> And Google AI said:
>
> [citation1]In the general sense, ontological change refers to a shift in what is considered to exist or be real. This can involve a change in how we understand the nature of being, existence, or reality itself, potentially impacting how we perceive and interact with the world. It's not just about things changing, but about a fundamental alteration in the categories of existence and the relationships between them.[/citation1]
>
> To most people, 'ontological change' is from a foreign language that makes no sense at all. To say of a person they are ontologically changed is akin to suggesting they are like Dracula, human one moment, demon the next! Two fundamentally different modes of existence for sure!!!
>
> The church does no favours to itself or to the modern intellect to suggest that a man's (sic) fundamental being is changed by ordination. A human being is a human being - period!!!
>
> For most of us, the only ontological change we are likely to experience is death!! When we are human beings no more! Not sure what we will be next, but Peter, Paul and Mary we are certainly not.
>
> And Peter, Paul and Mary (hopefully soon) after ordination, much to disappoint the church in saying this, are still Peter, Paul and Mary after ordination as well -(Sorry Peter, Paul or Mary, not meant to upset you.)
>
> In the Middle Ages alchemy was highly popular, especially the belief and hope of changing the base metal lead into the precious metal gold. Alas, it could not be done. Nor the ontological change of an ordinand into an ontologically changed priest. Alas, they still remain the same person before and after. Well, ontologically at least. Hopefully, they will be a better person post-ordination than before, both spiritually and morally enhanced - as we all can be.
>
> The point being, the Church needs to adopt a fundamental philosophy that is in tune with modern thinking. It is like the chassis of a car, it carries the full weight of the carriage above it. A weak chassis and the whole enterprise collapses - sooner rather than later!
>
> The Church needs a fundamental language that speaks to the modern mind and modern person, that stacks up to modern analysis. This is especially so in its relation to how it perceives women and its unsustainable logic - based on a false and fundamentally flawed philosophy - in banning women from full participation in the church. Or for that matter, full participation of all members within the church - most especially its decision-making.
>
> Time for the Church - and especially its 'ontologically modified' bishops - to change its Medieval philosophy which underpins its Medieval structure.
>
> If you want to change the world, change the way you think. If you want to change the Church, change its Medieval thinking. Nor will we even begin to unpack the moral consequences of the church's not doing so. Contrary to what many think, what we believe is awash with moral consequences running from here to Timbucktu!! [But try telling that to the Bishops!!]
>
> JohnE
For some time now we have been very worked up about this issue. I only wish more of what we read on Catholica made better sense. In a word there is manifest a deep misunderstanding of the philosophy and theology of the Middle Ages, resulting in an endless flow of affirmations that are so far off target as to be embarrassing.
Currently I'm working on something that might at least back u p this present critique and hopefully clarify the real issues. It's not easy to do in 2000 words, but if the interest in the topic can be sustained for another few days we might be able to offer an overall perspective that will be helpful.
I'm drowning!
In my earlier post I pointed out that the seal of the sacrament is the same concept for each sacrament - baptism, confirmation and orders. The seal, when first suggested by Augustine to illustrate that baptism never had to be repeated, was likened to a brand burnt into the arm or leg of a conscript soldier. Today we would liken it to a tattoo.
It was thought of as a seal on the soul confirming that soul as being anointed by baptism grace and all that that entails, such as child of God, member of Christ, etc. The idea that it was never to be repeated seems to be a nod to God's faithfulness. No matter if the person did renounced the christian faith, God would not reject that soul, which still today is one of our primary convictions.
Come the Middle Ages and their bent for analysing and organising everything, sometimes using the newly discovered works of ancient Greek thinkers, while the idea of a seal was not a problem, the idea of soul was up for review. The soul seemed to be a spiritual entity rather than a physical one, so how do you brand or tattoo a spirit. Somewhere along the line - and I can't fined exactly where or when - the spiritual began to be identified pretty much with the abstract level of thinking to which 'being' belongs. So someone began talking about the 'seal' or 'character' as if the sacrament lifted the soul to a new level of being - a change that would be of ontological significance. That idea, as far as I can see, is not found in Thomas Aquinas.
What is quite certain is that Aquinas did not ever imagine that the soul was substantially changed [or 'ontologically changed']. Such an idea is unthinkable, literally. A substantial change in the order of being would make a new kind of being. You could not change the being of a man and have him still human. He would be not a man but something else.
