What's wrong with the traditional Latinist movement
#51
(10-25-2012, 02:14 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(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.

Well, he does cite specific examples of theologians using "corpus mysticum" in the book. The first four here are from the ninth century, the second to last is from the eleventh, and the last is from the twelfth:

Paschasius Wrote:Because assuredly the universal Church of Christ is his body, where Christ is the head, and all the elect are called members, from whom one body is assembled daily to form the perfect man . . ., from this (body) whoever removes a member of Christ and makes it the member of a prostitute . . . is assuredly no longer in the body of Christ . . . Therefore he has no right to eat of this mystical body of Christ, the body which, in order to be the true flesh of Christ, is consecrated daily through the Holy Spirit for the life of the world . . . They feed on it worthily, who are in his body, with the result that only the body of Christ, while it is on pilgrimage, is nourished by his flesh


Ratramnus Wrote:How much difference there is between the body in which Christ suffered, and this body which is for the commemoration of his passion or death . . . For the former is proper and true, containing nothing either mystical or figurative, while the latter is indeed mystical.

Rabanus Maurus Wrote:Now in the Church his mystical body, created by the oil of sacred prayer, is administered in sacred vessels for the reception of the faithful through the ministry of priests.

Godescalc Wrote:Here we reach another point which is far more troublesome, and extremely difficult, the point namely . . . where the body of Christ is spoken of in three ways, that is, the Church, and the mystical one, and that which is seated at the right hand of God.

John Of Fecamp Wrote:This body and this blood are not gathered in ears and shoots, but through indubitable consecration become mystical for us and are not born, when created bread and wine are transformed into the sacrament of flesh and blood through ineffable sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

Jean Beleth Wrote:This question, why Christ gave his mystical body to the disciples before he had offered it in truth, has been adequately discussed by others.

I don't think Lubac was pointing all this out in order to attack transubstantiation, which he accepts, but to show a connection between the Eucharistic body and the mystical body. According to him, there was for the Fathers a profound connection between the two bodies so that the Eucharistic body could only be made present within the mystical body, but at the same time the Eucharistic body was thought to "give" the mystical body. There obviously are some social and political implications, as Lubac wants to reconnect these two bodies and move toward a more Christological ecclesiology and a less individualistic religiosity, but I don't think this challenges orthodox doctrine on the Eucharist. He also criticizes people who take these ideas in the wrong way. For instance, in The Splendor of the Church, he writes:
Quote:In the present welcome efforts to bring about a celebration of the liturgy that is more "communal" and more alive, nothing would be more regrettable than a preoccupation with the success achieved by some secular festivals by the combined resources of technical skill and the appeal to man at his lower leverl. To reflect for a moment on the way in which Christ makes real the unity between us is to see at once that it is not by way of anything resembling mass hysteria, or any sort of occult magic. . . . Its fruit is joy but the center is "a symbol and representation of the Passion of the Lord", Throughthe communion that is its consummation it feeds us on his Cross, and it would be of no value if it did not bring about interior sacrifice in all those who take part in it. The "unanimous life of the Church" is not a natural growth; it is lived through faith, our unity is the fruit of Calvary, and results from the Mass' application to us of the merits of the Passion, with a view to our final redemption.

As a last point, it should be remembered that "mystical" and "mystery" do not have exactly the same connotations now as they did in the past. The Greek mysterion and the related mystikos were used to refer to a hidden meaning or reality. For instance, they were often used when discussing the Incarnation itself--since it is ultimately incomprehensible, as St. John says in the last verse of his Gospel--the hidden meaning of Scripture, and the hidden presence brought forth in the sacraments. In fact, mysterion was generally translated into Latin as sacramentum. So, I do not think that any of this challenges transubstantiation or indicates that Church teaching has really changed on the subject.
Reply
#52
I think Crusading Phil's last point is important: mystical did not have the connotation of "not real." That is something we later ascribe to the term due to the influence of materialist post-Englightenment thought.

