using the word “physical” in an entirely different way.You do agree-- do you not?-- that Christ’s humanity is also present in the Sacred Bread? That humanity must be physical, surely, in the sense that my body is physical. Then Christ’s body is physically present in the Eucharist. Do we agree on this?
As for MD himself, his books led me into the Church many years ago. He is an extremely clear and logical writer, always well-referenced and to the point. The “trilogy” CRANMERS GODLY ORDER, POPE JOHN’S COUNCIL,and POPE PAUL’S NEW MASS are masterpieces.
This is exactly what I have always believed. I am glad we share precisely the same belief.
However, I am puzzled as to why you wrote, “The Church has never taught that the bread changes physically” when you now say "the bread will look, taste, smell and in all other physical ways remain identical to bread, but in reality it is not…in reality though, there is no wheat bread at all present, only the physical accidents of such, and what is really present is the body and blood of Christ.It occurs to me that the problem ( between you and I at least…and the same may perhaps be true of Mr Larson and MD?)is in the use of the word “physical”. I am using it in the ordinary everyday sense…ie that Christ is “solidly” present in a way that is not “non-material” or merely spiritual. I would have thought by “accidents” was meant the appearences ie. what appears to be so but isn’t. You are using the word “physical” in an entirely different way.You do agree-- do you not?-- that Christ’s humanity is also present in the Sacred Bread? That humanity must be physical, surely, in the sense that my body is physical. Then Christ’s body is physically present in the Eucharist. Do we agree on this?
As for MD himself, his books led me into the Church many years ago. He is an extremely clear and logical writer, always well-referenced and to the point. The “trilogy” CRANMERS GODLY ORDER, POPE JOHN’S COUNCIL,and POPE PAUL’S NEW MASS are masterpieces.
C
cothrige
Guest
I actually believe that was a quote from Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, but I won’t argue with him on it.
But there is no contradiction. Please remember that the substance of a thing is what it really is, even if the accidents remain unchanged. Can God declare something to be one thing while remaining physically identical to another? Yes, and he has. This type of thing is impossible for us, but not God. So the bread does cease to be bread because even though the physical properties in every way still remain those of bread, the substance has changed and that is the reality of it.
Again I would say that if you took a consecrated host to a lab and had it analyzed there would be nothing other than bread found to be there. It would appear to be bread in every single possible way all the way down to the electrons and protons. There will be no DNA of Jesus, no blood or blood types and no flesh. It would be in all ways bread, regardless of the test you use or how thorough you make your analysis. The accidents, meaning the physical form and matter, are all that of bread. But, the substance, meaning the inner reality of what a thing is, would be changed and so it would not be bread anymore.
I would have to take issue with some of this. What is “merely spiritual”? Is God the Father, or the Holy Spirit, “merely spiritual”? Is physicality a higher reality than is the spiritual? Is my body more “solid” than God, who is all spirit? But, with that said, I don’t think I am taking that position anyway. I would say that Christ is truly, and really present, because the bread ceases altogether to be bread and becomes the body of Christ. Is this physical? No, but neither is it “merely spiritual”. It is substantial.
As regards the accidents, it seems to me that what you are proposing would be an illusion covering over a piece of physical flesh. This is not how I have understood the meanings of the word accident. Rather, the accidents are the physical properties of a thing which you can make contact with, and the substance is the inner reality of what a thing is. And the accidents of the bread in the Eucharist remain unchanged, meaning that there is no physical change. But the substance, the inner reality of what a thing is, has changed and that is all the difference in the miraculous truth that is the Eucharist.
The way I would look at this is how I look at justification and redemption. Some would say that man is a stinking dung heap and God covers us over with Christ so that we appear in some way holy. The Church says that God gives us his grace which indeed changes the inner man, though the outer man remains as he was. What was lost and sinful is now justified and blessed. Our change may not be physical, but it is very, very real and solid.
