Philosophy in Theological Development

[MilesVitae]

One criticism of Catholicism I have sometimes heard from Eastern Orthodox is that the Church incorporated philosophy into her understanding of the truths of the faith (for instance, transubstantiation incorporates Aristotelian metaphysical categories into our understanding of the Eucharist?).

But what about the concepts used in defining the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. in the first councils? Were these not philosophical concepts used to explain our the mysteries of the faith? Is it believed that Christ and the Apostles made use of these concepts to teach these mysteries?

By the way, this isn’t a challenge - it’s an honest question. Perhaps the objection I have heard is not a widely accepted position in the Orthodox Church? If it is, then I am wondering what the difference is between the Church’s use of philosophical concepts and the concepts used in the early Church.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

One criticism of Catholicism I have sometimes heard from Eastern Orthodox is that the Church incorporated philosophy into her understanding of the truths of the faith (for instance, transubstantiation incorporates Aristotelian metaphysical categories into our understanding of the Eucharist?).

But what about the concepts used in defining the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. in the first councils? Were these not philosophical concepts used to explain our the mysteries of the faith? Is it believed that Christ and the Apostles made use of these concepts to teach these mysteries?

By the way, this isn’t a challenge - it’s an honest question. Perhaps the objection I have heard is not a widely accepted position in the Orthodox Church? If it is, then I am wondering what the difference is between the Church’s use of philosophical concepts and the concepts used in the early Church.

My advise to you is not to get involved in the controversies of Eastern Orthodoxy. They choose not to understand the West, they choose to go their own way. They insist they are right and the West is responsible for the controversies of history between East and West. You will never convince them they are wrong and they will never agree the you are right. And, they are hyper touchy. So stay away from it.

 

[MilesVitae]

My advise to you is not to get involved in the controversies of Eastern Orthodoxy. They choose not to understand the West, they choose to go their own way. They insist they are right and the West is responsible for the controversies of history between East and West. You will never convince them they are wrong and they will never agree the you are right. And, they are hyper touchy. So stay away from it.

Well, that’s hardly a viable option for me, as I am considering conversion to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have encountered misunderstandings and misguided attitudes toward Catholicism on the part of Orthodox - but, then, I’ve encountered misunderstandings and misguided attitudes from Catholics too, so…

 

[5Loaves]

I have encountered misunderstandings and misguided attitudes toward Catholicism on the part of Orthodox - but, then, I’ve encountered misunderstandings and misguided attitudes from Catholics too, so…

Quite so.

There are Eastern Orthodox CAF members who watch this EC section of the Forum but the CAF moderators ask that questions specifically addressed to EOs be posted in the “Non-Catholic Religions” sections, so you might get more responses from the Orthodox perspective there.

 

[hieroglyph]

One criticism of Catholicism I have sometimes heard from Eastern Orthodox is that the Church incorporated philosophy into her understanding of the truths of the faith (for instance, transubstantiation incorporates Aristotelian metaphysical categories into our understanding of the Eucharist?).

But what about the concepts used in defining the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. in the first councils? Were these not philosophical concepts used to explain our the mysteries of the faith? Is it believed that Christ and the Apostles made use of these concepts to teach these mysteries?

By the way, this isn’t a challenge - it’s an honest question. Perhaps the objection I have heard is not a widely accepted position in the Orthodox Church? If it is, then I am wondering what the difference is between the Church’s use of philosophical concepts and the concepts used in the early Church.

The EOs that I have talked to prefer mysteries to trying to dissect every cell of the miraculous mysteries. Thus, the trinity is a mystery, the Eucharist is a mystery, etc. As I understand it, they don’t bother with pagan philosopies such as the Socratic logic that has made its way into the canon law. It is a difficut problem, because the West has an interest in learning everything and taking it apart, but risks forming links to theories that are pagan in nature. Accidents and forms has also led to scandalous pagan criticisms that such ideas cannot be separated from idolatry that the EO never had to deal with.

 

[mardukm]

My advise to you is not to get involved in the controversies of -]Eastern Orthodoxy/-] Catholics. They choose not to understand the -]West/-], they choose to go their own way. They insist they are right and the -]West/-] is responsible for the controversies of history between East and West. You will never convince them they are wrong and they will never agree the you are right. And, they are hyper touchy. So stay away from it.

