|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 45% of American Roman Catholics do not know the RCC's teaching on the Real Presence
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
According to this article, 45% of American RCs are not aware of the church's teaching on the Real Presence. As an outsider, I find this surprising - the Real Presence is accepted by other Christians too, but along with Marian doctrines is seen as a defining characteristic of Catholicism by many. I was also under the impression that children taking their First Communion were taught about the Real Presence. At the same time, I have sometimes been surprised by some Catholics' lack of theological knowledge - one I know had never heard of Our Lady of Walsingham!
Is there a problem with lay theological education/knowledge amongst Roman Catholics, in the US and elsewhere?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
I can't speak for today's Catholics (as I am no longer one), but I only know what and how we were taught when growing up in the Church -- by the nuns in Sunday school, that is.
We were taught that the communion elements only have the outward appearance of bread and wine, but that they are truly the Body and Blood of Christ.
We were also taught that saying "My Jesus, mercy" on every step while walking down a staircase would free a poor soul from Purgatory.
It is no wonder that some of us may have ended up slightly confused.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
At the same time, I have sometimes been surprised by some Catholics' lack of theological knowledge - one I know had never heard of Our Lady of Walsingham!
I consider myself to be above average informed about Catholic theology. The one and only reason that I've ever heard of Our Lady of Walsingham is because I frequent SoF. And my knowledge about her can be pretty much summed up as "there is a pilgrimage, this seems to be important in the UK, and both Anglicans and RCs are involved." I see no particular reason for getting more informed either, I have no spiritual interest in this; and I do not think that this reflects negatively on my grasp of Catholic theology or my own Catholic faith in the slightest. Belief in Marian apparitions and devotions to them are strictly optional in the RCC.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Is there a problem with lay theological education/knowledge amongst Roman Catholics, in the US and elsewhere?
Always. But I thought these number were delightful, a reason to celebrate! 46% of RCs both know and believe in a core RC doctrine? That's above my general expectations. And an additional 17% do not know that this is an official doctrine, but yet still believe it? That's brilliant! Yet the best is to come: only 4% know that this is a doctrine but reject it?! That's stellar! You just made my day, seriously. If you had made me guess, I would have put that last number at 25%, minimum.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Honestly, that seems incredible to me. From an outside perspective, the Real Presence seems like a distinctive part of Roman Catholicism, so why are so many Catholics unaware of it? Most Catholics will have gone through First Communion, and I thought children were educated on the Eucharist in preparation for it? Do people really forget what they were taught?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Honestly, that seems incredible to me. From an outside perspective, the Real Presence seems like a distinctive part of Roman Catholicism, so why are so many Catholics unaware of it? Most Catholics will have gone through First Communion, and I thought children were educated on the Eucharist in preparation for it? Do people really forget what they were taught?
Yea, but that rather depends upon who they were catechised by. The Real Presence of our Lord was deliberately down played by certain groups within the RC and if they're the one doing the catechising then that probably accounts for the lack of awareness.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
It is not in the least surprising.Most traditional Christian groups will have large numbers of 'hangers-on'I sometimes wonder why people who are outside of the Catholic Church assume that everyone who identifies as Catholic is a walking Catholic encyclopaedia.
Similarly anyone who is involved in education of children will be well aware that the fact that something which was talked about in the classroom will have been absorbed in the way which the teacher would like it to be.
Here in Scotland we have 22% of the population who claim to be ,at least nominally , a member of the National (Presbyterian)Church of Scotland with many more identifying themselves as 'Protestant'. Few of these people will understand the basic Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity and not too many will worry about this, assuming that they have even heard of the Trinity.Tomorrow is Pentecost or Whitsun,a name which is unknown to most Scots.It is a major Christian festival certainly for the Catholic church,but even for most of the Catholic population of Scotland it will be just a name that the priest uses.
It is to the credit of many of the traditional Christian communities that they manage in some way to retain some sort of allegiance from wide sections of the population.50 years ago the teachings of the Catholic church were very black and white and were indeed drummed in,as indeed was the way with other lessons.Since Vatican 2 the teachings of the Church are much more many shades of grey and are no longer 'drummed in' as indeed the case with most other lessons in school.
However a lack of knowledge does not mean that one refuses to identify with the community which is in some way part of one's family and culture.