No, I don’t see how one could say that Christ’s human body is physically present in the Eucharist. The change is substantial, the word the Church chose out of all others, and that seems in every possible way to rule this kind of thinking out.
I will certainly look for those. I have never had the opportunity to read any of his work, but you have sparked my interest. I very much appreciate that.
V
verum
Guest
To Cothrige:
Sadly, I see now that we do not agree at all; in fact we are poles apart. Let me make absolutely sure that I understand what you are saying.
You say that the accidents ( what I refer to , in line with Church texts, as the " appearances ") is the physical reality. Everything else is the substance, but the substance is non physical. Consequently when the words of consecration are spoken the physical reality of the bread remains but the ( non material ) substance is changed into the body of Christ. Thus when we say it is the body of Christ we should by no means believe that the body of Christ is physically present.
If this is not what you are saying please let me know, as everything else I am about to write is based upon it.
I disagree sharply with this .
Christ and His followers were not living in a world of Greek philosophy or scholastic thought, and we cannot automatically interpret their words in terms of this philosophy ( unless of course Holy Mother Church says otherwise). From what I am presently reading, I am not sure that your interpretation of “substantial presence” is the only one.
The natural way to understand the words "body and blood " is in a physical way ( is it not?) Why did Christ use the word “body” if he meant “substantial spirtual presence”?
And the accidents of the bread in the Eucharist remain unchanged, meaning that there is no physical change. But the substance, the inner reality of what a thing is, has changed and that is all the difference in the miraculous truth that is the Eucharist.
How then is this practically different from consubstantiation? If the physicality of the bread remains but what you call the substance does not, is not the body of Christ co-existing with bread?
How is your view different from those Protestants who accept that there is a presence in the eucharist but that it is “spiritual.”?
What for me is decisive is this passage from Pope Paul VI’s MYSTERIUM FIDEI
For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His PHYSICAL “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
What I believe is that Christ is present physically ( but impassibly ) in the same body that he had after the resurrection, present “body blood soul and divinity”. If I am wrong then I have been committing some sort of material heresy for many years ( this is of course is not impossible, but ignorance would excuse it. ) Your words "an illusion covering over a piece of physical flesh. " is indeed what I believe, except that instead of the words “physical flesh” I would say “the body of Christ”.
I don’t understand how your belief is different from many Protestants.
I am not well versed in these matters( my main interest is liturgy ) and so perhaps I have missed something and am completely mistaken. Nonethless it seems to me that something quite crucial is at stake. That is why I would be grateful for more of your thoughts on it, especially on the words of Pope Paul. One thing we certainly have in common: we are both seeking the truth and will submit to the Church’s teaching , once that is made clear.
Sadly, I see now that we do not agree at all; in fact we are poles apart. Let me make absolutely sure that I understand what you are saying.
You say that the accidents ( what I refer to , in line with Church texts, as the " appearances ") is the physical reality. Everything else is the substance, but the substance is non physical. Consequently when the words of consecration are spoken the physical reality of the bread remains but the ( non material ) substance is changed into the body of Christ. Thus when we say it is the body of Christ we should by no means believe that the body of Christ is physically present.
If this is not what you are saying please let me know, as everything else I am about to write is based upon it.
I disagree sharply with this .
Christ and His followers were not living in a world of Greek philosophy or scholastic thought, and we cannot automatically interpret their words in terms of this philosophy ( unless of course Holy Mother Church says otherwise). From what I am presently reading, I am not sure that your interpretation of “substantial presence” is the only one.
The natural way to understand the words "body and blood " is in a physical way ( is it not?) Why did Christ use the word “body” if he meant “substantial spirtual presence”?
And the accidents of the bread in the Eucharist remain unchanged, meaning that there is no physical change. But the substance, the inner reality of what a thing is, has changed and that is all the difference in the miraculous truth that is the Eucharist.
How then is this practically different from consubstantiation? If the physicality of the bread remains but what you call the substance does not, is not the body of Christ co-existing with bread?