Since the seal in all three sacraments is conceived of as the same thing, every baptised person would not be a human being but something else. I have never heard that put forward as the effect of baptism, but if we want to say that the seal of ordination changes the man into something else we would have to prove that the baptismal seal is quite a different thing from the ordination seal.
The whole thing would be just a storm in a teacup about fine meanings of words and ideas. However when I google 'ontological change' I get a long list of articles claiming that at ordination a christian minster undergoes an ontological change. One even attributed the idea to Thomas Aquinas. In spite of his being so huge his body was a tight fit, the Angelic Doctor turned in his grave.
To my great surprise the authors seems to represent a range of christian churches, including protestant churches. Ironical that early Protestantism rejected the idea of transsubstantiation (which may perhaps be said to involve an ontological change), they have now adopted the concept of anontologcal change in themselves.
Version II
God help us! We've got a train wreck and a bushfire that started from it. The wreck happened over time as a rather smart idea has had its meaning torn to shreds. It wasn't really a train – it wasn't going anywhere, but it's a pity to see it poorly treated. The bushfire, that's something else.
The rather smart idea was thought up by Greek philosophers way back when Rome was still in its infancy. When Greek systematic philosophy was introduced to Western thinkers in the Middle Ages (from Arabic texts held by the Moors in Spain) it revolutionised European thought. Aristotle had been asking some pretty basic questions, like what does it mean 'to be'? And what is 'being'? These were questions that went beyond the usual Why is it raining? And where do we go when we die? These questions were about deepest reality, enquiries that went beyond the 'physical' of our daily experience and tackled the mystery of 'Being' itself. Hence the tags, 'metaphysical' [beyond the physical], and 'ontological' [thoughts about Being].
To smell the smoke of the bushfire you have only to google 'ontological change'. A plethora of sites will pop up offering comments on an unusual question: What is the ontological change that ministers in christian churches undergo at ordination? Two things stand out: how many of the christian denominations are represented in these articles, and that the premise is mostly taken as given – namely that an ontological change does happen.
Let's see if we can sort out the train wreck first. We're looking for Aristotle's idea of change at the level of Being (ontological change). Heraclitus (ca 500 BC) viewed the world as constantly in flux, always "becoming" but never "being". He expressed this in sayings like "Everything flows" (Greek: πάντα ῥεῖ, panta rhei) and "No man ever steps in the same river twice". This insistence upon change contrasts with that of the ancient philosopher Parmenides, who believed in a reality of static "being". (Wiki)
Aristotle (384-322) came up with the idea that change occurs on the surface but deep down things remain the same. I am the same being whether I am hot or cold, standing upright or lying down, pale or suntanned, still young or grown old. Underneath all these ever-changing features the being of 'me' is stable and lasting (though of course not permanent). Indeed my being supports all these changes, so Ari called it for what it does: it 'stands under ' the changing features. In English we call it 'substance' from the Latin 'sub-stantia'.
What is 'substance'? What size is it, what colour? Can you touch it? Is it soft or solid, rough or smooth, dark or light? To all these questions the answer is No. 'Substance' has no size, colour, shape, feel. It is an idea in the mind, but it is not just an idea; it is real in everything. On the surface we feel the heat or cold, the soft or solid, the rough or smooth, and we see the dark or light, and these are always changing, but supporting them, standing under them, the being that I am continues the same, not continually changing.
You say, Well, that's not my experience. I am changing all the time. And her we move into the abstract level of thought where the “me” refers to my essence, my essential self. The level of thinking that takes us beyond the physical can be said to belong to an order of thinking called 'metaphysical' or 'ontological' thinking.
Then there's 'spiritual' thinking. You could say all thinking is spiritual. Thinking involves activity of the spirit. Spirit activity is different from the physical activity of the body and its components.
In his Summa Theologica Aquinas expressly asks (Q.63, Art 4): Whether the character be subjected in the powers of the soul? i.e., whether the character is "stamped" on the powers of soul or on the essence itself of the soul?
I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), a character is a kind of seal by which the soul is marked, so that it may receive, or bestow on others, thin: and the powers of the soul are properly ordained to actions, just as the essence is ordained to existence. Therefore a character is subjected not in the essence of the soul, but in its power.