K
KjetilK
Guest
Where, in Trent?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
theropod
Guest
Session XIII, chapter IVWhere, in Trent?
I think you are trying to separate the word Transubstantiation from its philosophical underpinnings, and you can’t. Words mean things.
K
KjetilK
Guest
I thought so. But you are mistaken. Using the word ‘Trabsubstantiation,’ or the categories of substance and accidents, isn’t necessarily an endorsement of Aristotelian philosophy, any more than using ‘of the same essense (as the Father)’ in the Nicene Creed is an endorsement of Platonic philosophy.Session XIII, chapter IV
I think you are trying to separate the word Transubstantiation from its philosophical underpinnings, and you can’t. Words mean things.
The fact is that the doctrine of Transubstantiation predates the Aristotelian turn in medieval theology by at least a century. This Aristotelian turn happened first through Albertus Magnus (ca. 1200-1280). See this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and entryWikipedia. The Latin phrase transubstantiatio, used of the Eucharist and the real presence, entered into official Roman Catholic documents at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (when Albertus Magnus was 15), but is itself older. As far as we know, it was first used by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century (and it must therefore at least be understandable by ideas older than that, ideas predating the High Middle Ages). See John Cuthbert Hedley, Holy Eucharist (Kessinger 2003): 37, John N. King, Milton and Religious Controversy (Cambridge University Press, 2000): 134, and entryWikipedia.
The expression transubstantiatio, and its Greek equivalent metousiōsis, used of the Eucharist and the real presence, is not directly connected to Aristotelian philosophy, even though it is perfectly correct that many theologians started reading this in light of Aristotelian conceptions. But that is perfectly natural, as you will always comment and read something in light of some kind of philosophical conception.
T
theropod
Guest
Which particular conception do you think was understood at the time of the Reformation and made dogma by Trent?The expression transubstantiatio, and its Greek equivalent metousiōsis, used of the Eucharist and the real presence, is not directly connected to Aristotelian philosophy, even though it is perfectly correct that many theologians started reading this in light of Aristotelian conceptions. But that is perfectly natural, as you will always comment and read something in light of some kind of philosophical conception.
S
steido01
Guest
After hearing more Roman Catholics speak this way, I’m beginning to believe you. Thank you for taking time to teach. But I have to admit that it seems either to be a “positive reformulation” of the original intent, or even sillier – a foolish attempt to describe something with terminology that carries unintended connotations.I thought so. But you are mistaken. Using the word ‘Trabsubstantiation,’ or the categories of substance and accidents, isn’t necessarily an endorsement of Aristotelian philosophy, any more than using ‘of the same essense (as the Father)’ in the Nicene Creed is an endorsement of Platonic philosophy.
Historians can hash the minutiae of the term. The fact is, it is not native to Christianity. It was a Western novelty that came about at least a millennium and a quarter after the death of the last Apostle, and by the time of Trent, it was intended to mean the Aristotelian concept.The fact is that the doctrine of Transubstantiation predates the Aristotelian turn in medieval theology by at least a century. This Aristotelian turn happened first through Albertus Magnus (ca. 1200-1280). See this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and this Wikipedia entry. The Latin phrase transubstantiatio, used of the Eucharist and the real presence, entered into official Roman Catholic documents at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (when Albertus Magnus was 15), but is itself older. As far as we know, it was first used by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century (and it must therefore at least be understandable by ideas older than that, ideas predating the High Middle Ages). See John Cuthbert Hedley, Holy Eucharist (Kessinger 2003): 37, John N. King, Milton and Religious Controversy (Cambridge University Press, 2000): 134, and this Wikipedia entry.
Father, you’re gifted with languages; you know well that translation is more art than science. Are these two words actually equivalent, or do they hold slightly different meanings? The Greek has never been confused with Aristotelian concepts, after all. Just a thought.The expression transubstantiatio, and its Greek equivalent metousiōsis, used of the Eucharist and the real presence, is not directly connected to Aristotelian philosophy, even though it is perfectly correct that many theologians started reading this in light of Aristotelian conceptions. But that is perfectly natural, as you will always comment and read something in light of some kind of philosophical conception.
K
KjetilK
Guest
The conception made dogma is what the words themselves say.Which particular conception do you think was understood at the time of the Reformation and made dogma by Trent?
T
theropod
Guest
Without any regard for what the men who wrote the words meant by them?The conception made dogma is what the words themselves say.
This is where I see arguments against Sola Scriptura fall apart. If we still have to interpret the interpreters, it’s not really much of an improvement.