How is your view different from those Protestants who accept that there is a presence in the eucharist but that it is “spiritual.”?
What for me is decisive is this passage from Pope Paul VI’s MYSTERIUM FIDEI
For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His PHYSICAL “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
What I believe is that Christ is present physically ( but impassibly ) in the same body that he had after the resurrection, present “body blood soul and divinity”. If I am wrong then I have been committing some sort of material heresy for many years ( this is of course is not impossible, but ignorance would excuse it. ) Your words "an illusion covering over a piece of physical flesh. " is indeed what I believe, except that instead of the words “physical flesh” I would say “the body of Christ”.
I don’t understand how your belief is different from many Protestants.
I am not well versed in these matters( my main interest is liturgy ) and so perhaps I have missed something and am completely mistaken. Nonethless it seems to me that something quite crucial is at stake. That is why I would be grateful for more of your thoughts on it, especially on the words of Pope Paul. One thing we certainly have in common: we are both seeking the truth and will submit to the Church’s teaching , once that is made clear.
C
cothrige
Guest
I think you may be reading into my words just a bit. Substance is what a thing is in and of itself, and the accidents depend on this. The accidents, as I understand them, are what we would basically understand to be physical properties of a thing, though I think scholastically it is a bit more wordy and goes deeper. I believe it is everything that isn’t substance, or the like. In any case, the substance is the reality, not the accident. When God changes the substance he changes what the bread really is, regardless of what it physically looks and feels like. It is not bread anymore even though it has every physical property of bread. I don’t think we should imagine that a physical change is more concrete than a substantial change. It is every bit as concrete and real as physical form.
It is true that Christ was not a scholastic, but St. Thomas, the man who laid out transubstantiation for us which the Church adopted, was. He used Aristotle’s words from metaphysics in the same basic way that Aristotle did. When we speak of these things I think we must try to understand them as St. Thomas intended.
Actually, I think a “natural” understanding is just what Christ objected to in John 6 when he commented about flesh and spirit. Christ was not saying that his flesh profits nothing, since it profited salvation and bestows grace in our reception in the Eucharist. By flesh I believe he meant “natural” thinking, meaning our carnal mind. The listerners were not hearing in the Spirit but with their flesh, and that profits nothing. They insisted on a natural understanding of his words and this meant caniballism.
No, it is not. There is no bread, because substance is what a thing is. It doesn’t matter what the molecular structure is, or what it looks, tastes or feels like, as that is a shell of appearance in our material world. These things are only as real as God makes them, and in this case they no longer reflect the reality underneath the appearances, and while they all belong naturally to bread, they now belong super-naturally to the Body of Christ.
In the normal world the accidents depend on the substance. If you burn a piece of wood until it is ash then you have changed the substance and the accidents. Accidents are dependent on the substance. But, God has changed the substance, which is absolutely everything that the thing is, and there is nothing else that it is. The physical aspects are meaningless at this point, and the sacramental reality underneath is what matters. That is why you not only can, but must worship the Eucharist. It is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. I think that consubstantiation people simply think that there is bread which God uses to convey grace, but it is never changed from being bread in any way. That is not what I am saying at all.
Yes, I have felt this was a tricky one. Let me tell you how I read it, and you can point out how you may think I am wrong. If we go to the end, near your emphasis, we see that he says that the Christ which is bodily present, “corporeally present”, on the altar is the physically real Christ from history, but that the method of the presence itself is unlike how a body is in a place, i.e. physical. The word “physical” used by the Holy Father would seem to be referring to the Christ that is present, but it doesn’t speak to the manner of the presence itself since that would certainly be in the “manner in which bodies are in a place.” That last bit seems aimed entirely at the manner of the presence since it speaks of how a body is in a place. So, in the end, I see this as upholding the total reality of who and what we receive, but not the manner in which it is accomplished, beyond what is already revealed.
