Dealing With Made-up Words

 

Gamora: Then we have to go to Knowhere now.

Thor: Wrong! Where we have to go is Nidavellir.

Drax: That's a made-up word.

Thor: All words are made-up.

Transubstantiation: Theology, History, and Christian Unity, Brett Salkeld

Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin all genuinely believed and sought to teach Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and came much closer than it may first appear.

I have finally finished this book.  As I mentioned early on, I concluded that the language and theology was well above my understanding – I probably got about 30% of it.  What I did take away, and, I hope, some of you take away, is that the differences between Catholics and Protestants on this topic is not nearly as wide as the emotional reaction to the word suggests.

Why do I find that important?  It is only going to be through some subset of Christians – across all traditions and denominations – where some hope for a foundation of liberty and a wall against totalitarianism will be found.  Divisions among this group, this subset, will only hinder the ability of such a stand to form.

No, I am not after one church under a single formal, institutional hierarchy (other than under Christ, of course).  I am not looking for one statement of confession or faith.  There will remain divisions on many matters.  But there need not be division where there is no need for division; where there is division, let it only matter where it matters.  On this, call me a C.S Lewis “Mere Christianity” Christian.  There certainly are ways in which such Christians can stand as a bulwark against tyranny.

So, now we come to the conclusion of Salkeld’s work.  He cites a passage by Margaret O’Gara, where she examines just what it was that Aquinas was after:

Aquinas developed this earlier idea in response to popular practices and views of his day that misunderstood the change in the Eucharist as a material change.  To counter this, Aquinas emphasized its mysterious, even miraculous, nature; this change was not visible, not material, and yet it was real.

Yes, it is bread and wine.  But is it only bread and wine?  All I can say to that is…Heaven forbid.

The original context of the discussion, the issues that were dealt with by Aquinas, were lost.  Aquinas did not argue that there was a materialistic change in the elements; he argued precisely against this.  Transubstantiation was not meant to fully explicate the Eucharist; it was meant to rule out false or inadequate conceptions of it.

The transubstantiation rejected at the time of the Reformation was not the transubstantiation of Aquinas, nor is it the teaching of the Catholic Church today – despite, as Salkeld has noted, many Catholics retain a false understanding of the term. 

Through this book, Salkeld has extensively documented and footnoted the work of Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin on this topic.  He has demonstrated that the differences, if any, are minor; that what Luther and Calvin were writing against was teaching that was contrary to Aquinas and contrary to the Church’s teaching, emphasized again at the Council of Trent.

Consensus about transubstantiation is necessary only to demonstrate that what we hold about real presence is truly the same faith.

Salkeld offers: first, the faith of the Catholic Church does not require that Protestants accept this precise language or terminology; second, that transubstantiation suffers a huge liability, in that it is too easily misunderstood – the Aristotelian language and concepts used by Thomas were significantly altered by the time of the Reformation (transformed to nominalist language); finally, that different articulations are complimentary, not contradictory.

If other articulations are understood to complement, explain, or balance transubstantiation, rather than contradict, debunk, or correct it, there should be no reason why they cannot coexist in an ecumenical Church.

Conclusion

Transubstantiation, properly understood, highlights and reinforces our agreements about God, creation, Christ, the Church, and the destiny of the world – a world Christ is drawing to himself, bread first.

I want to hope that any reaction is not based on the made-up word: transubstantiation.  Salkeld may be wrong in his conclusions, but his work is well-documented and footnoted.  In other words, don’t argue against the made-up word; argue against the detailed work done by Salkeld.

We know that it is bread and wine, but it isn’t only bread and wine.  Given this, how would you describe what happens when it passes through a priest’s or pastor’s hands to differentiate it from what happens when the clerk at your grocery store puts it on the shelf?

What word would you make up as a label?

Signs, Symbols, History, Science

 

“Is the body of Christ really and truly in this sacrament or only in a figurative way or as in a sign?”

Thomas Aquinas, first article, question 75, Summa Theologica

Transubstantiation: Theology, History, and Christian Unity, Brett Salkeld

Salkeld will rephrase Thomas’s statement, in order to clarify: “Is the Eucharist only a sign, or is it also something more?”

If it isn’t clear by that open, this post will focus on a very “inside Christian baseball” topic.  My intent is not to draw us into a theological debate, but to understand something of one of the key theological divides between Protestants, represented by Luther and Calvin, and Catholic thought, represented by Thomas, on the question of the Eucharist.  Within the context of this blog, it matters theologically only because it matters historically.

Thomas, of course, will deny that Christ is present only symbolically; he also denies that Christ is present physically – meaning not in the same way that Christ was present physically in Mary’s womb, etc.  There is no chemical change in the bread, nothing like this. 

