A Thomistic Untranslatable: a Conceptual Analysis of Aquinas’ Doctrine of Transubstantiation

But, secondly, it is impossible to deny that the terminological and, consequently, conceptual apparatus that Aquinas worked with in his thinking about the eucharist was not Neo-Platonic - it came from the Philosopher. And here it is critical to note together with John Marenbon, that Thomas Aquinas knew Aristotle really well, and his decision to “stretch” and creatively rework the peripatetic theory of change for the benefit of post- Neo-Platonic Christian metaphysics was absolutely conscious.

He understood the purely Aristotelian conception of substantia and possible modes of its metamorphoses: namely, the already mentioned (1) conversio accidentalis or transaccidentatio wherein “the substance remained unaltered but the incidental properties or accidents change” [Muller 1985: s.v. “transubstantiatio”], and (2) conversio sub-

stantialis or natural transubstantiatio whereby the "substance is changed into another, as by decay or digestion, and both the substance and the accidents which inhere in it change” [Ibid.] whereas the matter remains unchanged. There was no third type of change, let alone an idea of supernatural intrusion. But the mechanisms of these two kinds of transformation silently witnessed to "the third logical possibility” [Ibid.] that would be parallel to transaccidentatio but would, in fact, go further than normal transubstantiatio. As a result, this hypothetic possibility was picked up and realized by Thomas Aquinas: he dubbed it the supernatural transubstantiatio (of the eucharist) wherein the whole basic structure of a thing, its substantia, oщoia npњxq, with the form and matter included, would be separated from its accidents and thoroughly converted into the complete substance of another thing.

Richard Muller is right when he calls this option only logically possible, because actually it has nothing to do with the reality, as we know it. Nor is it in any sense Aristoteian. But Friar Thomas took this logical potentiality and turned into a theological and, by extension, philosophical actuality. In fact, the Thomistic quasi-Aristotelian transubstan- tiation theory was - and still is - so unusual and extraordinary that even today some Catholic (and, of course, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox) theologians refuse to accept it and, like P.J. FitzPatrick, think that it "takes terms devised to express change, and it puts them together in a way that makes no sense” [FitzPatrick... 1995: 19]. Fergus Kerr offers a more nuanced evaluation, saying that

this account of transubstantiation seems to collude with the skeptical metaphysical doctrine that the way that things appear is no guarantee as to how they really are. Such a radical denial of the common-sense realism that things are normally just as they seem does not only depart completely from anything that Aristotle could have conceived but seems to threaten the confidence that Thomas consistently shows in the reality of the world we inhabit. [Kerr 2009: 99].

Nevertheless, I suggest that the Aquinas' transubstantiation theory is philosophically interesting and thought-provoking - though not uncontroversial - and deserves a reappraisal and reappreciation. From the strictly logical and metaphysical perspective, there are indeed at least two inherent problems that remain unresolved in the theory:

1. Even if one forgets about the Aristotelian metaphysical categories, it is barely consistent to say that (a) the substance of the bread does not disappear, but passes into the other substance, and simultaneously affirm that (b) the substance of Christ's body takes the place of the bread's substance which underwent conversion, but still, the Christ's bodily substance does not emerges out of the previously present substance. How can it be that the substance A is being transformed into substance B, but this B does not come out A? It must be either a verbal confusion, wherein the select language fails to correctly describe what is going on, or a logical and terminological inconsistency which mistakeny calls a substitution "the conversion”. Any kind of conversio can be properly called so only if something is really turned, transformed into something. One does not speak of conversion when B simply comes after A, unless we simply accept the revolutionary redefinition of the term suggested by Thomas Aquinas.

2. The idea of accidental independence is also problematic [McCord... 2010: 245246]: although the accidents have to naturally inhere in (inesse) the substance because they do not have an existence (esse) of their own, God can temporarily suspend this rule and directly - this is, himself - provide for their existence outside their substance. Of course, God can act supernaturally, but is it proper in this case? It is proper for the accident to be dependent on the substance, because the latter is both material (as a substratum for the actually existing object) and efficient (as a foundation and guarantee of the accident's existence, so that as long as substance persist, its accident may continue to exist as well) cause of their existence [Courtine 2004: 406-411]. But if, in the eucharist, the bread's substance somehow disappears, then there arises a need for the accidents to “find” a new material and efficient cause. Jesus Christ's body in the form of substance can be the latter but he barely can be the former because he is present in the host not physically or materially. It sounds confusing, unless we agree the that direct divine causation solves it in the purely divine manner.

