tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7918788512231158766..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: What’s black and white and misread all over?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30472100401063291572010-03-04T11:41:32.173-08:002010-03-04T11:41:32.173-08:00Dan said: "Get your knowledge on and read the...Dan said: <i>"Get your knowledge on and read the FAQs here (these address your questions)<br />http://www.jesusveg.com/popular.html"</i><br /><br />From that site: <i>Q: "Doesn't Jesus eat fish after the resurrection, help the fisherman catch fish, and serve fish during the multiplication miracle?"<br />A: "First, regardless of whether the fish in these events are actual fish, Christians today must ask ourselves, considering the fact that we have absolutely no physical justification for consuming the flesh of any animals, why we would chose to do so." </i><br /><br />I've seen enough of this type of reasoning elsewhere to classify the view that Jesus was a vegetarian as bogus wishfull thinking.<br /><br />Bottom line: Jesus willingly caused the death of 2000 animals in order to save one human being.<br /><br />Don't drag his name into your private war.Daniel Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42922120038863987042010-03-03T08:47:23.627-08:002010-03-03T08:47:23.627-08:00Thanks Brandon
I think your thoughts in the last ...Thanks Brandon<br /><br />I think your thoughts in the last paragraph resonate better in my brain. I just can't get into the A-T of the Eucharist.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35364804126046120542010-03-03T00:18:11.824-08:002010-03-03T00:18:11.824-08:00Dan said:
I am O.K. with your statements. What ne...Dan said:<br /><br /><i>I am O.K. with your statements. What new accidents inhere, and what are new effects possible with the new formal cause?</i><br /><br />No new accidents inhere; the accidents remain the same -- the idea is that it's only what keeps them in existence that changes. Originally it was the substance of the bread and wine (with divine power concurring as a matter of general providence); after the conversion, it is simply divine power, in particular insofar as it can make Christ, as the Word made flesh, present. Moreover, there is nothing in which the accidents can inhere -- they simply exist because God wills that Christ be present through them, not because they inhere in anything. No new natural effects result, as far as the accidents go -- the accidents being the same absolutely anything that follows from them naturally remains the same. Thus one would expect the Host to deteriorate the same way it normally does; the only way it wouldn't would be if God chose to work a miracle in order to symbolize the fact that Christ is really present. There are new effects that might be broadly called moral effects, resulting not from the accidents but from the real presence of Christ.<br /><br />Incidentally, it should be said in all this that we are talking on the assumption of what one would say in a Catholic Aristotelianism; in a strict sense there is no requirement in any authoritative that Catholics think of transubstantiation in terms of accidents at all; they can describe it any way they please as long as they recognize (1) a real change so that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but in some way are really Christ's body and blood; (2) that this occurs nonetheless in such a way that the ordinary appearances of bread and wine remain; and (3) that this does not occur by a change in Christ's body and blood (e.g., Christ's actual blood is not changed so that it tastes like wine) but only by a change in the bread and wine. Speaking of this in terms of accidents is just the standard way of doing it, and the way an Aristotelian would describe it.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21190464224450531902010-03-02T15:59:11.780-08:002010-03-02T15:59:11.780-08:00@TheOFloinn
The problem here isn't the Church...@TheOFloinn<br /><br />The problem here isn't the Church's acceptance of Galileo. The Church was quite right to wait till scientific evidence was conclusively forwarded. The problem here was the Church's insistence that <i>he recant</i>, i.e insist that he hold a position which was not true, and punishing him (yes the punishments were mild) for holding a position which was congruent with reality. Even the Church has admitted that the case was badly handled.<br /><br />The issues at stake here are not scientific but ontological. Who has the better grasp of reality? Papal infallibility means that the Pope and Church(under certain conditions only) are never wrong, because they are guided by the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />However the Church claims that under the ordinary magisterium the faithful are required to give "obsequium religiosum" (assent of the faith and will) to propositions which could be fallible. Executive summary: You are required to believe in things which could be false (conversely they could also be true). If you can't see a problem with that then......Houston, we have a problem.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21032298887197381462010-03-02T15:04:19.477-08:002010-03-02T15:04:19.477-08:00Should I have followed the advice of my bishops wh...<i>Should I have followed the advice of my bishops who thought Gallileo wrong or my sense perceptions?</i> <br /><br />Safe on both counts. Bellarmine's complaint to Galileo was that he had in fact no empirical evidence that his mathematical model was physically real. Galileo was asking people to take his model on faith and deny their sense impressions. You could <i>see</i> the sun going around the earth. <br /><br />He spent many years afterward trying to dig up some evidence that would prove him right, and the best he could come up with was the tides. He claimed they were "sloshing" of the ocean caused by the spinning earth. Not only did this contradict an earlier argument of his (on the objection of the winds) but everyone knew (even Aquinas) that the Moon had <i>something</i> to do with it. The oddity from the modern perspective is that it was the Church demanding empirical proof before she would change her readings and Galileo who wanted to be taken on faith. <br /><br />It was not until ca. 1800 that Calandrelli observed parallax in a fixed star, and Guglielmini dropped weights from the tower of Bologna and measured an eastward deflection. This took care of the two "falsifications". Settele presented the evidence to the Holy Office. They looked it over and said, "Yup, that the empirical facts that Bellarmine wanted," and they lifted the ban on teaching Copernicanism as a fact.