Crazy Jesuit

[Hassan]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='27 May 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1274988224' post='2119221']
That doesn't wash because the Church's teaching was NEVER based on physics but on Metaphysics! This has nothing to do with natural science but with philosophy. It is based on what God has revealed. To describe the Church's teaching as "inadequate" is also unacceptable. As Paul VI pointed out in Mysterium Fidei transubstantiation is the BEST term to use. Perhaps Father Kelly never took Metaphysics.

S.
[/quote]


God did not reveal the substance/accident distinction, Aristotle did. They are somewhat archaic metaphysical categories which, to my mind, cannot be analytically conceptualized in a coherent way. Aristotle's metaphysical categories were based on his understanding of the physical world. Just like Descarte's dualism was based on his understanding of the physical world (as John Searl pointed out).

As I understand it, Catholics believe that the full deposit of faith was revealed within the lifetime of the Apostles. The Church taught the same truth for over a thousand years before these Aristotelian categories were transmitted back to the Christendom from the Muslim world. I don't understand what was wrong with ML's understanding of the Priest's comments. The truth existed before Aquinas Christenized Aristotelian philosophy and the truth remains unchanged. That our understanding of physics and metaphysics no longer fits into Aristotelian categories seems hardly a threat to Christianity. What is wrong with expressing the idea in language intelligible in modern language, in categories congruent to today's philosophical categories and science, rather than those of a Greek polymath.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Raphael' date='30 May 2010 - 09:44 AM' timestamp='1275227041' post='2120633']
I'd like to know how quantum physics disproved Aristotelian metaphysics.
[/quote]

This aspect of Aristotelian (and Thomistic) metaphysics are integrally tied up in his understanding of the physical world.

I think Aristotle's categories are archaic and no longer coherent to our contemporary understanding of reality. If you disagree, fine. That's an intellectual distinction. I don't understand why so many Catholics are seemingly willing to tie their faith to Aristotelian philosophy.


http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/substacc.html
[i]
Natural Philosophy - Substance and Accident


What the meaning of "IS" is First, as a kind of preliminary and as tool for philosophical discourse, one should be familiar with the basic distinctions of Aristotle's logic. The basic logical distinction for our purposes is between accident (what exists in and is said of another) and substance (what does not exist in another & not said of another). As an example of what Aristotle means, consider what is named by the word "white." The reality that this word names (a particular color) can be said of some other thing as eg. "This thing is white." "White" is said of "this thing" as though the color belonged to "this thing." Furthermore, it is understood to exist in "this thing;" one does not find any "white" except that is in "this thing" or some other thing. This way of speaking can be contrasted with another, as for example "This thing is Socrates." "Socrates" does not name the same kind of reality that "white" does in the previous example. "Socrates" is not said of "this thing" in the same way as "white" is, and "Socrates" does not exist IN "this thing." Rather, "Socreates" IS "this thing," and the sentence "this thing is Socrates" is understood to assert an identity between the two realities named.
[b]This basic notion of Aristotle's logic reflects the basic distinction in the way reality is stuctured and reflects the basic way that we view reality.[/b] The fundamental distinction is between substance and accident. Substance is whatever is a natural kind of thing and exists in its own right. Examples are rocks, trees, animals, etc. What an animal is, a dog for example, is basically the same whether it is black or brown, here or there, etc. A dog is a substance since it exists in its own right; it does not exist in something else, the way a color does.
Substance and Accidents Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion. For Aristotle there are 10 categories into which things naturally fall. They are

* Substance, and
* Nine Accidents:
o Quantity,
o Quality,
o Relation,
o Action,
o Passion,
o Time,
o Place,
o Disposition (the arrangement of parts), and
o Rainment (whether a thing is dressed or armed, etc.)

All these distinctions are basically logical, but in a sense they reflect the structure of reality. One never finds any substance that we experience without some accidents, nor an accident that is not the accident of a substance. Every dog, for instance, has some color, place, size. Nevertheless, it is obvious that what a dog is is not the same as its color, or its size, etc. [/i]

[Maggyie]

Isn't it the case that Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox do not accept the term "transubstantiation" as a good descriptor of what happens in the Eucharist? What I'm saying is that I've always heard there are perfectly orthodox ways to object to transubstantiation, which is a strictly Thomistic term, while not denying the Real Presence.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Hassan' date='30 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275231298' post='2120651']
God did not reveal the substance/accident distinction, Aristotle did. They are somewhat archaic metaphysical categories which, to my mind, cannot be analytically conceptualized in a coherent way. Aristotle's metaphysical categories were based on his understanding of the physical world. Just like Descarte's dualism was based on his understanding of the physical world (as John Searl pointed out).

