{"id":783,"date":"2024-05-06T15:55:30","date_gmt":"2024-05-06T15:55:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2024\/05\/06\/is-hegel-the-protestant-aquinas\/"},"modified":"2024-05-06T15:55:30","modified_gmt":"2024-05-06T15:55:30","slug":"is-hegel-the-protestant-aquinas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2024\/05\/06\/is-hegel-the-protestant-aquinas\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Hegel the Protestant Aquinas?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Substack<\/em> latest<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

UPDATE (5\/8\/2024).  This from Kai Frederick Lorentzen:<\/span><\/p>\n

You write:
<\/span><\/p>\n

" . . . It does annoy  me, however, that  Kainz doesn't supply any references.  For example, we read:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Hegel was critical of Catholicism at times, in his writings and lectures. For example, he once made a scurrilous remark about the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist . . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

Very interesting, but what exactly does he say and where does he say it?  Inquiring minds want to know . . . . " <\/p>\n

That's from \u00a7 552 of the Enzyklop\u00e4die der philosophischen Wissenschaften<\/em> where it says in context of the thought that religion is for the Selbstbewu\u00dftsein [self-consciousness] the basis of ethics and the state:<\/p>\n

Es kann aber das Verh\u00e4ltnis der Unfreiheit [of the Selbstbewu\u00dftsein on the one and the content of truth on the other side – kfl] der Form nach stattfinden, obgleich der an sich<\/em> seiende Inhalt der Religion der absolute Geist ist. Dieser gro\u00dfe Unterschied, um das Bestimmtere anzugeben, findet sich innerhalb der christlichen Religion selbst, in welcher nicht das Naturelement den Inhalt des Gottes macht, noch auch ein solches in den Gehalt desselben als Moment eintritt, sondern Gott, der im Geist<\/em> und in der Wahrheit<\/em> gewu\u00dft wird, der Inhalt ist. Und doch wird in der katholischen Religion dieser Geist in der Wirklichkeit dem selbstbewu\u00dften Geist starr gegen\u00fcbergestellt. Zun\u00e4chst wird in der Hostie Gott als \u00e4u\u00dferliches Ding<\/em> der religi\u00f6sen Anbetung pr\u00e4sentiert (wogegen in der lutherischen Kirche die Hostie als solche erst und nur allein im Genusse<\/em>, d.i. in der Vernichtung der \u00c4u\u00dferlichkeit derselben, und im Glauben<\/em>, d.i. in dem zugleich freien, seiner selbst gewissen Geiste, konsekriert und zum gegenw\u00e4rtigen Gotte erhoben wird). Aus jenem ersten und h\u00f6chsten Verh\u00e4ltnis der \u00c4u\u00dferlichkeit flie\u00dfen alle die anderen \u00e4u\u00dferlichen, damit unfreien, ungeistigen und abergl\u00e4ubischen Verh\u00e4ltnisse; namentlich ein Laienstand<\/em>, der das Wissen<\/em> der g\u00f6ttlichen Wahrheit wie die Direktion des Willens<\/em> und Gewissens<\/em> von au\u00dfen her und von einem anderen Stande empf\u00e4ngt, welcher selbst zum Besitze jenes Wissens nicht auf geistige Weise allein gelangt, sondern wesentlich daf\u00fcr einer \u00e4u\u00dferlichen Konsekration bedarf. Weiteres, die teils nur f\u00fcr sich die Lippen bewegende, teils darin geistlose Weise des Betens, da\u00df das Subjekt auf die direkte Richtung zu Gott Verzicht leistet  und andere um das Beten bittet, – die Richtung der Andacht an wundert\u00e4tige Bilder, ja selbst an Knochen, und die Erwartung von Wundern durch sie, – \u00fcberhaupt, die Gerechtigkeit<\/em> durch \u00e4u\u00dferliche Werke, ein Verdienst, das durch die Handlungen soll erworben, ja sogar auf andere \u00fcbertragen werden k\u00f6nnen, usf., – alles dieses bindet den Geist unter ein Au\u00dfersichsein<\/em>, wodurch sein Begriff im Innersten verkannt und verkehrt und Recht und Gerechtigkeit, Sittlichkeit und Gewissen, Zurechnungsf\u00e4higkeit und Pflicht in ihrer Wurzel verdorben sind. <\/span><\/p>\n

(G.W.F. Hegel, Werke<\/em> 10, Frankfurt a.M. 1986, pp. 356-357)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here it is in  English:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