Of course, Salkeld develops the Thomistic / Catholic case much further, but I will next move on to Luther and then Calvin.  Again, not in tremendous detail – as so much of this language and theology is beyond my grasp – but offering instead some conclusions from Salkeld and others.

Luther is not dogmatic on the point, writing in The Babylonian Captivity, regarding the issue: is Christ’s real flesh and blood present in no other way, or only as accidents:

“I permit every man to hold either of these opinions as he chooses. ...so that no one may fear being called a heretic if he believes that real bread and real wine are present on the alter, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold and believe either one view or the other without endangering his salvation.”

I have thought about this often, on many topics of controversy among and between Christians: does the disagreement rise to one that risks the question of salvation?  Often, I think not.

Eight years later, Luther would write:

“I have taught in the past and still teach that this controversy is unnecessary and that it is of no consequence whether the bread remains or not… It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills.”

And I often think about this: is it so important to divide on things not clearly described, one way or the other, in Scripture? 

Luther continues with even stronger words, and keeping in mind that here he is writing against those who say it is only bread and only wine (the “fanatics,” as he puts it):

“Sooner than have wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood.”

So, while the pope (or at least Thomas) didn’t say that there was only blood (in the sense of that which courses through our veins), Luther found this position more agreeable than the one claiming that it was only wine.

Salkeld concludes, based on forty-five pages of heavily footnoted examination on Luther’s views, as follows:

…Luther’s denial of transubstantiation was not a denial of what Thomas had argued.

As I recall, Salkeld earlier demonstrated that Luther was arguing against what later Catholics would present, which was different than what Thomas presented.

Furthermore, his affirmation of the persistence of the substances of bread and wine was using the term “substance” in a different way than it had been used by Thomas.

Thomas was using Aristotelian language and structure.  Luther was not.  Keep in mind that Aristotle was rejected in many ways (or every way) by Luther (coming back to my ongoing examination of the issues that many Protestants apparently have with teleologically-based natural law).

Finally, Luther’s concerns that transubstantiation led to unnecessary philosophical problems were predicated on this, nominalist, view of transubstantiation. 

In other words, Luther’s affirmation of the persistence of the bread and wine should not be read as a rejection of Thomas.  Suggesting, perhaps, that had Luther been more familiar with and accepting of Aristotle’s metaphysics, much of this controversy might not have come. 

Transforming Aristotle

Transubstantiation: Theology, History, and Christian Unity, Brett Salkeld

No, I am not going back on my decision to stop writing about transubstantiation so quickly.  There is, however, an informative presentation by Salkeld regarding Aquinas’s use and transformation of Aristotelian metaphysics.  This is meaningful toward gaining a better understanding of the philosophy of Aquinas and natural law.

I will, however, make two brief comments regarding what I am finding in the book about transubstantiation – for the benefit of those considering purchasing the book: first, Salkeld states firmly and often that Protestants are right to reject what many Catholics today believe is happening to the bread and wine in the Eucharist.

But this doesn’t necessarily explain Luther’s rejection.  And this comes to the second point: Luther was rejecting an argument that was a rejection of Aquinas’s argument.  He was not rejecting Aquinas.  These two points shape Salkeld’s treatment throughout, ensuring, as much as possible, a balanced look on the entire subject.

That’s enough of that.  With that minor transgression behind me, on to Aquinas’s treatment of Aristotle.  Thomas is accused two ways regarding his relationship with Aristotle: he is accused, on the one hand, of being too Aristotelian; on the other hand, he is accused of not being Aristotelian enough.  Well, which is it?

I guess neither…or both.  On matters such as transubstantiation, creation, the incarnation, or the resurrection, Thomas is not doing philosophy; he is using philosophy to do theology:

In fact, Thomas himself commented on the role of philosophy in theology, suggesting that the theologian who uses philosophy does not mix wine with water, but turns water into wine.

Thomas was using the language and logic of the time to explore and develop his theological arguments.  As Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe writes:

[Thomas] uses [Aristotelian language] because it was the common philosophical currency of his time; but he uses it to give account of something that simply could not happen according to Aristotle.

For events such as the creation or resurrection, Aristotelian language breaks down – not, necessarily, because there is some better philosophical language through which these can be explained, but because, merely, it is language.  Such concepts transcend our concepts, stretching language beyond the breaking point.

Take the creation: for Aristotle, there can be no such thing as creation ex nihilo, creation out of nothing.  The unmoved mover moved matter that was already in existence.  Aristotelian philosophy cannot account for the God of creation as understood by Christians. 

For Aristotle, matter can take new forms: a sandwich becomes a human body, a tree becomes a door, etc.  But matter cannot come to exist where nothing existed.

