I am with Peter with respect to the simplex.
Insofar as the eighth article deals with God entering into composites, that seems to be fine with transubstantiation (because God is replacing another essence rather than combining with one); St. Thomas seems to disprove consubstantiation (among other things) here. Of course, I think I remember reading at some point that Luther himself was also against consubstantiation and that most Lutherans bristle at the term.
A daily slog by a few Catholic men through the Summa.
I never understood the theological appeal of consubstantiation. It appears nothing is gained by it and quite a bit lost, as you suggest, by introducing a host of logical problems by insisting upon it.
ReplyDeleteI've no doubt this discussion will recur in tertia pars, however I recall the greek of the Lord's prayer for the word "daily" is literally akin to "super substantial" or above/beyond essence. Interesting that Jerome chose supersubstantialem in the Vulgata whereas most current Latin texts of Matt 6:11 use quotidianum.