Would the changes above be a proper characterization of Catholics, or would it be an over-generalization?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem with Transubstantiation is that, as per Trent, a Catholic has to believe in accidents and substance and the Aristotelian philosophy that is used. The East has never made it part and parcel of the faith to require understanding of philosophical concepts. Certainly philosophy was used to explain the faith, but there is not a single canon that says one must believe in them. It is very clear from Trent that RCs are required to believe and profess Transubstantiation.

Mind you that Transubstantiation is a perfectly valid explanation of the Real Presence. Many Orthodox theologians use it. But to say that one has to believe in Transubstantiation is too much.

 

[mardukm]

The EOs that I have talked to prefer mysteries to trying to dissect every cell of the miraculous mysteries. Thus, the trinity is a mystery, the Eucharist is a mystery, etc. As I understand it, they don’t bother with pagan philosopies such as the Socratic logic that has made its way into the canon law. It is a difficut problem, because the West has an interest in learning everything and taking it apart, but risks forming links to theories that are pagan in nature. Accidents and forms has also led to scandalous pagan criticisms that such ideas cannot be separated from idolatry that the EO never had to deal with.

Can you please define “pagan philosophy?” When something is Christianized, is it still pagan even if it has pagan roots? Is All Soul’s Day really pagan? How about Christmas? Divorce and remarriage was not even allowed in the Christian Church until the 10th century. I guess Protestants and the Orthodox are pagan in this regard?

I guess my point is that if any Christian uses this criticism, he/she better be prepared to pull a huge log out of his/her own eye.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The problem with Transubstantiation is that, as per Trent, a Catholic has to believe in accidents and substance and the Aristotelian philosophy that is used. The East has never made it part and parcel of the faith to require understanding of philosophical concepts. Certainly philosophy was used to explain the faith, but there is not a single canon that says one must believe in them. It is very clear from Trent that RCs are required to believe and profess Transubstantiation.

Mind you that Transubstantiation is a perfectly valid explanation of the Real Presence. Many Orthodox theologians use it. But to say that one has to believe in Transubstantiation is too much.

Where does the dogma on Transubstantiation teach that you must believe in accidents and substance and Aristotelian philosophy? Because it USES the language of Aristotle?

Here’s what I believe – “I eat the bread and drink the wine, and even though it looks, tastes, and feels like bread and wine, I know that it is really the body and blood of Christ.” That is the essence of the dogma of Transubstantiation. I challenge you to find a single Latin Catholic who will charge me with heresy because I did not use the terms “accident” and “substance.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

I challenge you to find a single Latin Catholic who will charge me with heresy because I did not use the terms “accident” and “substance.”

I know a bunch who are called the Fathers of the Council of Trent.

 

[mardukm]

I know a bunch who are called the Fathers of the Council of Trent.

Can you please quote the Canon from Trent that states that one must use the terms “substance” and “accidents” to describe the mysterious transformation of the bread and wine, otherwise one is condemned? I can’t find it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Denho]

Can you please quote the Canon from Trent that states that one must use the terms “substance” and “accidents” to describe the mysterious transformation of the bread and wine, otherwise one is condemned? I can’t find it.

Blessings,
Marduk

I suppose one could split hairs on what exactly is meant when the Council Fathers declared:

Canon 2. If anyone 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 singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema

The decrees use the word speciebus and not the word for accidents. Take that as you will.

 

[mardukm]

I suppose one could split hairs on what exactly is meant when the Council Fathers declared:

The decrees use the word speciebus and not the word for accidents. Take that as you will.

Thank you, brother Denho. I’ve read that before, and I’d never even thought it meant that one must use Aristotelian terminology to explain the change, otherwise one is condemned.

I believe my earlier statement (“I eat the bread and drink the wine, and even though it looks, tastes, and feels like bread and wine, I know that it is really the body and blood of Christ”) exactly comprehends what Trent is teaching - and I didn’t even have to use Aristotelian terminology.

If brother CTG thinks my statement is condemned by Trent, I’d like him to explain what part of my statement opposes the canon. Brother CTG, if you are reading this, please provide the explanation; or if the Canon quoted by brother Denho is not the one, please provide the Canon that states the use of the terminology is dogmatically commanded.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

Thank you, brother Denho. I’ve read that before, and I’d never even thought it meant that one must use Aristotelian terminology to explain the change, otherwise one is condemned.