S
steve_b
Guest
May I suggest reading this more closelyOK, I’ll as again: Can you explain how the CATHOLIC Church is both truly present and absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”?
**some aspects of the church understood as communion
particularly sections 2-5. You are taking a phrase and putting your own conclusions to it.
**
K
KjetilK
Guest
OK, I’ll as again: Can you explain how the CATHOLIC Church is both truly present and absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”?
K
KjetilK
Guest
Yes, that has always been the case with Dogma. The dogma is the dogmatic definitions themselves, and not their interpretation.Without any regard for what the men who wrote the words meant by them?
Writing on a different topic (that of Holy Orders in the Church of England), Dom Gregory Dix states: “It is a commonplace of all theology, Roman or Anglican, that no public formulary can be or ought to be interpreted by the private sense attached to it by the compilers.” (The Question of Anglican Orders, Dacre Press, 1956, p. 30 (1944, p. 33).)
K
KjetilK
Guest
Allow me to rephrase that:Historians can hash the minutiae of the term. The fact is, it is not native to Christianity. It was a Western novelty that came about at least a millennium and a quarter after the death of the last Apostle, and by the time of Trent, it was intended to mean the Aristotelian concept.
Historians can hash the minutiae of the term. The fact is, homoousious is not native to Christianity. It was a Greek novelty that came about at least 500 years before Christ, and by the time of Nicea, it was intended to mean the Platonic concept.
Now, why is Platonism OK, and Aristotelianism not?
As we see here, on Wikipedia, the then (the Calvinist friendly) Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris published a Latin work in 1629 Latin, called The Eastern Confession of the Orthodox Faith. There he used transsubstantiatio. When he published the Greek edition a few years later, in 1633, he translated it as metousíōsis. He denied both, but in response, to this, “Metropolitan Petro Mohyla of Kiev (also called Peter Mogila) drew up in Latin an Orthodox Confession, defending transubstantiation.” This was also ratified by “all the Greek-speaking Patriarchs (those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) in 1643, and again by the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem (also referred to as the Council of Bethlehem).”Father, you’re gifted with languages; you know well that translation is more art than science. Are these two words actually equivalent, or do they hold slightly different meanings? The Greek has never been confused with Aristotelian concepts, after all. Just a thought.
The point is that the dogma in and of itself is not tied directly to Aristotelianism, any more than the Nicene Creed is tied directly to Platonism.
And if you (plural) deny this, answer again: Why is Platonism OK, and Aristotelianism not?
S
steve_b
Guest
Says who…Alister McGrath?The Evangelical Catholic Churches are the valid continuations of the church built by Jesus Christ , the Roman Catholic Church did Not keep the faith once delivered unto the saints.
Snapshot of 2015 years of history,
The Evangelical Catholic Churches invented themselves in 1975. They are by themselves, they are NOT part of the Catholic Church. They’ve been around 40 years, and apparently have 500 members. THAT is THEIR HISTORY
S
steve_b
Guest
Try reading the sections I listed.OK, I’ll as again: Can you explain how the CATHOLIC Church is both truly present and absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”?
For example (all emphasis mine)
- The universal Church is therefore the Body of the Churches(36). (look up footnotes, and the meaning of Churches in that document)) Hence it is possible to apply the concept of communion in analogous fashion to the union existing among particular Churches, and to see the universal Church as a Communion of Churches. Sometimes, however, the idea of a “communion of particular Churches” is presented in such a way as to weaken the concept of the unity of the Church at the visible and institutional level. Thus it is asserted that every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal Church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches. This ecclesiological unilateralism, which impoverishes not only the concept of the universal Church but also that of the particular Church, betrays an insufficient understanding of the concept of communion. As history shows, when a particular Church has sought to become self-sufficient, and has weakened its real communion with the universal Church and with its living and visible centre, its internal unity suffers too, and it finds itself in danger of losing its own freedom in the face of the various forces of slavery and exploitation(37)"…
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Evangelical Catholic / Protestant .Says who…Alister McGrath?
The Evangelical Catholic Churches invented themselves in 1975. They are by themselves, they are NOT part of the Catholic Church. They’ve been around 40 years, and apparently have 500 members. THAT is THEIR HISTORY
S
steve_b
Guest
and that’s where your following error comes fromEvangelical Catholic / Protestant .