However, on a broader scale the situation looks positively. Perhaps, Thomas Aquinas is uncritical in his theological presuppositions, but it is the other way around with the philosophical side of his work. He takes the Aristotelian vocabulary and conceptual world, critically and creatively reworks it and gives it a (partly) new meaning and a (partly) new significance. In other words, he detects a potential internal “translatability” (traduisibilitй) [Dьnne. 2013a: 1-2] in his material and makes an idiosyncratic “transation” (traduction) of it. Yet, these translational aspects are not external or purely linguistic - they are internal or conceptual as well.

Aquinas utilizes a creative hermeneutics and turns the more-or-less stable notions of peripatetic philosophy to flexible entities that can be stretched, bended and reformed, although their essence remains for the most part unchanged. He commits an act of conceptual transubstantiation over the notions such as “substance,” “accidents,” and “change.” According to his interpretation, the substance acquires a new option or possibility of change and, in the specific case of the eucharist, becomes a connecting point between the transcendental and the human. It is through the substance of Jesus Christ's body that the Christians might touch the salvific (practical value) and otherworldly (contemplative value) reality. The accidents (or a thing's qualities) become bearers of the much more valuable content but remain absolutely real and sensible, becoming a surprisingly stable and strong link that connects two ends of an unusual type of change. The change (or conversion) itself acquires a new - the third possible - meaning that was in fact hypothetically hidden in the Aristotelian framework: now it can serve as a door to the miraculous and supernatural, which was a very crucial concept in the Middle Ages.

In brief, the reconceptualization that Aquinas did to these ideas and their theological background (the doctrine of the eucharist) results in the formation of a few untranslatable notions, which do not have much meaning outside the peculiarly Thomistic, or at least Christian-Latin vocabulary. But when they are looked at with full awareness of their context and author's intentions, they look not so much as contradictions, but rather as untrans- latables. I would go even so far as to say that perhaps the creative touch that they received from the Dominican thinker from Aquino allows for further creative retranslations of these Thomistic untranslatables: Edward Schillebeeckx' “transsignification” [Schillebeeckx 1966] and more recent “personal realism” of Bernard Prusak [Prusak 2014: 249-258] might be good candidates. But an enquiry into the possible rendering(s) of St. Thomas transubstantiation in the 21st century is a topic for another research.

Информация об авторе

Ростислав Ткаченко, магистр богословия и религиоведения, аспирант богословия в Протестантском (Евангелическом) Богословском университете, г. Лёвен (Бельгия); преподаватель исторического богословия в Одесской богословской семинарии ЕХБ, внештатный преподаватель исторического богословия в Львовской богословской семинарии ХВЕ.

Інформація про автора

Ростислав Ткаченко, магістр богослов 'я і релігієзнавства, аспірант у Протестантському (Євангелічному) Богословському університеті, м. Льовен (Бельгія); викладач історичного богослов'я в Одеській богословській семінаріі ЄХБ, позаштатний викладач історичного богослов'я у Львівській богословській семінарії ХВЄ.

Список літератури / references

doctrine conceptual theory

1. Bachmann-Medick, D. (Ed.). (2009). The Translational Turn (Vol. Special Issue). London: Routledge, & Taylor & Francis.

2. Bauerschmidt, F. C. (2005). Holy Teaching: Introducing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

3. Cassin, B. (2004a). Esti, einai. In B. Cassin (Ed.), Vocabulaire europйen des philosophies (pp. 418-429). Paris: Seuil/Le Robert.

4. Cassin, B. (2004b). Prйsentation. In Vocabulaire europйen des philosophies (pp. XVIl-ХХП). Paris: Seuil/Le Robert.

5. Cassin, B. (2004c). Vocabulaire europйen des philosophies. Dictionnaire des intraduisibles. Paris: Seuil/Le Robert.

6. Cassin, B. (2007). Intraduisible et mondialisation. Entretien rйalisй par Michaлl Oustinoff. Hermиs, La Revue, 5(49), 197-204.