On another thread there has been talk of the RC family idea.. A feature of the English speaking world is that most Catholics form communities which are somewhat apart from the wider community which increases that family loyalty which one doesn't so easily find in countries where the dominant religious expression is that of the RC church.People can more easily identify with the family than with individual doctrines which are philosophically beyond the understanding of many people.
I can't speak for Baptists,for example,but I imagine that many people who are Baptists have chosen this way and are aware of the teachings of the church in the way that many adherents of large traditional churches are not.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Sorry I didn't express myself properly about teaching in schools.I should have said that anyone who has been involved in teaching will be aware that not all learners will have absorbed the teaching of the lesson in the way that the teacher might have liked.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
According to this article, 45% of American RCs are not aware of the church's teaching on the Real Presence. As an outsider, I find this surprising - the Real Presence is accepted by other Christians too, but along with Marian doctrines is seen as a defining characteristic of Catholicism by many. I was also under the impression that children taking their First Communion were taught about the Real Presence. At the same time, I have sometimes been surprised by some Catholics' lack of theological knowledge - one I know had never heard of Our Lady of Walsingham!
Is there a problem with lay theological education/knowledge amongst Roman Catholics, in the US and elsewhere?
You shouldn't be surprised. Basic catechetical instruction has collapsed since Vatican II. As John Chrysostom said "The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path."
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...46% of RCs both know and believe in a core RC doctrine? That's above my general expectations. And an additional 17% do not know that this is an official doctrine, but yet still believe it?...
No, it's 63% say they believe it, when asked by a well-respected Roman Catholic research organization. Hmm...
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I saw another survey, though damned if I can find it again, that found that Catholics who actually go to church have a much, much better record of believing Catholic dogmas. Which shouldn't be terribly surprising.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...46% of RCs both know and believe in a core RC doctrine? That's above my general expectations. And an additional 17% do not know that this is an official doctrine, but yet still believe it?...
No, it's 63% say they believe it, when asked by a well-respected Roman Catholic research organization. Hmm...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
46 + 17 = 63, as per IngoB's breakdown. And the figures are broadly consistent with an earlier poll by the Pew Survey.
From the 1964 Research Blog quote:
...this study uses the same methods of CARA Catholic Polls, e.g., anonymity, self-administered response without an interviewer, which limit social desirability bias
What do you suspect may be wrong with these figures?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
According to recent polls, 75% of Russians consider themselves Orthodox, yet 40% say they don't believe in God, and only 10% darken the door of a church with any frequency. I suspect that most religious groups have their fair share of ignoranti, and the Catholics and Orthodox have them in abundance, due to the corporate nature of their understanding of the faith.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
No doubt, MT. As it's the Orthodox church which they never visit, they call themselves Orthodox. (We have the same problem).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There's also the cultural aspect: reacting to 70 years of enforced atheism, we're going to be Christians, goddam it, and the kind of Christians Russians have always been is Orthodox, ferchrissakes.
There are so-called Russian Orthodox who are having icons made of Stalin and Ivan the Terrible. I'm thinking they just. don't. get. it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As an outsider, I find this surprising - the Real Presence is accepted by other Christians too,
I think you'd find belief and/or the ability to articulate any Presence type of doctrine equally in decline in those Christian groups who teach such things.
The general issue is the lack of catechism - which makes some types of Presence doctrine more unstable in the face of modernity than others.
I'd be surprised if even 45% of the Reformed subscribe to Calvin's Spiritual Presence, or could even articulate it properly.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And my knowledge about [OLoW] can be pretty much summed up as "there is a pilgrimage, this seems to be important in the UK, and both Anglicans and RCs are involved." I see no particular reason for getting more informed either, I have no spiritual interest in this; and I do not think that this reflects negatively on my grasp of Catholic theology or my own Catholic faith in the slightest.
And, to the Orthodox.
One can't possibly keep track of all our Lady's titles. Perhaps that is why the stonking big bronze doors on the new cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, California, has a big long list of titles so the diocese doesn't forget one of them.
England is such a teeny tiny little place.
Which is why were you not have heard of, say, Our Lady of Guadeloupe, or of the Snows, or of Loreto, or of Lourdes, or of Carmel, or of Solitude, or the Black Madonna of Częstochowa, then I would be concerned.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
CL alleges:
As John Chrysostom said "The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path."