Originally Posted by Starwarsfan2 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*The Evangelical Catholic Churches are the valid continuations of the church built by Jesus Christ , the Roman Catholic Church did Not keep the faith once delivered unto the saints.
That’s no snapshot of 2015 years of history, that’s no valid continuation of the Church built by Jesus Christ, that’s a snapshot of your 40 year history, usurping the name Catholic Church for yourself in your name.Snapshot of 2015 years of history,*
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
The term evangelical Catholic originated with the reformers themselves as a name for the overall branch comprised of several churches , who did indeed consider each of the " Protestant " churches valid continuations of the Catholic Church , so ya not buying that "40 year " nonsense .and that’s where your following error comes from
That’s no snapshot of 2015 years of history, that’s no valid continuation of the Church built by Jesus Christ, that’s a snapshot of your 40 year history, usurping the name Catholic Church for yourself in your name.
S
steve_b
Guest
the branch theory is an Anglican notion. It’s rejectedThe term evangelical Catholic originated with the reformers themselves as a name for the overall branch comprised of several churches , who did indeed consider each of the " Protestant " churches valid continuations of the Catholic Church , so ya not buying that "40 year " nonsense .
Here’s the theory.
Branch Theory.—In the course of the nineteenth century, the principle of National Churches was strenuously defended by the High Church Anglican divines under the name of the “Branch theory”. According to this view, each National Church when fully constituted under its own episcopate is independent of external control. It possesses plenary authority as to its internal discipline, and may not merely reform itself as regards ritual and ceremonial usages, but may correct obvious abuses in matters of doctrine. It is justified in doing this even if the step involve a breach of communion with the rest of Christendom; for, in this case, the blame attaches not to the Church which undertakes the work of reformation, but to those which, on this score, reject it from communion. It still remains a “branch” of the Catholic Church as it was before. At the present day the Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Greek Churches are each of them a branch of the Universal Church. None of them has an exclusive right to term itself the Catholic Church. The defenders of the theory recognize, indeed, that this divided state of the Church is abnormal. They admit that the Fathers never contemplated the possibility of a Church thus severed into parts. But they assert that circumstances such as those which led to this abnormal state of things never presented themselves during the early centuries of ecclesiastical history.
**The position is open to fatal objections. (I) It is an entirely novel theory as to the constitution of the Church, which is rejected alike by the Catholic and the Greek Churches. Neither of these admit the existence of the so-called branches of the Church. The Greek schismatics, no less than the Catholics, affirm that they, and they only, constitute the Church. Further, the theory is rejected by the majority of the Anglican body. It is the tenet of but one school, though that a distinguished one. It is almost areductio ad absurdum when we are asked to believe that a single school in a particular sect is the sole depositary of the true theory of the Church. (2) The claim made by many Anglicans that there is nothing in their position contrary to ecclesiastical and patristic tradition in quite indefensible. Arguments precisely applicable to their case were used by the Fathers against the Donatists. It is known from the “Apologia” that Cardinal Wiseman’s masterly demonstration of this point was one of the chief factors in bringing about the conversion of Newman. In the controversy with the Donatists, St. Augustine holds it sufficient for his purpose to argue that those who are separated from the Universal Church cannot be in the right. He makes the question one of simple fact. Are the Donatists separated from the main body of Christians, or are they not? If they are, no vindication of their cause can absolve them from the charge of schism. **“Securus judicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum in quacunque parte orbis terrarum” (The entire world judges with security that they are not good, who separate themselves from the entire world in whatever part of the entire world—Augustine, contra epist. Parm., III, c. iv in P.L., XLIII, 101). St. Augustine’s position rests throughout on the doctrine he assumes as absolutely indubitable, that Christ’s Church must be one, must be visibly one; and that any body that is separated from it is ipso facto shown to be in schism.
The contention of the Anglican controversialists that the English Church is not separatist since it did not reject the communion of Rome, but Rome rejected it, has of course only the value of a piece of special pleading, and need not be taken as a serious argument. Yet it is interesting to observe that in this too they were anticipated by the Donatists (Contra epist. Petil., II, xxxviii in P.L., XLIII, 292). (3) The consequences of the doctrine constitute a manifest proof of its falsity. The unity of the Catholic Church in every part of the world is, as already seen, the sign of the brotherhood which binds together the children of God. More than this, Christ Himself declared that it would be a proof to all men of His Divine mission. The unity of His flock, an earthly representation of the unity of the Father and the Son, would be sufficient to show that He had come from God (John, xvii, 21). Contrariwise, this theory, first advanced to justify a state of things having Henry VIII as its author, would make the Christian Church, not a witness to the brotherhood of God’s children, but a standing proof that even the Son of God had failed to withstand the spirit of discord amongst men. Were the theory true, so far from the unity of the Church testifying to the Divine mission of Jesus Christ, its severed and broken condition would be a potent argument in the hands of unbelief.
start reading from 11 XI. UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH
K
KjetilK
Guest
You keep begging question. Let’s say that the document is right, that you need to be in communion with the Universal Church. By what evidence is that the Church headed by the Roman Pontiff? What about the communion of Orthodox churches headed by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople?Try reading the sections I listed.
