What's wrong with the traditional Latinist movement
#41
(10-23-2012, 11:41 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 05:48 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 05:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 04:11 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: You are correct, it is the Church's judgement

No, it's God's.
The Church is part of Christ.

And yet she is not Christ to whom alone pertains the judgment of souls.
What is part of Christ is Christ.
You cannot seperate the Head from the Body.
Reply
#42
(10-24-2012, 01:07 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 11:41 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 05:48 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 05:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 04:11 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: You are correct, it is the Church's judgement

No, it's God's.
The Church is part of Christ.

And yet she is not Christ to whom alone pertains the judgment of souls.
What is part of Christ is Christ.
You cannot seperate the Head from the Body.

Indeed u cannot but the body is subject to the head. The church is subject to Christ and respnds to Him. The xhurch is not an alias of God. 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#43
(10-24-2012, 01:16 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 01:07 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 11:41 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 05:48 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 05:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 04:11 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: You are correct, it is the Church's judgement

No, it's God's.
The Church is part of Christ.

And yet she is not Christ to whom alone pertains the judgment of souls.
What is part of Christ is Christ.
You cannot seperate the Head from the Body.

Indeed u cannot but the body is subject to the head. The church is subject to Christ and respnds to Him. The xhurch is not an alias of God. 
Correct, no it is God.
Reply
#44
(10-24-2012, 01:16 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 01:07 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 11:41 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 05:48 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 05:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 04:11 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: You are correct, it is the Church's judgement

No, it's God's.
The Church is part of Christ.

And yet she is not Christ to whom alone pertains the judgment of souls.
What is part of Christ is Christ.
You cannot seperate the Head from the Body.

Indeed u cannot but the body is subject to the head. The church is subject to Christ and respnds to Him. The xhurch is not an alias of God. 

Some of the Fathers of Vatican I wanted to declare the doctrine of the Church being the Incarnation of the Holy Spirit, which is an opinion present in Catholic theology.  Vatican I was interrupted before they got to it, and Vatican II didn't get that deep.
Reply
#45
It's interesting to note here that the Church was referred to as the corpus verum while the Eucharist was called the corpus mysticum until about the 12th century or so.
Reply
#46
(10-24-2012, 03:52 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It's interesting to note here that the Church was referred to as the corpus verum while the Eucharist was called the corpus mysticum until about the 12th century or so.

Citation, please.
Reply
#47
I've known some very judgemental Eastern Catholics
Those quotes apply to everybody.
Reply
#48
(10-24-2012, 10:46 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 03:52 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It's interesting to note here that the Church was referred to as the corpus verum while the Eucharist was called the corpus mysticum until about the 12th century or so.

Citation, please.

In Catholicism, Henri de Lubac says:
Quote:At first and for quite a long time, "Corpus mysticum" meant the eucharistic body, as opposed to the "corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia", which was the "verum corpus" par excellence. Was it not in fact quite natural to designate as "mystical" that body whose hidden presence was due to "mystical prayer" and which was received in a "mystical banquet"? that body offered in forms which "mystically" signifed the Church? It is possible to trace the slow inversion of the two expressions.

He does this in Corpus Mysticum, where he shows that the term "corpus mysticum" was first used by Carolingian theologians in the ninth century to refer to the Eucharist. "Corpus verum" began to be used to refer to the Eucharist in the 12th century after people like Berengar of Tours began to deny the Real Presence. "Corpus mysticum" then gradually came to be used to refer to the Church, with Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctum statement about the Church forming a mystical body apparently being the first official use of the term in this capacity. I believe this is the commonly accepted history of these terms.
Reply
#49
(10-25-2012, 12:18 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: In Catholicism, Henri de Lubac says:
Quote:At first and for quite a long time, "Corpus mysticum" meant the eucharistic body, as opposed to the "corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia", which was the "verum corpus" par excellence. Was it not in fact quite natural to designate as "mystical" that body whose hidden presence was due to "mystical prayer" and which was received in a "mystical banquet"? that body offered in forms which "mystically" signifed the Church? It is possible to trace the slow inversion of the two expressions.

He does this in Corpus Mysticum, where he shows that the term "corpus mysticum" was first used by Carolingian theologians in the ninth century to refer to the Eucharist. "Corpus verum" began to be used to refer to the Eucharist in the 12th century after people like Berengar of Tours began to deny the Real Presence. "Corpus mysticum" then gradually came to be used to refer to the Church, with Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctum statement about the Church forming a mystical body apparently being the first official use of the term in this capacity. I believe this is the commonly accepted history of these terms.

Yes, I've read that before as well. I

'd venture to say that corpus verum gained much strength as a reference to the Eucharist as the doctrine of transubstantiation itself matured into what it has become today in the late Medieval period.
Reply
#50
(10-25-2012, 12:18 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 10:46 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 03:52 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It's interesting to note here that the Church was referred to as the corpus verum while the Eucharist was called the corpus mysticum until about the 12th century or so.

Citation, please.

In Catholicism, Henri de Lubac says:
Quote:At first and for quite a long time, "Corpus mysticum" meant the eucharistic body, as opposed to the "corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia", which was the "verum corpus" par excellence. Was it not in fact quite natural to designate as "mystical" that body whose hidden presence was due to "mystical prayer" and which was received in a "mystical banquet"? that body offered in forms which "mystically" signifed the Church? It is possible to trace the slow inversion of the two expressions.

He does this in Corpus Mysticum, where he shows that the term "corpus mysticum" was first used by Carolingian theologians in the ninth century to refer to the Eucharist. "Corpus verum" began to be used to refer to the Eucharist in the 12th century after people like Berengar of Tours began to deny the Real Presence. "Corpus mysticum" then gradually came to be used to refer to the Church, with Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctum statement about the Church forming a mystical body apparently being the first official use of the term in this capacity. I believe this is the commonly accepted history of these terms.

The lack of concerete examples of "Corpus Mysticum" referring to the Eucharist seems dubious.

Also, I'd have to be suspicious that Lubac's pointing out such an historical occurrence would have been part of his larger political project of critiquing the orthodox understanding of the Eucharist in order to bolster the new theological movement in which he played a part.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)