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69766793134566258572010-03-02T14:47:42.010-08:002010-03-02T14:47:42.010-08:00I'm rather late to this debate but for what it...I'm rather late to this debate but for what its worth I'd like to chip my two cents in.<br /><br />From my understanding of Thomas, it would appear that the view of St Thomas and St Ignatius are actually opposed.<br /><br />As I understand it, Thomas's view was that where faith and sense contradict, it's our understanding of one or the other that must be flawed. Thomas does not argue that scripture is wrong, rather that our understanding of it may be. The whole Gallileo issue was a case in point.<br /><br />Now I Know that the Church never "formally" condemned Galilleo but it did de facto. And the little thought experiment I like to engage in is "what should I have done as a member of the Catholic faith at that time?" Should I have followed the advice of my bishops(Ordinary Magisterium) who thought Gallileo wrong or my sense perceptions? What position would that have put me in? Or should I have gone to confession for reading Keplers book which was on the Index Librorum Prohibitum?<br /><br />A lot of the "pro authority" camp of the Catholic Church are dismissive of Protestant concerns of Church error be that formal or de-facto, but I think their concerns are legitimate. Too many Catholics are GPS Catholics as outlined in this <a href="http://www.zenit.org/article-19058?l=english" rel="nofollow">great essay by Bishop Anthony Fischer, (He's no trendy liberal)</a>.BTW it's the position I hold and best be described as being Catholic in a Protestant sort of way(Hat tip, Lydia McGrew)<br /><br />Personally I think the Church is infallibly right in its principles but has been demonstrably wrong in some of its pronouncements on the <i>application</i> of those same principles.<br /><br />The first duty of everyman is to the Truth.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31951926711670081722010-03-02T14:35:58.233-08:002010-03-02T14:35:58.233-08:00Sorry. anao is spastic for anonymous.Sorry. anao is spastic for anonymous.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90005370442815519702010-03-02T14:33:43.742-08:002010-03-02T14:33:43.742-08:00anao
I know my answer is in there, but can you or...anao<br /><br />I know my answer is in there, but can you or any other commenter perhaps translate? Also, the term subject is unfamiliar to me.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34433380665980969372010-03-02T12:26:08.635-08:002010-03-02T12:26:08.635-08:00"What new accidents inhere, and what are new ..."What new accidents inhere, and what are new effects possible with the new formal cause?"<br /><br />Objection 2. Further, the form of the thing into which another is converted, begins anew to inhere in the matter of the thing converted into it: as when air is changed into fire not already existing, the form of fire begins anew to be in the matter of the air; and in like manner when food is converted into non-pre-existing man, the form of the man begins to be anew in the matter of the food. Therefore, if bread be changed into the body of Christ, the form of Christ's body must necessarily begin to be in the matter of the bread, which is false. Consequently, the bread is not changed into the substance of Christ's body. <br /><br />Reply to Objection 1. This objection holds good in respect of formal change, because it belongs to a form to be in matter or in a subject; but it does not hold good in respect of the change of the entire substance. Hence, since this substantial change implies a certain order of substances, one of which is changed into the other, it is in both substances as in a subject, just as order and number.<br /><br />Reply to Objection 2. This argument also is true of formal conversion or change, because, as stated above (ad 1), a form must be in some matter or subject. But this is not so in a change of the entire substance; for in this case no subject is possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4072454951013412072010-03-02T12:08:55.496-08:002010-03-02T12:08:55.496-08:00Brandon said, "So there's really two diff...Brandon said, "So there's really two different issues here that are being conflated: whether there is a substance present after the conversion (there is, Christ's body)"<br /><br />I am O.K. with your statements. What new accidents inhere, and what are new effects possible with the new formal cause?Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2428429577779047752010-03-02T10:50:48.381-08:002010-03-02T10:50:48.381-08:00Dan,
That's a much better line of reasoning t...Dan,<br /><br />That's a much better line of reasoning than that presented by Anonymous. Yes, the presence is presence of a substance; this is not actually relevant to this question, however. As the friar (not monk) says (ST 3.77.1),<br /><br />"The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (Question 75, Article 2); nor in the substantial form, for that does not remain (75, 6), and if it did remain, "it could not be a subject," as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ's body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities."<br /><br />So there's really two different issues here that are being conflated: whether there is a substance present after the conversion (there is, Christ's body), and whether the substance after the conversion is the substance in which the accidents inhere (it is not; there is no such substance).Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2684996567568501992010-03-02T08:34:38.742-08:002010-03-02T08:34:38.742-08:00??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68223141339360892652010-03-02T08:05:14.589-08:002010-03-02T08:05:14.589-08:00Or when someone begins talking to himself, using d...Or when someone begins talking to himself, using different names.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30410334873177632352010-03-02T07:49:19.422-08:002010-03-02T07:49:19.422-08:00It is amazing how these combox sessions come to an...It is amazing how these combox sessions come to an abrupt end whenever somebody says something that seriously challenges another person's beliefs, rather than sparking increased comments and questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72916724949456555322010-03-02T07:34:51.648-08:002010-03-02T07:34:51.648-08:00Dan
An excellent link.
