Both physics and
philosophy (especially Aristotle) make my head hurt. I take a much
simpler approach, especially to Protestants who come at me with the
cudgel that in such-and-such a year the Church "invented
transubstantiation." No, the Church did not "invent transubstantiation."
Transubstantiation was Thomas Aquinas's best, most worthy attempt to explain in philosophical terms what the Church has always believed: that when Jesus said "this is My Body," that is exactly what He meant — not "this symbolizes my body"; not "this contains my body." The importance of transubstantiation is that it states clearly and precisely that belief: that the Host becomes His Body and Blood and is no longer bread and wine. Beyond that, despite our best human understanding, the Eucharist is a mystery. If the Aristotelean underpinning of transubstantiation is lacking, that is not a problem for the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is at best an approximation, an attempt to wrap our minds around the mystery of the divine. It works well for stating our precepts, but anybody who thinks they are undermining the Eucharist by undermining Aristotle is misunderstanding.
So in short, if somebody has a better idea with which to state what we believe while retaining the theological precision of transubstantiation, that's great. But it isn't necessary. I am comfortable believing in the Eucharist as the mystery of our faith.
--The Other Joseph P.S. Before I became Catholic, I thought my name was fairly uncommon. It was only when Baxley was around that I had a problem. Now, I've learned not to turn my head when somebody calls my name, since there are bound to be a dozen or so Josephs in the room.
Transubstantiation was Thomas Aquinas's best, most worthy attempt to explain in philosophical terms what the Church has always believed: that when Jesus said "this is My Body," that is exactly what He meant — not "this symbolizes my body"; not "this contains my body." The importance of transubstantiation is that it states clearly and precisely that belief: that the Host becomes His Body and Blood and is no longer bread and wine. Beyond that, despite our best human understanding, the Eucharist is a mystery. If the Aristotelean underpinning of transubstantiation is lacking, that is not a problem for the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is at best an approximation, an attempt to wrap our minds around the mystery of the divine. It works well for stating our precepts, but anybody who thinks they are undermining the Eucharist by undermining Aristotle is misunderstanding.
So in short, if somebody has a better idea with which to state what we believe while retaining the theological precision of transubstantiation, that's great. But it isn't necessary. I am comfortable believing in the Eucharist as the mystery of our faith.
--The Other Joseph P.S. Before I became Catholic, I thought my name was fairly uncommon. It was only when Baxley was around that I had a problem. Now, I've learned not to turn my head when somebody calls my name, since there are bound to be a dozen or so Josephs in the room.
No comments:
Post a Comment