I certainly wouldn’t suggest any ideas of a material heresy, or even that you are downright wrong. I will simply say I have felt that the Church has intentionally defined the change on the altar with words like substantial and nature, and hasn’t chosen to define the change itself as a physical one. Consider that it was Cardinal Ratzinger, not yourself, who was accused of being a heretic, and I disagree with this as I feel that he was being entirely orthodox when he said:
Unless I am wrong you have agreed with Mr. Larson that Cardinal Ratzinger was in fact heretical in saying this. And as I have understood things the above statement is entirely Catholic and orthodox, and the insistence on physicality in the Eucharist is an extrapolation argued from presumptions assuming that any non-physicality is somehow less real. I don’t suggest that such is heresy, though it may be, but I do think it is incorrect.
That is absolutely true. And I certainly am enjoying the discussion.
V
verum
Guest
The accidents, as I understand them, are what we would basically understand to be physical properties of a thing
The accidents are often referred to in catechisms etc as the “appearances”. Are appearances the same thing as “physical properties”? I would have thought not. Perhaps the accidents are “the appearance of physical properties”, the "bare shadows " of St Thomas’s famous hymn?
These words from the Catholic Encyclopaedia regarding transubstantiation are interesting : "just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood. In other words, it would really, physically, be iron but would look like ( “have the appearance of” ) wood.This is the opposite from saying that it is “physically wood”, and from saying that the iron is not physically present.
The listerners were not hearing in the Spirit but with their flesh, and that profits nothing. They insisted on a natural understanding of his words and this meant caniballism.
My interpretation of these passages is quite different, and with respect , I think more in line with the traditional teaching. Christ told the crowds that they had to eat and drink his body and blood. Now if they had misunderstood surely he would have explained that he meant this only figuratively or spiritually. Is it not the case that Our Lord said nothing because he meant what he said? The problem with the crowds was their lack of faith which even Christ could not cure.
I would suggest that there are ( at least) three positions here:
) :Our Lord is present in His physical resurrection body but ( as Pope Paul says , " not in the manner in which bodies are in a place. " ie. in an impassible way…taking up no space, unable to be broken or hurt etc.
You state There is no bread, because substance is what a thing is. It doesn’t matter what the molecular structure is, or what it looks, tastes or feels like, as that is a shell of appearance in our material world.
Is not " a shell of appearance " just what I have been saying…why then call it physical, and why deny the physicality of Our Lord’s presence? How is it his body if it is not physical? Why did Christ use the word “body” if he meant “substantial spirtual presence”?
How can the Mass be the Sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross if He is not physically present?
I think that consubstantiation people simply think that there is bread which God uses to convey grace, but it is never changed from being bread in any way.
Not according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia. It is not a theory that bread is used to convey grace ; rather it is a theory that the substance of Christ’s body exists along with the substance of the bread. My point was not that you held this precise view ( which you don’t) but that ( in my opinion) your view tends towards it.
Unless I am wrong you have agreed with Mr. Larson that Cardinal Ratzinger was in fact heretical in saying this
Not at all. I was just wondering why MD did not use his usual brilliance in approaching this matter; instead he chose remote ad hominem arguments and personal insults which usually suggests dishonesty.He gave the impression that he was disurbed also by Ratzinger’s words but did not want to criticize him. I hope I am wrong. I am reading Ratzingers book "Jesus of Nazareth "( I don’t refer to him as the Holy Father because it is not a magisterial document and the Pope has made it clear that he is not teaching as Pope) and his writing is very clear and easy to read. I could wish that he had been a bit clearer in the other book Larson complained about.
Yes, I have felt this was a tricky one. Let me tell you how I read it, and you can point out how you may think I am wrong. If we go to the end, near your emphasis, we see that he says that the Christ which is bodily present, “corporeally present”, on the altar is the physically real Christ from history, but that the method of the presence itself is unlike how a body is in a place, i.e. physical. The word “physical” used by the Holy Father would seem to be referring to the Christ that is present, but it doesn’t speak to the manner of the presence itself since that would certainly be in the “manner in which bodies are in a place.”