For example (all emphasis mine)
You are asserting communion ( Eucharist being the height of communion) that isn’t there with some. Even those with the Eucharist fail at this full communion… And what does this article that you quoted, say about that?
- The universal Church is therefore the Body of the Churches(36). (look up footnotes, and the meaning of Churches in that document)) Hence it is possible to apply the concept of communion in analogous fashion to the union existing among particular Churches, and to see the universal Church as a Communion of Churches. Sometimes, however, the idea of a “communion of particular Churches” is presented in such a way as to weaken the concept of the unity of the Church at the visible and institutional level. Thus it is asserted that every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal Church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches. This ecclesiological unilateralism, which impoverishes not only the concept of the universal Church but also that of the particular Church, betrays an insufficient understanding of the concept of communion. As history shows, when a particular Church has sought to become self-sufficient, and has weakened its real communion with the universal Church and with its living and visible centre, its internal unity suffers too, and it finds itself in danger of losing its own freedom in the face of the various forces of slavery and exploitation(37)"…
And you haven’t answered my question, and neither has the paragraph quoted. So I’ll ask again: How can the Catholic Church be both truly present and truly absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”? How is that not a violation of the law of non-contradiction?
S
steve_b
Guest
In particular the Church of Rome, and the Roman Pontiff successor to St Peter, is not a new concept. You can read history as well as anyone else.You keep begging question. Let’s say that the document is right, that you need to be in communion with the Universal Church. By what evidence is that the Church headed by the Roman Pontiff?
Bp Ignatius of Antioch, in approx the year 107 a.d., direct disciple of St John the apostle, in his letter to the Church of Rome, he writes,*** in his salutation,*** “to the Church that presides in Charity”, iow out of the 6 letters he writes, to the Church in 6 locations, only to the Church of Rome does he say holds the presidency. Ignatius doesn’t say that about himself or his Church in Antioch, nor to any other Church he writes to. only to the Church of Rome. Romans - English Translation by J.B. Lightfoot
And another early Father from the East, St Irenaeus, one man away from an apostle himself, writes in “Against Heresies” (approx 180 a.d.) all must agree with the Church of Rome on account of it’s preeminent authority, and from the tradition handed down from Peter and Paul at Rome to his day.
from Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3
R:
I’ve asked Orthodox posters here of different stripes, to show me the first time in history, in writing, (properly referenced) when “Orthodox Church” appeared as a name. I’ve asked this question for years. To date no answer. For sure they can’t go back to the beginning with that name.What about the communion of Orthodox churches headed by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople?
Bottom line, Jesus didn’t split His Church that way. Our Lord’s Church is to be perfectly one, completely unified with Peter and Peter’s successors.
As to the patriarch you mention, It’s not clear whether he even has any sway over the ROC which dwarfs in size all the other Orthodox churches combined. Therefore, technically there is no “Orthodox Church” as if they are one.
R:
I’ve given you this answer already #391And you haven’t answered my question, and neither has the paragraph quoted. So I’ll ask again: How can the Catholic Church be both truly present and truly absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”? How is that not a violation of the law of non-contradiction?
Some claim catholicity, but aren’t Catholic
Melkite Bp John explains it this way.
“In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.” According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.”
For full context
The document you referred to, and in particular the section that follows, (link also provided) is that distinction between Catholic and catholic that Bp John talks about.
"This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76)."
**some aspects of the church understood as communion
**footnote (76) Cf. supra, nn. 5 and 14. from
QUARTUS SUPRA - Papal Encyclicals Online
K
KjetilK
Guest
No, you haven’t. I have asked you a specific question. Is it really that difficult for you to answer specific questions? Allow me to ask it again, and please answer that specific question, not all others:I’ve given you this answer already #391
How can the Catholic Church be both truly present and truly absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”? How is that not a violation of the law of non-contradiction?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.