In 1990 John Paul II (des...Dan<br /><br />An excellent link.<br /><br />In 1990 John Paul II (despite Aquinas' soul idea) said that we and other animals share the same spirit nephesh and are brothers who must love one another.<br /><br />Anyone who would eat his brother is fairly unloving/unlovable, and at a minimum, I wish that he keep away from me, my family, and my dog.a vegannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80248237119579019602010-03-02T02:08:48.528-08:002010-03-02T02:08:48.528-08:00Dan S.
Get your knowledge on and read the FAQs he...Dan S.<br /><br />Get your knowledge on and read the FAQs here (these address your questions)<br />http://www.jesusveg.com/popular.html<br /><br />Jesus, the new Adam, WAS vegetarian and preaches the flourishing return to the peaceable kingdom prophesied by Isaiah (return to Eden) where all creatures were vegetarian.<br /><br />Jesus, like Jeremiah, cleansed his temple of the animal slaughter. He willingly substituted himself as an innocent creature to be eaten instead.<br /><br />The Christian Churches know all this, but their malformed consciences (as anonymous above calls it) precludes their willingness to accept the responsibility for actively preventing this fundamental message of the Christ.<br /><br />Jesus cleansed the Jewish Temple of animal-eaters; who will do the same for the Church?<br /><br />(Not adherents of Aquinas, I assure you.)Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64799091916973917162010-03-01T17:20:25.046-08:002010-03-01T17:20:25.046-08:00a vegan: The Church will not speak out explicitly ...a vegan: <i>The Church will not speak out explicitly on the immorality of meat-eating in a the modern world of factory farming/slaughter precisely because it supports ‘eating human flesh’.</i><br /><br />Wow!<br /><br />You call the eating of meat "immoral". Can you give the biblical case against eating meat? <br /><br />Was Jesus condoning immorality when he spoke of "killing the fatted calf" in celebration of the prodigal son's return?<br /><br />Were the priests committing sin when they slaughtered and ate lambs and bulls in obedience to the commandment?<br /><br />Was Paul promoting sin when he told the Corinthians that it was OK to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols unless it caused a brother to stumble?<br /><br />Was Jesus sinning when he commanded the demons to leave the demoniac and go into the pigs - knowing full well that the pigs (a whole herd of them mind you) would drown as a result?<br /><br />Or is this something you feel so strongly about that you are attempting to co-opt some religious authority to bolster your case?Daniel Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25381083684213620062010-03-01T16:46:47.221-08:002010-03-01T16:46:47.221-08:00Dr. Feser,
Thank you for such an illuminating tre...Dr. Feser,<br /><br />Thank you for such an illuminating treatment of the issue. After reading your take, I now have a question about Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius Loyola.<br /><br />You said that Loyola, when he speaks of our believing what appears to us to be white to be in fact black on account of the Church's authoritative pronouncement on the matter, is referring to matters of faith and morals, since those are the matters the Church makes authoritative pronouncements on.<br /><br />In light of this, my question is: Does Loyola believe that we should do what the Church mandates even if it goes against our conscience? Does he mean that if something appears truly evil to me, but the Church says it is good and must be done, that I must trust the Church, believe my own conscience to be in error, and do it? This would seem to be the moral analogue to the case of color Loyola uses hyperbolically to make his point. Here I am reminded somewhat of a line of John Paul II: "To put your faith in Jesus means choosing to believe what he says, no matter how strange it may seem, and choosing to reject the claims of evil, no matter how sensible or attractive they may seem."<br /><br />But if that is what Loyola means, does that not put him in conflict with Aquinas, who says that even a malformed conscience binds? I take Aquinas' view to imply that, for him, we have to obey our conscience in a case where it conflicts with the Church's authoritative pronouncement on a moral matter. I have heard this precarious dilemma described as follows: for Aquinas, the person with a malformed conscience has no good options, since he must either sin in obedience to his malformed conscience or he must sin in going against his conscience.<br /><br />So, without having thought much further on the issue, it seems to me that on the one hand Loyola suggests following the Church's teaching when it conflicts with our conscience, while Aquinas believes that conscience must be followed even in cases where it conflicts with the Church's teaching. Do you think Aquinas and Loyola are really at odds on this question, or might their views be harmonized? Thank you in advance for your answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32096046987650913512010-03-01T15:09:43.084-08:002010-03-01T15:09:43.084-08:00Dr. Feser
Am I wrong?Dr. Feser<br /><br />Am I wrong?Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5487679555391770322010-03-01T09:44:38.550-08:002010-03-01T09:44:38.550-08:00Brandon