This doesn't sound very Orthodox to me. Could you favor us with a cite?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
CL alleges:
As John Chrysostom said "The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path."
This doesn't sound very Orthodox to me. Could you favor us with a cite?
There is no cite because Chrysostom never said it. It's one of those "everybody knows" urban legends, and may (or may not) be traceable to John Wesley. Here's Sandopoulos's take on it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
46 + 17 = 63, as per IngoB's breakdown.
The figure of 63% is for those people who say they believe in the doctrine. I suspect it is higher than those who actually, privately, believe it. The blog post quoted by the OP fails to make the distinction. 63% just intuitively seems to be rather high for a doctrine such as transubstantiation.
quote:
And the figures are broadly consistent with an earlier poll by the Pew Survey.
The Pew Forum. The survey cited asks about religious knowledge, not about belief.
quote:
From the 1964 Research Blog quote:
...this study uses the same methods of CARA Catholic Polls, e.g., anonymity, self-administered response without an interviewer, which limit social desirability bias
What do you suspect may be wrong with these figures?
I still suspect that people are saying what they think they ought to - I would have greater confidence in a survey from an independent body.
[ 18. May 2013, 17:22: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I'm sure it's very important in the Roman Catholic Church that as many Catholics as possible are thoroughly educated in the doctrinal forms of their faith. But I don't think there's anything particularly surprizing or worrying about those who may consider themselves still Catholic but not necessarily word-perfect on dogmatic apologia.
It's probably more important that Catholics feel free and able to receive Christ in the sacrament - however they intellecutalize it in their heads - than that they are able to give a textbook appreciation of doctrine.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
"Real Presence" seems to me to be often used for "non-memorialist". If this is the case it covers not just consubstantiation but also John Calvin's own stance.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Maybe this is just me, but if I was part of a church I would want to know what that church believed. I realise that this sort of theological ignorance happens in other denominations - I've encountered conservative evangelicals who had never heard of PSA, to them it was just what the Bible said with no need for a label - but it just seems totally alien to me.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
Transubstantiation (or the Real Absence as I prefer to call it) has not been emphasized in RC catechesis for some time I gather. They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
I certainly learned about transubstantiation at my convent school during my Catholic upbringing, and indeed was given the impression that only Catholics had any sort of Real Presence doctrine. Only much later did I learn that other denominations believe in or have room for belief in a Real Presence but they just don't pin down the "how" of it as the RCC does with transubstantiation.
I must say I was very surprised when later I joined the Episcopalians to find many other ex-Catholics who had no idea of the doctrinal differences between the church they'd grown up in and the church they'd now chosen. They just liked the "feel" of the Episcopalian church better.
I couldn't understand this at all. But maybe some people just aren't that interested in doctrine. Or, it's a difference between being brought up Catholic in England, and growing up culturally Catholic in an Italian, or whatever, family in the USA....?
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Having just read a book on Calvin's Eucharistic theology, I was quite surprised to find how strongly he emphasized Real Presence. While he started from the idea that the physical body of Jesus was in heaven, and therefore could not be locally present in the Eucharistic bread, he strongly emphasized that by the power of the Holy Ghost, taking and eating the bread was taking and eating the saving body of Jesus. This is much closer to St. Thomas Aquinas than arguments between Catholics and Reformed Christians today would seem to indicate!
It was Zwingli that was the pure memorialist.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
.......... At the same time, I have sometimes been surprised by some Catholics' lack of theological knowledge...........................
Is there a problem with lay theological education/knowledge amongst Roman Catholics, in the US and elsewhere?
you mean things like the difference between "Real Presence" for which there are a number of historical (even within Catholicism) and contempory denominational definitions and "Transubstantiation" which is tightly defined in Catholic theology?
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.
This is because he did. The sense of identity post Henry changed.
Humanity is roughly analogous; form a genetic standpoint, we are all African. From an identity standpoint, we are different.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.
This is because he did. The sense of identity post Henry changed.
Humanity is roughly analogous; form a genetic standpoint, we are all African. From an identity standpoint, we are different.
Initiating a shift of identity is not the same as founding a Church. If we aren't founded by Jesus, Anglicanism might as well close up shop.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Tendentiously posted by Indifferently:
They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.