As the inseparability of the two sides has been indicated, it may be worth while to note the separation as it appears on the side of religion. It is primarily a point of form: the attitude which self-consciousness takes to the body of truth. So long as this body of truth is the very substance or indwelling spirit of self-consciousness in its actuality, then self-consciousness in this content has the certainty of itself and is free. But if this present self-consciousness is lacking, then there may be created, in point of form, a condition of spiritual slavery, even though the implicit content of religion is absolute spirit. This great difference (to cite a specific case) comes out within the Christian religion itself, even though here it is not the nature-element in which the idea of God is embodied, and though nothing of the sort even enters as a factor into its central dogma and sole theme of a God who is known in spirit and in truth. And yet in Catholicism this spirit of all truth is in actuality set in rigid opposition to the self-conscious spirit. And, first of all, God is in the \u2018host\u2019 presented to religious adoration as an external thing. (In the Lutheran Church, on the contrary, the host as such is not at first consecrated, but in the moment of enjoyment, i.e. in the annihilation of its externality. and in the act of faith, i.e. in the free self-certain spirit: only then is it consecrated and exalted to be present God.) From that first and supreme status of externalization flows every other phase of externality – of bondage, non-spirituality, and superstition. It leads to a laity, receiving its knowledge of divine truth, as well as the direction of its will and conscience from without and from another order – which order again does not get possession of that knowledge in a spiritual way only, but to that end essentially requires an external consecration. It leads to the non-spiritual style of praying – partly as mere moving of the lips, partly in the way that the subject foregoes his right of directly addressing God, and prays others to pray – addressing his devotion to miracle- working images, even to bones, and expecting miracles from them. It leads, generally, to justification by external works, a merit which is supposed to be gained by acts, and even to be capable of being transferred to others. All this binds the spirit under an externalism by which the very meaning of spirit is perverted and misconceived at its source, and law and justice, morality and conscience, responsibility and duty are corrupted at their root.<\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

BV: I see no reason to think that Kainz is to referring to the above passage from Hegel's Encyclopedia<\/em>. In a later article I just now found, Corpus Christi and Reality<\/a>, Kainz writes,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

My reference was to one of Hegel\u2019s lectures on the philosophy of religion, in which he criticized the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, causing a Catholic student to report him to the authorities. Hegel had attempted what we might call a sick joke: he asked whether, if a mouse had come across a consecrated Host and eaten it, Catholics might be obliged to act worshipfully to the mouse, and so forth.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But again Kainz gives no reference! So I consulted Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion<\/em> (1827), but found no reference to any host-eating mouse in the passage in which Hegel refers to communion, which he calls Genuss<\/a> which means enjoyment<\/em> but also partaking of<\/em>  as in the eating or drinking of something. (In some contexts, <\/span>genies<\/a>\u00df<\/a>ar <\/a><\/span>has the connotation, edible<\/em>.) <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Back to Lorentzen: <\/span><\/p>\n

Heavy stuff, no? Well, with a little stretch you could say that Hegel is more Lutheran here than Martin Luther himself. Luther's theological approach, as I recently learned from Volker Leppin's brilliant study Die fremde Reformation: Luthers mystische Wurzeln <\/em>(M\u00fcnchen 2016: C.H. Beck), was rooted in medieval mysticism in the line of Johannes Tauler and Meister Eckhart, whose idea to give birth to an inner divine child was strongly appreciated by Luther. Regarding extensive philosophical framing of the religious practice he became more and more critical. Here Luther's negative view of the traditional doctrine of the Eucharist finds its place: It's the Scholastics with their detailed Aristotelian understanding of the Eucharist that Luther has a problem with. The flesh and the blood of Christ is absolutely real, but no philosopher can prove how! Instead, the affection of the baptized members of the community validates the ritual. Same problem in the other direction with the merely symbolic understanding of bread and wine, as we find it expressed by Zwingli and his successors like Calvin. Here Luther suspects Neo-Platonist hubris against God.    
<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Lorentzen's take strikes me as basically correct. <\/span>Here<\/a> is a  little under four minutes of  Volker Leppin.<\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\n

In his 1827 lectures on the philosophy of religion Hegel mentions three views about the host or communion wafer:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

According to the first, the host — this external, sensible thing — becomes by consecration the present God, God as a thing in the manner of an empirical 'thing.' The second view is the Lutheran one . . . here there is no transubstantiation . . . the presence of God is utterly a spiritual presence — the consecration takes place in the faith of the subject. The third view is that the present God exists only in representation, in memory, and to this extent he does not have this immediate subjective presence. (Hodgson one-volume edition, U. of Cal Press, 1988, 480-481.)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Alles klar? <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

This may help: Transubstantion, Consubstantiation, or Something Else?<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also of interest: Must Catholics Hate Hegel?<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Herr Lorentzen signs off:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

With best wishes!
Ex toto corde<\/em>
<\/span><\/p>\n

Kai (who likes your recent Sunday meditation - Hyperkinetic and Hyperconnected<\/em> - a lot!)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Substack latest. UPDATE (5\/8\/2024).  This from Kai Frederick Lorentzen: You write: " . . . It does annoy  me, however, that  Kainz doesn't supply any references.  For example, we read: Hegel was critical of Catholicism at times, in his writings and lectures. For example, he once made a scurrilous remark about the Catholic doctrine of … Continue reading “Is Hegel the Protestant Aquinas?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57,62,107,220],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aquinas-and-thomism","category-catholic-corner","category-hegel","category-protestantism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}