Remembering this, I'm not sure that the different uses of "mysticum" and "verum" means much except that it reflects changing usage as such. The realities or the Church's understanding of the realities is the same.
Reply
#53
(10-25-2012, 03:47 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I think Crusading Phil's last point is important: mystical did not have the connotation of "not real." That is something we later ascribe to the term due to the influence of materialist post-Englightenment thought.

Remembering this, I'm not sure that the different uses of "mysticum" and "verum" means much except that it reflects changing usage as such. The realities or the Church's understanding of the realities is the same.

I think what de Lubac was going for was showing how the institutional Church was viewed as a sort of sacrament in the early Church, tied to the Eucharist specifically.
Reply
#54
(10-25-2012, 03:06 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 02:14 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(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.

Well, he does cite specific examples of theologians using "corpus mysticum" in the book. The first four here are from the ninth century, the second to last is from the eleventh, and the last is from the twelfth:

Paschasius Wrote:Because assuredly the universal Church of Christ is his body, where Christ is the head, and all the elect are called members, from whom one body is assembled daily to form the perfect man . . ., from this (body) whoever removes a member of Christ and makes it the member of a prostitute . . . is assuredly no longer in the body of Christ . . . Therefore he has no right to eat of this mystical body of Christ, the body which, in order to be the true flesh of Christ, is consecrated daily through the Holy Spirit for the life of the world . . . They feed on it worthily, who are in his body, with the result that only the body of Christ, while it is on pilgrimage, is nourished by his flesh


Ratramnus Wrote:How much difference there is between the body in which Christ suffered, and this body which is for the commemoration of his passion or death . . . For the former is proper and true, containing nothing either mystical or figurative, while the latter is indeed mystical.

Rabanus Maurus Wrote:Now in the Church his mystical body, created by the oil of sacred prayer, is administered in sacred vessels for the reception of the faithful through the ministry of priests.

Godescalc Wrote:Here we reach another point which is far more troublesome, and extremely difficult, the point namely . . . where the body of Christ is spoken of in three ways, that is, the Church, and the mystical one, and that which is seated at the right hand of God.

John Of Fecamp Wrote:This body and this blood are not gathered in ears and shoots, but through indubitable consecration become mystical for us and are not born, when created bread and wine are transformed into the sacrament of flesh and blood through ineffable sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

As a last point, it should be remembered that "mystical" and "mystery" do not have exactly the same connotations now as they did in the past. The Greek mysterion and the related mystikos were used to refer to a hidden meaning or reality. For instance, they were often used when discussing the Incarnation itself--since it is ultimately incomprehensible, as St. John says in the last verse of his Gospel--the hidden meaning of Scripture, and the hidden presence brought forth in the sacraments. In fact, mysterion was generally translated into Latin as sacramentum. So, I do not think that any of this challenges transubstantiation or indicates that Church teaching has really changed on the subject.

It should also be remembered that in first millennium ecclesiastical Latin usage, mysterium and sacramentum were identical. Since mysticum was simply the adjectival form of mysterium, the best translation of "corpus mysticum" (when it refers in those early texts to the Eucharist) would probably be "sacramental body."

Also, I see no indication in the quotations above that the corpus mysticum of the Eucharist was contrasted in usage with the corpus verum of the Church. The statement that the Church is the body of Christ--even in the New Testament's first references thereto--is by its very nature figurative. It has never referred to Christ's "true body," if by that phrase one means the Man's body composed of flesh, bone, muscles, brain, etc. It is using the common figure of speech whereby one refers to a community as a body, with the leader of that body being its head.
Reply
#55
(10-25-2012, 10:30 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: It should also be remembered that in first millennium ecclesiastical Latin usage, mysterium and sacramentum were identical. Since mysticum was simply the adjectival form of mysterium, the best translation of "corpus mysticum" (when it refers in those early texts to the Eucharist) would probably be "sacramental body."

