Philosophy: Terminological Heartburn

[Truthstalker]

252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

I read earlier today how Gelasius used different meanings for words like “substance” when describing the Eucharist. How do you know when the exact scholastic definitions of these terms are being used and when they aren’t? Substance and essence have different meanings in Aquinas at least. I realize 252 may be using these terms interchangeably only here, where God’s substance and essence are uniquely related, but…

 

[Truthstalker]

 

[RobNY]

I read earlier today how Gelasius used different meanings for words like “substance” when describing the Eucharist. How do you know when the exact scholastic definitions of these terms are being used and when they aren’t? Substance and essence have different meanings in Aquinas at least. I realize 252 may be using these terms interchangeably only here, where God’s substance and essence are uniquely related, but…

Perhaps from the context of the philosopher/theologian you are reading. Like with any word in any writer, we find out what it means by how they use it. One of my profs recently made a comment to that effect when he recommended a dictionary to us which had references to usage of Greek words in ancient texts.

In general though, one could look at who the specific philosopher/theologian is and what their philosophical influences are. Pope St. Gelasius, if I am not mistaken, lived far before the Aristotelian revival of the Middle Ages. To expect him to use terminology in the sense that the Aristotelians of the Middle Ages did would be quite unreasonable. You asked how we know whether the ‘exact scholastic definitions’ are being used… and the answer is, even between different scholastic theologians I’d want to be careful about it. It is usually far better to read something in context than to assume that terms mean something, unless you’re already familiar with the author.

So, what’s my answer? Perhaps that there’s no easy way out. Just more studying.

-Rob

 

[Truthstalker]

Hmmm.

So Latin’s meaning changes over the course of time, and even within the works of one philosopher? This makes it sort of hard to understand, no?

 

[RobNY]

Hmmm.

So Latin’s meaning changes over the course of time, and even within the works of one philosopher? This makes it sort of hard to understand, no?

If he was just having a conversation there wouldn’t be such a problem. But when people write theology or philosophy they tend to employ terms in rather specific ways. It would seem that the best way to see what an author means by a term would be first and foremost 1. in the work which you are examining and 2. in the rest of his corpus.

That would be prudent to do with any writer.

As for Latin changing meanings-- I think this happens universally. In Greek as well, terms started vaguely and as Church theology was hammered out in successive ages and with councils the terminology came to mean what it means today. Hence someone like Cyril talking of the, ‘one phusis of the Incarnate Word.’

But for Latin in particular I think it is very helpful not to anachronistically project aristotelian terminology onto Church Fathers, because they were not aristotelians.

I think these are all fair considerations. None of them, I think, make ascertaining Pope St. Gelasius’s meaning hard to understand. The only thing that is particularly hard would be reading him widely-- and I think only a scholar would have to do that if he wished to find ‘the meaning’ of terms as used by Gelasius. For most of us, we read the word in context and from that discern what it means.

What I’m advocating most of all is reading the term in context and not in an aristotelian way (which is completely out of context). And that could be done simply by reading the work in question, which seems fair enough if we’re trying to find out what the author means.

-Rob

 

[utunumsint]

I read earlier today how Gelasius used different meanings for words like “substance” when describing the Eucharist. How do you know when the exact scholastic definitions of these terms are being used and when they aren’t? Substance and essence have different meanings in Aquinas at least. I realize 252 may be using these terms interchangeably only here, where God’s substance and essence are uniquely related, but…

Tell me about it.

I was scratching my head concerning Aquinas’ use of these terms for the longest time until I read some of Aristotle’s categories. Even then, since I am not a scholar or a philosopher, I come up to certain expressions and draw a complete blank. Especially when the Fathers seem to use these words in different ways. Things become even more difficult when you compare the eastern and western fathers.

It keeps things interesting though.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I read earlier today how Gelasius used different meanings for words like “substance” when describing the Eucharist. How do you know when the exact scholastic definitions of these terms are being used and when they aren’t? Substance and essence have different meanings in Aquinas at least. I realize 252 may be using these terms interchangeably only here, where God’s substance and essence are uniquely related, but…

Tell me about it.

I was scratching my head concerning Aquinas’ use of these terms for the longest time until I read some of Aristotle’s categories. Even then, since I am not a scholar or a philosopher, I come up to certain expressions and draw a complete blank. Especially when the Fathers seem to use these words in different ways. Things become even more difficult when you compare the eastern and western fathers.

It keeps things interesting though.

God bless,
Ut