Must a Catholic be Aristotelian?

[Contrabass101]

Can transubstantiation “work” in a different philosophical world view than Aristotelianism?

It would seem, that for “this is my body” to be truth, there must exist some such thing as “this” and “my body”, and as far as i understand, Aristotelian philosophy has the strongest possible affirmation of both the existence of reality, and the existence of “things”.

However, is it possible to have another view, and still believe in the orthodox doctrine of transubstantiation?

Would for instance the Kantian distinction between “an sich” and “für sich” be adequate?

In short: How committed is the Church to Aristotelian metaphysics?

 

[Magnanimity]

Can transubstantiation “work” in a different philosophical world view than Aristotelianism?

It would seem, that for “this is my body” to be truth, there must exist some such thing as “this” and “my body”, and as far as i understand, Aristotelian philosophy has the strongest possible affirmation of both the existence of reality, and the existence of “things”.

However, is it possible to have another view, and still believe in the orthodox doctrine of transubstantiation?

Would for instance the Kantian distinction between “an sich” and “für sich” be adequate?

In short: How committed is the Church to Aristotelian metaphysics?

I think the Church has been committed to the Aristotelian/Thomistic framework because of its success in handling tough metaphysical and epistemological questions. If something better came along, I don’t see why the Church would need to be stubborn about it.

It seems to me that Aristotle is seen by the Church as an improvement on Plato, and Thomas is an improvement on Aristotle with his real distinction between being and essence. Could one believe in the change or alteration of a substance within a different philosophical framework? Probably. As I said, I think the Church hasn’t ever really left behind the Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy because it’s so successful and nothing better has come down the road, in terms of metaphysics, not even Kant.

 

[alforo]

Not necessarily. Aristotle was a pagan and so has nothing to do with being a catholic. However, you should be a Thomist if you are searching for the official philosophy of Catholicism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Can transubstantiation “work” in a different philosophical world view than Aristotelianism?

Yes. Once you stop thinking about “three-dimensional reality”, transubstantiation is completely reconcilable to a non-reductive physicalist metaphysic, and every metaphysic in between. Have you ever read Flatland?

 

[Katholish]

A Catholic need not be an Aristotelean per se, however, there are at least some facets of Aristotle that a Catholic must accept as they have been woven into the official definitions of certain doctrines like transubstantiation. The distinction between substance and accident officially accepted by the Church, and a Catholic would have to accept that distinction which is fundamental to an Aristotelean system. Also, form and matter as it applies to the soul has been well defined. There are some other examples as well.

On a disciplinary level, the Church has also maindated St. Thomas (and hence Aristotle) as a basis for priestly intellectual formation, but as I said, this is disciplinary and not doctrinal.