Tony, you say "I feel there is a danger, when we say 'it is literal truth that Christ is God as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity', that we may seem to be interpreting the terms of the statement not metaphorically but literally. And yet we know from the Catechism, and because it is fundamental to all theological discourse, that every word in this sentence is used in a metaphorical sense."
Perhaps the problem is that metaphor has different meanings depending on context and in one context it means not real and in another context it means not exact.
When Tony Equale was discussing Gary Will’s book he said “Catholic doctrine is, however, pure metaphor, and its practices, structures and rituals — all of them — are poetry. Wills does not agree. For him, it is literal.”
In this context it seems to me that literal means real.
I have searched my memory to find a theological term that is used literally, and I cannot find a single one, not at least in the core material that makes up our faith.
In this context it seems to me that literal means exact. The core material that makes up our faith is a description of some reality but it is not an exact description of that reality.
It is therefore a mistake to say that 'person' in the phrase 'Second Person of the Blessed Trinity' is to be taken literally, as signifying a 'person' in our current use of the term. In a word, the 'persons' in the Trinity are something else. The idea of 'person' in the Trinity is basically quite different from our idea of 'person' as we use the term in everyday language – its literal meaning.
I agree entirely that in our everyday language it means that each person has one nature but it is also necessary to contend with the idea that Christ is one person but has two natures. What a preposterous idea, or it would be, except that dual nature is the bench mark for the whole Universe. Everything in the Universe has two natures but the whole Universe is just one Universe. So should we have a problem with the dual natures of Christ?
Of course not understanding this reality can have the horrendous consequence that the Incarnation can be summarily dismissed, without due process, as just metaphor, or even worse as just superstitious nonsense. But we do like to consider ourselves to be the measure of all things.
I think we may have a long way to go, Warren, before the philosphical insights of .Quantum Theory which you bring to our table actually meet the ancient and mediaeval theological thought that is framework in which Catholic Doctrine is cast.
I must say I believe quite the opposite. Dowd says that “We are on the verge of the greatest spiritual awakening in history. It took centuries for the Copernican revolution to transform humanity. Thanks to global satellite telecommunications, the Internet and all the other technologies that link us, it is quite possible that our own paradigm shift- from seeing nature as an artifact, to seeing Nature as the primary revelation of divinity (and inseparable from that divinity) -will prevail over the course of decades rather than centuries. (MD p.128)
What makes me think so is that the core Catholic doctrine is about unity and light and that is what Quantum Theory is about and so it has been said that scientists are the new theologians. "Perhaps the coming together of our insights about the world around us and the world inside us is a satisfying feature of the recent evolution in science.”- Ilya Prigogine. Now we know about neuroplasticity maybe the impact of technology in conjunction with neuroplasticity means it will be just years rather than decades.
You have suggested from Quantum Theory that, since light can be both wave and particle at the same time, we may conclude that there is no longer any problem in reconciling the union of two natures in Christ.
I have said that the doctrine of Incarnation is consistent with Quantum Theory and they fit very nicely together but I have never claimed that Quantum Theory directly proves anything about religion or spirituality.
But there is an indirect link because they are both about unity and light which means that Quantum Theory and religion and spirituality cannot rely exclusively on either/or logic and they all must also use both/and logic.
It will be interesting to see how this is resolved in terms of the hypostatic union, which is not a union in nature but in the subsistence, in the hypostasis, in the 'person'.
It could be that Quantum Theory can help out with the idea of overlapping wave functions. According to Danah Zohar “Like the self, elementary particle systems are wholes within wholes, or “individuals” within “individuals”. Because of the wave/particle duality, the constituent members of particle systems carry at all times the properties of both waves and particles. In their particle aspect they have the capacity to be something in particular that can be pinned down, if only briefly and somewhat. In their wave aspect they have the capacity to relate to other “individuals” through the partial overlapping of their wave functions. Through their relationships, their overlapping wave functions, some of their qualities merge in such a way that a new whole is formed.” (Qs p.113)
Maybe a lot of the metaphors are just going to have to go. Christ has said “Abide in Me as I abide in you” So is this just a metaphor signifying a very close relationship, but we are still separate, or is it really about the overlapping wave functions of Quantum Theory that are about unity and so we are not separate from Christ? “Intimate relationship itself is accounted for in quantum terms by the overlapping of one person’s wave function with that of another.” (Qs p.137)
Another one that comes to mind is that both Matthew and Luke say “If thine eye be single then thy whole body will be full of light” (Mtth. 6-22) and that is just quintessential Quantum Theory in the sense that spirituality is about unity and light.