I believe my earlier statement (“I eat the bread and drink the wine, and even though it looks, tastes, and feels like bread and wine, I know that it is really the body and blood of Christ”) exactly comprehends what Trent is teaching - and I didn’t even have to use Aristotelian terminology.

If brother CTG thinks my statement is condemned by Trent, I’d like him to explain what part of my statement opposes the canon. Brother CTG, if you are reading this, please provide the explanation; or if the Canon quoted by brother Denho is not the one, please provide the Canon that states the use of the terminology is dogmatically commanded.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m not sure Constantine’s real objection is that an explanation which omits the Aristotelian terminology and concepts is condemned by Trent’s dogmatic definition - assuming such an explanation is not at odds with that definition or does not deny the Aristotelian conception of it (I might be wrong - Constantine can speak for himself if so). For instance, one might say “Christ is fully God and fully man” without speaking in terms of hypostases and natures and such - it is a correct description or explanation, although it does not use the fullness of the explanation of the Incarnation as defined by the Church.
I think Constantine’s point is that the Council seems to have dogmatized at least part of the Aristotelian system, meaning that one must accept as a matter of Faith the Aristotelian conception of substance and accident (although as Denho as pointed out, it seems the Council did not use the term for accidents - I was unaware of that fact, and am curious about its significance). The point isn’t that an explanation of the Eucharist must use the Aristotelian terms - but, rather, that one cannot deny the Aristotelian explanation or the concepts contained therein.

 

[MilesVitae]

The problem with Transubstantiation is that, as per Trent, a Catholic has to believe in accidents and substance and the Aristotelian philosophy that is used. The East has never made it part and parcel of the faith to require understanding of philosophical concepts. Certainly philosophy was used to explain the faith, but there is not a single canon that says one must believe in them. It is very clear from Trent that RCs are required to believe and profess Transubstantiation.

Mind you that Transubstantiation is a perfectly valid explanation of the Real Presence. Many Orthodox theologians use it. But to say that one has to believe in Transubstantiation is too much.

But, don’t the early councils which defined the dogma of the Trinity and of the Incarnation also use philosophical concepts like substance, person or hypostasis, etc. and, thereby, dogmatized them, making them a matter of faith? What’s the difference?

 

[MilesVitae]

For what it’s worth,

(CCC 251) In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.

 

[mardukm]

I’m not sure Constantine’s real objection is that an explanation which omits the Aristotelian terminology and concepts is condemned by Trent’s dogmatic definition - assuming such an explanation is not at odds with that definition or does not deny the Aristotelian conception of it (I might be wrong - Constantine can speak for himself if so). For instance, one might say “Christ is fully God and fully man” without speaking in terms of hypostases and natures and such - it is a correct description or explanation, although it does not use the fullness of the explanation of the Incarnation as defined by the Church.
I think Constantine’s point is that the Council seems to have dogmatized at least part of the Aristotelian system, meaning that one must accept as a matter of Faith the Aristotelian conception of substance and accident (although as Denho as pointed out, it seems the Council did not use the term for accidents - I was unaware of that fact, and am curious about its significance). The point isn’t that an explanation of the Eucharist must use the Aristotelian terms - but, rather, that one cannot deny the Aristotelian explanation or the concepts contained therein.

I understand that Aristotle put a name to certain universal concepts. That’s what philosophers normally do. I don’t have to use Aristotelian terminology to express my Faith regarding the Eucharist. The CONCEPT trying to be expressed is the dogma. The Latin CC has seen fit to use Aristotle’s terminology. What I expressed and how Aristotle would have expressed it (as eshrined in the Canon) MEAN the same thing. But brother Constantine claimed that what I expressed would have been condemned by Trent. I propose he explain his statement or retract it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

I understand that Aristotle put a name to certain universal concepts. That’s what philosophers normally do. I don’t have to use Aristotelian terminology to express my Faith regarding the Eucharist. The CONCEPT trying to be expressed is the dogma. The Latin CC has seen fit to use Aristotle’s terminology. What I expressed and how Aristotle would have expressed it (as eshrined in the Canon) MEAN the same thing. But brother Constantine claimed that what I expressed would have been condemned by Trent. I propose he explain his statement or retract it.

Blessings,
Marduk

Aristotle differed from Plato. Plato said substances (what is real) are what everything else is made or by which it is metaphysically sustained, but things are those aspects of reality (what seems real) which we perceive though our senses.

So I can see where the Transubstantiation dogma of Trent may also express Plato concept of substance (reality) and things (species).