As I understand it, Catholics believe that the full deposit of faith was revealed within the lifetime of the Apostles. The Church taught the same truth for over a thousand years before these Aristotelian categories were transmitted back to the Christendom from the Muslim world. I don't understand what was wrong with ML's understanding of the Priest's comments. The truth existed before Aquinas Christenized Aristotelian philosophy and the truth remains unchanged. That our understanding of physics and metaphysics no longer fits into Aristotelian categories seems hardly a threat to Christianity. What is wrong with expressing the idea in language intelligible in modern language, in categories congruent to today's philosophical categories and science, rather than those of a Greek polymath.
[/quote]

Aristotle did not reveal anything. God revealed the doctrine at the Last Supper. The scholastics used Aristotelian terminology to explain it, no it didn't come from the Muslims. The scholastic terminology is fine for anyone because because the Church endorsed it at Trent. Like I said, read Paul VI's encyclical "Mysterium Fidei". It has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with physics. The Church itself still uses "transubstantiation". There's no problem in using other language so long as you don't weaken the doctrine or confuse people. But no one may say the language the Church uses in dogmatic formulas is "outmoded". It isn't. We are not just talking about Aristotle here, or even the scholastics. The teaching of the Eucharist was defined by the Council of Trent and Trent used the word "transubstantiation".

Paul VI in "Mysterium Fidei" :

"[font="Times"][size="3"],,, As St. Thomas says, the fact that the true body and the true blood ofChrist are present in this Sacrament [b]"cannot be apprehended by the sensesbut only by faith, which rests upon divine authority. This is why Cyril commentsupon the words, [i]This is my body which is delivered up for you[/i], in [i]Luke[/i]22, 19, in this way: Do not doubt that this is true; instead accept the words ofthe Savior in faith; for since He is truth, He cannot tell a lie."[/b][/size][/font][font="Times"][size="3"]19. Hence the Christian people often follow the lead of St. Thomas and singthe words: "Sight, touch and taste in Thee are each deceived; The ear alonemost safely is believed. I believe all the Son of God has spoken; Than truth'sown word, there is no truer token." [/size][/font]

[font="Times"][size="3"]21. Moreover, the Holy Gospel alludes to this when it tells of the manydisciples of Christ who turned away and left Our Lord, after hearing Him speakof eating His flesh and drinking His blood. "This is strange talk,"they said. "Who can be expected to listen to it" Peter, on thecontrary, replied to Jesus' question as to whether the twelve wanted to go awaytoo by promptly and firmly expressing his own faith and that of the otherApostles in these marvelous words: "Lord, to whom should we go? Thy wordsare the words of eternal life."

[i]The following passage from "Mysterium Fidei" make it more than clear for any Catholic[/i]:
"[/size][/font][font="Times"][size="3"]24. And so the rule of language which the Church has established through thelong labor of centuries, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and which she hasconfirmed with the authority of the Councils, and which has more than once beenthe watchword and banner of orthodox faith, is to be religiously preserved, andno one may presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of newknowledge. [b]Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by theecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation bejudged as no longer appropriate for men of our times, and let others be rashlysubstituted for them?[/b] [b]In the same way, it cannot be tolerated that anyindividual should on his own authority take something away from the formulaswhich were used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Mystery forour belief. These formulas—like the others that the Church used to proposethe dogmas of faith—express concepts that are not tied to a certainspecific form of human culture, or to a certain level of scientific progress, orto one or another theological school. Instead they set forth what the human mindgrasps of reality through necessary and universal experience and what itexpresses in apt and exact words, whether it be in ordinary or more refinedlanguage. For this reason, these formulas are adapted to all men of all timesand all places."

[/b]Paul VI in his "Credo of the People of God":
[/size][/font]Christ cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine which our senses perceive. [b]This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation[/b]. [b]Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine,[sup][url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p6credo.htm#36"] [/url][/sup]as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body."

[/b]Any formula we use has to meet these criteria. Father Kelly uses the Modernist tactic of questioning the language the Church uses but offers no alternative other than a clumsy attempt to turn this into a discussion of physics which is irrelevant.


S.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Skinzo

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Maggie' date='30 May 2010 - 05:34 AM' timestamp='1275233659' post='2120669']
Isn't it the case that Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox do not accept the term "transubstantiation" as a good descriptor of what happens in the Eucharist? What I'm saying is that I've always heard there are perfectly orthodox ways to object to transubstantiation, which is a strictly Thomistic term, while not denying the Real Presence.
[/quote]

It is not correct to say it is a "strictly Thomistic term" since it was endorsed and used by the Council of Trent in its dogmatic definition.

S.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='30 May 2010 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1275234068' post='2120672']
Aristotle did not reveal anything.[/quote]

Then why do you treat his categories as sacrosanct?