Warren, I agree that Tony Equale's expression "Catholic doctrine is pure metaphor" is clumsy, to say the least, in that it seems to eviscerate doctrine of any real content. However, I have shown that in his second article dealing explicitly with metaphor he insists that there is real content behind the expressions used to formulate catholic doctrine. [See earlier posts.]
I cannot agree with you that the term "literal" can have different meanings according to the context, except in such an extraordinary and patently ridiculous example as the one I gave re the tiger on the football field. [Wiki gives another from an 18th century writer which is taken as a classic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language] For the rest, "literal" is one of the basic irreducible terms of language, since it refers to the way the word which it qualifies is to be understood, namely: in its literal meaning and NOT in any other sense.
Literal and figurative language is a distinction within some fields of language analysis. Literal language refers to words that do not deviate from their defined meaning. Non-literal or figurative language refers to words, and groups of words, that exaggerate or alter the usual meanings of the component words.
A literal usage is the "normal" meanings of the words.[1] It maintains a consistent meaning regardless of the context,[2] with "the intended meaning corresponding exactly to the meaning" of the individual words.[3] Figurative use of language is the use of words or phrases in a manner where the literal meaning of the words is not true or does not make sense, but "implies a non-literal meaning which does make sense or that could be true".[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language
In serious discussion you cannot just make up meanings as you go from supposedly different contexts. The whole point of this exchange is to establish our discussion on solid ground where "real" means real, "exact" means exact, and "literal" means literal.
I made the observation towards the end of my post that "we may have a long way to go before the philosophical insights of Quantum Theory... actually meet the ancient and mediaeval theological thought that is framework in which Catholic doctrine is cast." If we can't learn to speak the same language, we will never get there.
In your response you missed the point about the hypostatic union, a term which was carefully selected as appropriate to designate the union in Christ of the divine nature and the human nature. You say: "Everything in the Universe has two natures but the whole Universe is just one Universe. So should we have a problem with the dual natures of Christ?"
In Christian teaching the human nature and the divine nature in Christ are and remain distinct and separate as natures, joined only at the point of subsistence, "in the person". The human nature acts and suffers as does any other human being. It is not affected by being united to the divine person, either in having powers other than human powers or knowledge other than human knowledge. The union only allows that whatever would be attributed to the human being is attributed to the divine person - and not vice versa, because the divine person assumed the human nature and not vice versa.
So, to your suggeston about unity at the Quantum level, it cannot be said that the two natures in Christ are blended, meshed, interwoven, or in any way sharing in a unity of nature. As the Council of Calchedon (451) made clear: " ...to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ..."
In these brief exchanges it would be my intention, however superficially, to explain and clarify what the Christian community believes, particularly what is meant by some of the word-formulas we use, when the occasion arises and as far as my limited understanding allows and the context of these discussions makes meaningful.
I appreciate the glimpses into a whole other world of thought and research that you offer under the name of Quantum Theory, but I willingly admit that I do not understand it, although examples you give in such quotes as this from Danah Zohar do give us some idea: Because of the wave/particle duality, the constituent members of particle systems carry at all times the properties of both waves and particles. In their particle aspect they have the capacity to be something in particular that can be pinned down, if only briefly and somewhat. In their wave aspect they have the capacity to relate to other “individuals” through the partial overlapping of their wave functions. Through their relationships, their overlapping wave functions, some of their qualities merge in such a way that a new whole is formed.
For too long the modern sciences have sailed proudly across the newfound seas of knowledge, disdainfully leaving both religions and mythologies in their wake. I hope these scientists you read also apply themselves to understanding the basic concepts of Christianity before declaring them preposterous. If the Church can no longer consign modern science to the outer darkness, neither should the modern thinker imagine there is no substantial truth concealed under the ancient robes of religion. We must go forward together, expanding our thinking by investigating the insights of each, even if this means learning new languages, for the scientists, the language of analogy as used in theology and in religious metaphor, and for the rest of us the language of mathematics, hypothesis and scientific metaphor.