Am I being obtuse or dishonest in seeing in this last point a sort of non sequitur? I interpret “manner in which bodies are in a place” not simply as “physical”…that would be begging the question; I see this as referring to the impassible nature of Our Lord’s presence, which is an important statement as it dismisses any superstitious act or belief.
BTW, There is an interesting article about our subject on the Adoremus website ( Vol. VIII, No. 1: March 2002 ). Also one here:ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MODMISC.TXT
I know one thing: this is no easy matter!! To think that, according to some people, Catholics are spoon fed and never need to think about anything!
The accidents are often referred to in catechisms etc as the “appearances”. Are appearances the same thing as “physical properties”? I would have thought not. Perhaps the accidents are “the appearance of physical properties”, the "bare shadows " of St Thomas’s famous hymn?
These words from the Catholic Encyclopaedia regarding transubstantiation are interesting : "just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood. In other words, it would really, physically, be iron but would look like ( “have the appearance of” ) wood.This is the opposite from saying that it is “physically wood”, and from saying that the iron is not physically present.
The listerners were not hearing in the Spirit but with their flesh, and that profits nothing. They insisted on a natural understanding of his words and this meant caniballism.
My interpretation of these passages is quite different, and with respect , I think more in line with the traditional teaching. Christ told the crowds that they had to eat and drink his body and blood. Now if they had misunderstood surely he would have explained that he meant this only figuratively or spiritually. Is it not the case that Our Lord said nothing because he meant what he said? The problem with the crowds was their lack of faith which even Christ could not cure.
I would suggest that there are ( at least) three positions here:
- There is only a SPIRITUAL presence of Our Lord, which is easily misunderstood( I don’t mean by you ) to mean a presence similar to His presence when the Gospel is read. I see this ( perhaps entirely wrongly ) as essentially your position…primarily because you don’t seem to have explained how it is a different from this spiritual presence except by claiming that it is “substantial”.
- The cannibalistic position ( which I think nobody actually holds) that we eat dead flesh…a Protestant red herring).
) :Our Lord is present in His physical resurrection body but ( as Pope Paul says , " not in the manner in which bodies are in a place. " ie. in an impassible way…taking up no space, unable to be broken or hurt etc.You state There is no bread, because substance is what a thing is. It doesn’t matter what the molecular structure is, or what it looks, tastes or feels like, as that is a shell of appearance in our material world.
Is not " a shell of appearance " just what I have been saying…why then call it physical, and why deny the physicality of Our Lord’s presence? How is it his body if it is not physical? Why did Christ use the word “body” if he meant “substantial spirtual presence”?
How can the Mass be the Sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross if He is not physically present?
I think that consubstantiation people simply think that there is bread which God uses to convey grace, but it is never changed from being bread in any way.
Not according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia. It is not a theory that bread is used to convey grace ; rather it is a theory that the substance of Christ’s body exists along with the substance of the bread. My point was not that you held this precise view ( which you don’t) but that ( in my opinion) your view tends towards it.
Unless I am wrong you have agreed with Mr. Larson that Cardinal Ratzinger was in fact heretical in saying this
Not at all. I was just wondering why MD did not use his usual brilliance in approaching this matter; instead he chose remote ad hominem arguments and personal insults which usually suggests dishonesty.He gave the impression that he was disurbed also by Ratzinger’s words but did not want to criticize him. I hope I am wrong. I am reading Ratzingers book "Jesus of Nazareth "( I don’t refer to him as the Holy Father because it is not a magisterial document and the Pope has made it clear that he is not teaching as Pope) and his writing is very clear and easy to read. I could wish that he had been a bit clearer in the other book Larson complained about.