Also, I see no indication in the quotations above that the corpus mysticum of the Eucharist was contrasted in usage with the corpus verum of the Church. The statement that the Church is the body of Christ--even in the New Testament's first references thereto--is by its very nature figurative. It has never referred to Christ's "true body," if by that phrase one means the Man's body composed of flesh, bone, muscles, brain, etc. It is using the common figure of speech whereby one refers to a community as a body, with the leader of that body being its head.

Right, there was no essential change in doctrine, though there were perhaps important changes in other areas. For instance, the switch to using the term corpus verum to refer to the Eucharist comes immediately before the rise of Eucharistic adoration and the creation of the feast of Corpus Christi in the West. (I am not saying that these are bad things, but only that they show a change in piety.) It is also seems that the connection between the Eucharist and the Church was gradually forgotten. Even as late as the second half of the thirteenth century, someone like St. Thomas could say that "[t]he Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being 'one in Christ'" or that "[t]he unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true body received." Eventually, however, it seems that the Mystical Body of Christ was separated from his Eucharistic Body and the whole idea of the Mystical Body becomes some nebulous thing with no strong connection to the Eucharist or the visible Church.

The weakening of this connection seems to mark what is in some measure a divergence from Patristic thought. For instance, here is a passage in which Origen discusses the "true and more perfect body":
Quote:They belong to the house of Israel, or to the body of Christ, of which the Lord says, All My bones are scattered, although the bones of His body were not scattered, and not even one of them was broken. But when the resurrection itself takes place of the true and more perfect body of Christ, then those who are now the members of Christ, for they will then be dry bones, will be brought together, bone to bone, and fitting to fitting (for none of those who are destitute of fitting (ἁρμονία) will come to the perfect man), to the measure Ephesians 4:13 of the stature of the fullness of the body of Christ. And then the many members will be the one body, all of them, though many, becoming members of one body.

The physicality of the description here is reminiscent of St. Paul saying that "we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." So, I do not think that the Church is called the Body of Christ in the same way that any social group can be figuratively called a body. This explanation seems to assume that St. Paul and the Fathers were basically modern in their thought. If we come at the idea with a participatory metaphysic that assumes the reality of relations, though, I don't see why we would have any reason to reject the idea that the Church really is related to the other two bodies of Christ and so being incorporated into the Mystical Body is not just a poetic way of describing membership in a social group, but is rather an actual participation in Christ.
Reply
#56
Very interesting discussion. I think most modern theologians would be very nervous about returning to the Eucharistic roots of the corporate unity of the Mystical Body, as there the abstraction of "partial communion" falls apart when "communion" is no longer a metaphor but description of act.


(edited messed up sentence)
Reply
#57
That is a possible implication. Lubac himself in describing this view of the Eucharist and the Church in Catholicism says that "even though the bread and wine are validly consecrated by schismatics, it can be said that there is a true Eucharist only where there is unity--non conficitur ibi Christus, ubi non conficitur universus."
Reply
#58
Well put by Lubac.

I think this discussion, among others, displays the surprising weakness of the metaphorical phrase "partial communion." At the same time, unlike some trads, I don't think we should totally jettison a special way of speaking about baptised non-Catholics. I came across the phrase "baptismal relationship" in an interesting post discussing Unitatis Redintegratio:

http://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2012/09/...communion/
Reply
#59
Yes, I see what you mean. "Baptismal relationship" would seem to be a more precise term that is less prone to being misunderstood. Thanks for the link, by the way.
Reply
#60
"If we use the image of a body to describe 'belonging' we are limited only to the form of representation as 'member'. Either one is or one is not a member, there are no other possibilities.  One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.  The Constitution on the Church found it helpful for this purpose to use the concept of 'the People of God'.  It could describe the relationship of non-Catholic Christians to the Church as being 'in communion' and that of non-Christians as being 'ordered' to the Church where in both cases one relies on the idea of the People of God" (Cardinal Ratzinger, Conference given on 15 September 2001).

In Mystici Corporis, non-Catholic Christians were described as "ordered" in desire to the Church.  It would appear that they have since been promoted to being "in communion" with her, and now non-Christians are "ordered" to her.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...eaning.htm
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)