7. Cassin, B. (2014). Traduire les intraduisibles, un йtat des lieux. Cliniques Mйditerranйennes, 2(90), 25-36. Collins Latin Dictionary and Grammar. (1997). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

8. Collura, N. (2014). Some Reflections on the Eucharist as Fragment. Worship, 88(2), 151-170.

9. Courtine, J.-F. (2004). Essence, substance, subsistance, existence. In B. Cassin (Ed.), Vocabulaire europйen des philosophies (pp. 400-414). Paris: Seuil/Le Robert.

10. Courtine, J.-F., & Rijksbaron, A. (2004). To ti кn einai. In B. Cassin (Ed.), Vocabulaire europйen des philosophies (pp. 1298-1304). Paris: Seuil/Le Robert.

11. Dьnne, J., Schдfer, M. J., Suchet, M., & Wilker, J. (2013a). Introdution : Phйnomиnes d'intraduisibilitй et perturbations de processus des transmissions dans les langues, littйratures, mйdias, cultures. In

12. J. Dьnne, M. J. Schдfer, M. Suchet, & J. Wilker (Eds.), Les intraduisibles: langues, littйratures, mйdias, cultures = Unьbersetzbarkeiten : Sprachen, Literaturen, Medien, Kulturen (pp. 1-5). Paris: Йditions des archives contemporaines.

13. Dьnne, J., Schдfer, M. J., Suchet, M., & Wilker, J. (Eds.). (2013b). Les intraduisibles: langues, littйratures, mйdias, cultures = Unьbersetzbarkeiten : Sprachen, Literaturen, Medien, Kulturen. Paris: Йditions des archives contemporaines.

14. FitzPatrick, P. J., & Baumann, P. (1995). Signs and Disguises: Sorting Out Transubstantiation. Commonweal, 122(2), 18-21.

15. Gutas, D. (2010). Origins in Baghdad. In R. Pasnau (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy (Vol. I, pp. 11-25). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

16. Hдgglund, B. (1968). History of Theology. (G. J. Lund, Trans.). Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. Kerr, F. (2009). Thomas Aquinas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP.

17. Leone, M., & Parmentier, R. J. (2014). Representing Transcendence: The Semiosis of Real Presence.

18. Signs and Society, 2(S1), S1-S23. http://doi.org/10.1086/674529 Marenbon, J. (2007). Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction. London: Routledge.

19. Mavroudi, M. (2015). Translations from Greek into Latin and Arabic during the Middle Ages: Searching for the Classical Tradition. Speculum, 90(1), 28-59. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0038713414002450 McCord Adams, M. (2010). Some Later Medieval Theories of the Eucharist: Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Duns Scotus, and William Ockham. Oxford: Oxford UP.

20. Muller, R. A. (1985). Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

21. Nichols, T. L. (2005). “This Is My Body”: How to Understand Transubstantiation. Commonweal, 132(17), 12-14.

22. Oxford Latin Dictionary. (1968). Oxford: Oxford UP.

23. Padgett, A. (2000). Aristotelianism. In T. A. Hart (Ed.), Dictionary of Historical Theology (pp. 31-32).

24. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

25. Prusak, B. P. (2014). Explaining Eucharistic “Real Presence”: Moving Beyond a Medieval Conundrum.

26. Theological Studies, 75(2), 231-259. http://doi.org/10.1177/0040563914530613 Schillebeeckx, E. (1966). Transubstantiation, Transfinalization, Transfiguration. Worship, 40(6), 324-338.

27. Thomas Aquinas. (1965). The Eucharistic Presence (3a. 73-78). (W. Barden, Ed. & Tians.). (Vol. 58). London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.

28. Vollert, C. (2002). Transubstantiation. In T. Carson & J. Cerrito (Eds.), New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed., Vol. 14, "Thi-Zwi”, pp. 158-160). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

29. Vos, A. (2009). Solus Christus. The Inaugural Lecture at the Doctoral Colloquium, August 31, 2009. Leuven: Evangelishe Theologische Faculteit.

30. Vos, A. (2010). Scotus' Significance for Western Philosophy and Theology. Porto: Fйdйration Internationale des Instituts d'Йtudes Mйdiйvales.

31. Walsh, L. G. (2005). Sacraments. In R. van Nieuwenhove, & J. Wawrykov (Eds.), The Theology of Thomas Aquinas (pp. 326-364). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

32. Размещено на Allbest.ru