Yes, I have felt this was a tricky one. Let me tell you how I read it, and you can point out how you may think I am wrong. If we go to the end, near your emphasis, we see that he says that the Christ which is bodily present, “corporeally present”, on the altar is the physically real Christ from history, but that the method of the presence itself is unlike how a body is in a place, i.e. physical. The word “physical” used by the Holy Father would seem to be referring to the Christ that is present, but it doesn’t speak to the manner of the presence itself since that would certainly be in the “manner in which bodies are in a place.”
Am I being obtuse or dishonest in seeing in this last point a sort of non sequitur? I interpret “manner in which bodies are in a place” not simply as “physical”…that would be begging the question; I see this as referring to the impassible nature of Our Lord’s presence, which is an important statement as it dismisses any superstitious act or belief.
BTW, There is an interesting article about our subject on the Adoremus website ( Vol. VIII, No. 1: March 2002 ). Also one here:ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MODMISC.TXT
I know one thing: this is no easy matter!! To think that, according to some people, Catholics are spoon fed and never need to think about anything!
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe that life began at conception. That’s a pretty big error, and he is one of the greatest Catholic intellectuals in history (if not the greatest).
Not saying you’re wrong, just that you can hold some pretty big errors and still be a great thinker.
C
cothrige
Guest
I think the main issue here is one of what do words mean. What is a substance and what are accidents. These come from metaphysics and the writings of Aristotle and were adopted by St. Thomas, who used them with the same basic meanings as those before him unless I am greatly mistaken. Everything has substance, which is what a thing is in itself, and then accidents depend on that. Wood is wood substantially, and the accidents are everything not the substance, and they depend on the substance and arise from it. Burn the wood and change the substance to ash, and the accidents then arise from that and you will see, touch and feel ash. These accidents are not mystical or illusory, but rather real properties which depend on the substance.
The word appearance is clearly just a reflection that in this case the accidents do not actually depend on the substance. In every other case they do. Wood cannot have the accidents of iron, to use your example. Iron has the accidents of iron, and so on. Change the substance and the accidents change, since they depend on the substance. But, in the Eucharist, the accidents are not based on the substance of Christ’s body, but miraculously are still those of bread. But, and this is crucial, the accidents are only appearances in that they do not show us the substance, i.e. what the thing really is. They show us bread.
I believe that if you were to take the host down to a lab and had it analyzed it would be bread. It would have wheat and water, and the density, texture, everything would be bread. Under a microscope it would have the glutens and contents of bread. This isn’t a trick of the eyes either. The atoms for bread are there. They simply no longer belong to bread, but now are the Body of Christ.
Well, you are confusing a few things. It is true that Christ would not change his teaching, but when his disciples grumbled in their hearts the Lord chided them. He said “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.” This was his response to their their thought that this saying was hard, and we should see it in that light. He is correcting them, regardless of their willingness to hear. His words are Spirit and life, but they are flesh and hear in the flesh, which profits nothing. It is their carnal understanding, what might be called the natural understanding, that he is rebuking. Their lack of faith then allowed them to fall away over this. Notice that the other disciples do not object that they in fact do understand what the Lord is saying, but only to say that they have nowhere else to go as he has the words of eternal life. Faith holds them firm, in spite of their ignorance and carnal understanding. Both factors are at work here.
Consider that even here you seem to be caught in a contradiction. You say “taking up no space” but that is exactly what physical means. If something is a physical presence, it takes up space. If you say it doesn’t take up space, then the presence is in some other manner than physical. I am not saying I agree with what you are saying here, but only indicating that you may be thinking more in line of a non-physical change than you are willing to consciously consider.
Because it is physical. The accidents of the bread are unchanged, and so physically it is identical to bread. But, it is an appearance because it does not reveal its substance, which is not bread. The appearance, which is physical, is not what is really there, which is Christ.