Anon seems right. You said “transubstant...Brandon<br /><br />Anon seems right. You said “transubstantiation is not the claim that the accidents of the bread and wine become the accidents of the body and blood; as usually explicated, it's the claim that the substantial form ceases to exist and is not replaced…”<br /><br />But from the monk himself in ST 76 - 3: <br /><br />I answer that, As was observed above (1, ad 3), because the substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real concomitance, consequently <br />_Christ's body is in this sacrament substantively,_ <br /><br />that is, in the way in which substance is under dimensions, but not after the manner of dimensions, which means, not in the way in which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the dimensive quantity of place.<br /><br /><br />Substance is there before and after as anonymous is trying to say. And as a new substance going forward, if we are to believe in Aristotle, we should see new accidents potential to immortal flesh, or there is no change.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35037998551314288482010-03-01T08:32:56.420-08:002010-03-01T08:32:56.420-08:00Anonymous,
There are two issues here:
(a) What d...Anonymous,<br /><br />There are two issues here:<br /><br />(a) What does the doctrine actually say, and <br /><br />(b) Is the doctrine defensible <br /><br />Perhaps you are addressing (b), and taking the view that it is not defensible. But Brandon is addressing (a). You should get clear on (a), though, before addressing (b).Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4585821148971243632010-03-01T08:26:59.542-08:002010-03-01T08:26:59.542-08:00Hello Christopherus,
Yes, perhaps it's too qu...Hello Christopherus,<br /><br />Yes, perhaps it's too quick to say flatly that Aquinas disagreed with it -- though that does seem to be the standard view -- but I think it's also too quick to say flatly that he did not. Early texts indicate that he didn't, later texts seem pretty clearly to show that he did, and the latest texts arguably give reason to think he might have returned to his early acceptance of the doctrine. So, it's a matter of controversy. In any event, there were other Scholastics who rejected it at the time, which suffices to illustrate the point I was trying to make.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13783262478599166312010-03-01T08:25:35.115-08:002010-03-01T08:25:35.115-08:00Oh yes, thanks vegan, I cannot agree with you more...Oh yes, thanks vegan, I cannot agree with you more, though I am not fully vegan yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82707322116583665942010-03-01T08:23:47.286-08:002010-03-01T08:23:47.286-08:00Since you might be making things up and probably d...Since you might be making things up and probably do not believe in dictionaries, the following definition probably will not mean anything: In Christianity, the change by which the bread and wine of the Eucharist become in substance the body and blood of Jesus, though their appearance is not altered."<br /><br />"trans" means change, as in from one substance to another.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69588094334600242332010-03-01T07:44:29.579-08:002010-03-01T07:44:29.579-08:00Yes, Anonymous, it is you who are obviously confus...Yes, Anonymous, it is you who are obviously confused. On an Aristotelian view distinct substantial forms can mimic each other in various ways so even in normal substantial changes not all forms manifest their typical accidents and virtually all forms can be made under certain circumstances to manifest atypical accidents <i>because accidental forms and substantial forms are not the same thing</i>. The substantial form is not the form of the accidents; substances are <i>material</i> causes of accidents, and thus the substantial forms not the formal causes of accidents. This is because (although in a different way from the way matter receives the substantial form) substances receive accidental forms as being potential to them, a point that was often noted in commentaries on Metaphysics VI and VII. Thus in an Aristotelian context it is entirely possible for substances to receive accidents that are not natural to them, or even contrary to their natures: this is what is known as violent change, and in early Aristotelianism, which held that water was naturally cold, even heating up a pan of water would have been seen as introducing an accident to water that was entirely contrary to its nature. The relationship between substance and accident you are suggesting is far more crude than has ever been countenanced even by the simplest and least sophisticated historical forms of Aristotelianism.<br /><br />However, as I've had to point out for the third time now, transubstantiation is not the claim that the accidents of the bread and wine become the accidents of the body and blood; as usually explicated, it's the claim that the substantial form ceases to exist and is not replaced -- the accidents are sustained by <i>efficient</i> causality, namely, the unusual intervention of divine omnipotence. The accidents do not become the accidents of immortal flesh, and therefore there is no need for them to express nature of immortal flesh in any way. This point is not difficult to discover; virtually any look at a reliable reference text will show it.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.com