Thomas’s answer to this problem can be found in his De potentia, where he writes that “God, giving being, simultaneously produces that which receives being.  And thus it does not follow that his action requires something pre-existing.”

Thomas uses the language of “substance” and “accident,” as does Aristotle.  On matters where he is using philosophical language to explore theology (such as creation), these words function differently for Thomas.  That there was a time when there was not anything at all is unthinkable for Aristotle.

Because of his Christian theology of creation, Thomas insists that the deepest ontological category is not substance but the concrete act of existence – in other words, that something has been given existence and is being held in existence by God.

Substance is not autonomous for Thomas, as it is for Aristotle; it is relative.  To expand further: both consider the “apple” has substance.  Substance is the answer to the question: “what is that?”  Both consider the “red” of the apple as an accident.  There must be something independently existing (the apple) for there to be an accident (red).  Salkeld will offer a metaphor, taken from grammar: adjectives need nouns. 

Again, from Herbert McCabe:

A Bridge Too Far

Remember who the real enemy is.

-          Said several times by several characters in The Hunger Games movies

I think I have bitten off more than I am qualified to chew – maybe more than should be chewed, I don’t know.  I am speaking of my working through the book Transubstantiation: Theology, History, and Christian Unity, by Brett Salkeld.

For those of you involved with this blog, you understand my reasons for exploring the connection between Christianity and liberty.  More than a connection, it is a requirement.  In this light, I offer a comment I made in a recent discussion:

This is why I refer to the necessity of Christian men of good will in leadership - and we are so lacking in this; it is why I appreciate ecumenical dialogue; it is why I see the necessity of a foundation of natural law; it is why I find so costly the fracturing of the church by leveraging disagreement on dozens of minor points in doctrine.

Forgive what may appear to be a digression; it is not.  I read the following, via a link at the LRC blog; it is an essay entitled “How Political Ideology Is Pushing Religion Out of Religious Studies.”  The author is discussing the leading trade association of Religious Studies intersectionalists (I would never call them academicians or scholars), the American Academy of Religion.  The author is offering the titles of some of the lectures at their recent annual conventions:

The 2016 meeting featured more than 40 LGBTQ events. The presentations included these topics: “Ruth as Undocuqueer: Re-Reading the Book of Ruth at the Intersection of Queer and Postcolonial;” “Sarah, Sodom, and the Queering of Time in Genesis 18-19;” “Daniel 11:37 and the Invention of the Homosexual Antichrist;” “The Gospel and Acts of the Holy Ghost: Queer Spectrality, Affective Homohistory, and Luke-Acts;” and “Crucifixion’s Idolatrous Resonance: Animality, Slavery, and Sexuality in Pauline Rhetoric.”

The 2017 meeting, held in Boston, was similar, including a presentation on “Queering Martin Luther.”

These woke topics are so new that even my Microsoft Word spell check has yet to include many of the terms in its dictionary (no, I am not adding these).

In addition to the LGBTQ agenda, religious studies scholars promote a litany of issues that coincide with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party: Marxism/socialism, immigration reform, climate change, criminal justice reform, and identity politics.

So, back to Salkeld’s book.  With almost each comment to the three (so far) posts I have made regarding this book, I have felt that maybe this is a subject I need not take on publicly.  These three posts have covered all of thirty pages of a 240-page book, and I am already feeling the weight of it.

I am going to pause from posting anything more from this book.  As mentioned, I really am unqualified, and therefore it is really unfair to the topic for me to continue.  I may post some more eventually; I am not sure – maybe just a final post after I finish reading the entire book…maybe not even this. 

My only purpose for writing this post is to be fair to those who encouraged me to move forward with this topic, so you understand the void.  I will suggest: for those of you interested in this topic and dialogue, just buy the book – I haven’t even come to the detailed discussion on the views of the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, and John Calvin (each with its own chapter), and it is already eye-opening.

I will continue to engage on the topic of Christianity and liberty.  I continue to believe that unless Christianity takes on its proper institutional role in the life of society, incorporating Aristotelian-Thomistic Natural Law (no, I am not suggesting that all must be Catholic), we stand no chance of moving toward liberty – instead, continuing a slide into ever-increasing decadence.

In the meantime, we have too many corrupt Christian leaders in too many positions of the highest authority.  Is it any wonder that Religious Studies conferences have evolved into the alphabet soup of wokesterism?

Conclusion

I value every reader and contributor here.  I know that you know that I am learning along with you and that I learn much from your feedback.  I hope nothing that I have written in this post causes anyone to feel otherwise.  But I really do feel that this time I have attempted a bridge too far – certainly for me.