I don’t think that is a problem though. Tending is not really reflective of truth. For instance, some could and have said that Trinitarian dogma tends towards polytheism, but that doesn’t change the truth. Many truths can be turned or twisted to falsehoods. The Protestants didn’t start with nothing, but took what the Church gave them and then they debased it. Many can come very close to true dogma in this regard, and then just miss it in some very important way. The distinction of substance and reality is very, very important, and changes everything in this matter.
No, I don’t think you are being obtuse or dishonest, though I am likely inadequate to such refined aspects of theology. I will make just a couple of points here. One, I don’t think impassibility is at play here. Impassible would be a reference to God’s unchangeability in reference to emotion. He does not experience pleasure or pain and so on. So, I cannot be quite certain what you may be meaning to say about the kind of presence Christ’s Body has in the Eucharist with this word.
I also don’t intend any non sequitur. When I look at the quote you posted I see a very subtle point being made. Christ’s body is physical, but it is present not in the manner in which bodies are in a place. One comment speaks to the reality of the body, the other to the manner of the presence. The body we receive is real, and is the same physical body which rose from the dead, but it is made present for us not in a physical change of accidents, but rather a substantial presence. It is a corporeal presence but not manifested through a necessarily physical change of the elements. I am glad to admit that I may be misunderstanding the words, but this is really how I have seen them to be intended.
M
mattwcu
Guest
Can I just say that believing Pope Benedict doesn’t believe in the Real Presence is absolutely absurd. Using cherry picked quotes to prove an absolute denial of Catholic Doctrine is how Protestants “use” Augustine to prove Sola Scriptura.
I think it is just a way for traditionalists to find anything, something, wrong with the Pope and post-conciliar era.
I think it is just a way for traditionalists to find anything, something, wrong with the Pope and post-conciliar era.
V
verum
Guest
Can I just say that believing Pope Benedict doesn’t believe in the Real Presence is absolutely absurd.
Nobody has suggested such a thing, certainly not me, nor the writer I quoted. Firstly, no-one has referred to the Pope, but to Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope.Secondly, no-one has claimed anyone doesn’t believe in the Real Presence. Two posters, neither of whom is a professional theologian, have been trying hard to understand a very difficult dogma. If you find it easy, why not help by joining in the discussion?
Using cherry picked quotes to prove an absolute denial of Catholic Doctrine
Who has done this ???
I think it is just a way for traditionalists to find anything, something, wrong with the Pope and post-conciliar era.
Hardly,but if you think there is not a lot wrong with the post conciliar Church, try visiting one of our rapidly declining churches.
Nobody has suggested such a thing, certainly not me, nor the writer I quoted. Firstly, no-one has referred to the Pope, but to Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope.Secondly, no-one has claimed anyone doesn’t believe in the Real Presence. Two posters, neither of whom is a professional theologian, have been trying hard to understand a very difficult dogma. If you find it easy, why not help by joining in the discussion?
Using cherry picked quotes to prove an absolute denial of Catholic Doctrine
Who has done this ???
I think it is just a way for traditionalists to find anything, something, wrong with the Pope and post-conciliar era.
Hardly,but if you think there is not a lot wrong with the post conciliar Church, try visiting one of our rapidly declining churches.
S
Sepharad
Guest
I stopped following much of the news on the traditionalist movement sometime in the 1980s, so I did not know that Michael Davies had died.
Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine.
Here is his obituary online (I just located it):
latin-mass-society.org/2004/mdinitialobit.html
Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine.
Here is his obituary online (I just located it):
latin-mass-society.org/2004/mdinitialobit.html
W
Windmill
Guest
http://voiceofcatholicradio.com/catholicradiowebpage007003.jpg
Reviving this old thread to post a newly-released Davies talk
Unhappy Anniversary Pt 1
Unhappy Anniversary Pt 2
Unhappy Anniversary Pt 3
Reviving this old thread to post a newly-released Davies talk
Unhappy Anniversary Pt 1
Unhappy Anniversary Pt 2
Unhappy Anniversary Pt 3
- Status