[QUOTE]God revealed the doctrine at the Last Supper. The scholastics used Aristotelian terminology to explain it, no it didn't come from the Muslims.[/QUOTE]

I never said it came from the Muslims and I see no reason for you to assume that is what I meant considering I was pretty clear to identity Aristotle, a Greek, as the originator of the concepts. I said the Muslims transmitted Aristotle back to Christendom, which they very much did.

[QUOTE]The scholastic terminology is fine for anyone because because the Church endorsed it at Trent. Like I said, read Paul VI's encyclical "Mysterium Fidei". It has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with physics. The Church itself still uses "transubstantiation". There's no problem in using other language so long as you don't weaken the doctrine or confuse people. But no one may say the language the Church uses in dogmatic formulas is "outmoded". It isn't. We are not just talking about Aristotle here, or even the scholastics. The teaching of the Eucharist was defined by the Council of Trent and Trent used the word "transubstantiation". [/QUOTE]

You seem to agree that the language is not what is sacred, all that is sacred is the truth that language is intended to convey, so I fail to see where exactly we disagree.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Hassan

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Hassan' date='30 May 2010 - 06:47 AM' timestamp='1275238049' post='2120705']
Then why do you treat his categories as sacrosanct?

You seem to agree that the language is not what is sacred, all that is sacred is the truth that language is intended to convey, so I fail to see where exactly we disagree.
[/quote]

I never said Aristotle's categories are sacrosanct, but they might be. I don't think you got the points Paul VI or the Council of Trent made.

S.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='30 May 2010 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1275229890' post='2120648']
You got it. It can't. Stephen M. Barr, who happens to be a real physicist has an answer for Fr. Kelly at "First Things":

"Catholic World News reports that Fr. Michael Kelly, S.J. the CEO of the Asian Catholic News agency, finds the Catholic doctrine of "transubstantiation" meaningless in this "post-Newtonian world of quantum physics". Since I use quantum mechanics every day in my work, I think I can match my understanding of this post-Newtonian world of quantum physics against Fr. Kelly's, and I do not find the doctrine "meaningless".
It was a standard maneuver of dissident theologians in the 1960s to affect incomprehension of binding doctrine rather than honestly and forthrightly saying that they rejected it. No one is fooled by that transparent ploy anymore, and one assumes that Fr. Kelly realizes that. It must be, therefore, that he is genuinely confused. I will try to unconfuse him.
The Church has made it clear that one does not have to accept all of Aristotelian philosophy to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. The substance of the doctrine (so to speak) is easily explained without the Aristotelian terminology. To say that 'the accidents of bread and wine' remain after consecration means that empirically the consecrated elements are completely indistinguishable from bread and wine. They taste like bread and wine; they look like bread and wine; they would, if made to react chemically or placed in a mass spectrograph, behave in every way just as bread and wine do. To say that 'the substance' of the consecrated elements is the Body and Blood of Christ, means that in reality the elements are no longer bread and wine but are the Body and Blood of Christ.

If one looks at the consecrated elements and asks 'What are these?", the correct answer (according to the doctrine of transubstantiation) is "These are the Body and Blood of Christ." If one asks, "What do these appear to be under any empirical test?", the answer is "bread and wine." Basically, that is all there is to it. The dogmatic definition used Aristotelian terminology to express this, but it can be expressed without that terminology.

Some alternative beliefs to transubstantiation are the following:

(a) The consecrated elements not only appear to be but are bread and wine, and only symbolize the Body and Blood of Christ.

(b) The consecrated elements are not in themselves the Body and Blood of Christ, but spiritually and in effect are for the believer who consumes them, in the sense that when the believer consumes them he is united in a spiritual manner with the Body of Christ. (The corollary being that if the elements are not consumed or are consumed by a non-believer, they are not the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus the "presence" of Christ depends on both what is done with the consecrated elements and on the internal disposition of the recipient.)

© The consecrated elements are still bread and wine, but in some way the Body and Blood of Christ is also present with them or in them in a manner that is objective in that it does not depend on the disposition of the recipient ("consubstantiation").

[b]In short, one can explain the doctrine of transubstantiation and distinguish it from other beliefs about the Eucharist without any use of the Aristotelian apparatus. I don't know what quantum mechanics has to do with any of this. If anything, quantum mechanics makes a straightforward connection between what appears empirically and what is "really there" more obscure than it was in Newtonian physics, and to that extent would make it easier rather than harder to affirm the doctrine."[/b]

[url="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/25/does-quantum-physics-render-transubstantiation-meaningless/"]http://www.firstthin...on-meaningless/[/url]

S.
[b]
[/b]
[/quote]

Thanks. The original priest's comments sounded like a load of bs on quantum mechanics.

I don't think any metaphysics can validly attempt to say that there isn't a difference between accidents and substance. Even our basic grammar reflects that. You can use a linking verb to tie a noun together with another noun (which equates two nouns on the level of identity or essence) or to tie a noun to an adjective (which describes the accidents of an essence).