Are you reflexively waving your party banner; or, have you some evidence for this?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I must say I was very surprised when later I joined the Episcopalians to find many other ex-Catholics who had no idea of the doctrinal differences between the church they'd grown up in and the church they'd now chosen. They just liked the "feel" of the Episcopalian church better.
I couldn't understand this at all. But maybe some people just aren't that interested in doctrine. Or, it's a difference between being brought up Catholic in England, and growing up culturally Catholic in an Italian, or whatever, family in the USA....?
Then again, the Episcopal Church leaves a lot of room - there's not much that a faithful Catholic would believe that you couldn't also believe in the Episcopal Church; the only one I can think of would be the way the RCC conceives of the papacy. Even so, I've met people in the Episcopal Church who identify as Roman Catholic but for some reason or other participate fully in the life of an Episcopal parish (often they're married to a Presbyterian or something, or they're gay, etc.). As far as TEC is concerned, knock yourself out - we encourage freedom of conscience. We uphold the creeds, but expect that people will be at different places re: what they can or can't assent to.
Some of this is actually true of the Catholic Church as well. In both churches, you belong first, and grow in your belief as you learn to trust Christ and to trust the teachings of the Church. That's my impression, anyway. So I'm kinda with Ingo on this one - although I would actually like to see higher numbers, myself.
I wonder, though (the article didn't explain this) - would any of the people surveyed hear any difference between "Real Presence" and "transubstantiation"? And would there be Catholics who believe in Real Presence but not buy, or just not care about, transubstantiation as the "how"?
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.
This is because he did. The sense of identity post Henry changed.
Humanity is roughly analogous; form a genetic standpoint, we are all African. From an identity standpoint, we are different.
Initiating a shift of identity is not the same as founding a Church. If we aren't founded by Jesus, Anglicanism might as well close up shop.
All Christianity would be founded by Jesus. The offshoots, the variations, have a point of divergence. CofE's is Henry.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I certainly learned about transubstantiation at my convent school during my Catholic upbringing, and indeed was given the impression that only Catholics had any sort of Real Presence doctrine. Only much later did I learn that other denominations believe in or have room for belief in a Real Presence but they just don't pin down the "how" of it as the RCC does with transubstantiation.
I must say I was very surprised when later I joined the Episcopalians to find many other ex-Catholics who had no idea of the doctrinal differences between the church they'd grown up in and the church they'd now chosen. They just liked the "feel" of the Episcopalian church better.
I couldn't understand this at all. But maybe some people just aren't that interested in doctrine. Or, it's a difference between being brought up Catholic in England, and growing up culturally Catholic in an Italian, or whatever, family in the USA....?
I think it's a personality thing, some people just aren't that interested in the doctrine of the thing they believe in - how weird, I don't understand it either ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I've encountered it in many different denominations.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
In my case, maybe I prefer not to understand some things too well. I believe that something is happpening during Holy Supper, but maybe I prefer to keep it a Mystery.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Oh I am the same, I just mean that I wouldn't be part of an organisation without knowing what that organisation believed. The same with religion.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I find that attitude pretty perplexing. It's like a man looking in his lover's eyes and proclaiming "My darling, I love you, but I prefer to not know you very well. I want to keep you a mystery!"
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: I find that attitude pretty perplexing. It's like a man looking in his lover's eyes and proclaiming "My darling, I love you, but I prefer to not know you very well. I want to keep you a mystery!"
It's more like "My darling, I love you, but I prefer not to have a too detailed scientific explanation of our love. I want to keep it partly a mystery!"
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There are some things about a person you'll never really know, which will always remain something of a mystery. If that's not okay with you, you probably aren't called to long-term relationships.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Obviously the Christian Faith and relationships will have mystery- my point being that no one who really loves someone says "I really don't want to know you." Just because something is a mystery doesn't mean there is nothing to know, and to love someone, or the Christian faith, is to delight in knowing.
[ 20. May 2013, 01:17: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Obviously the Christian Faith and relationships will have mystery- my point being that no one who really loves someone says "I really don't want to know you." Just because something is a mystery doesn't mean there is nothing to know, and to love someone, or the Christian faith, is to delight in knowing.
I delight in the person. Not in propositions about them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Of course I want to know a lot about someone I have a relationship with. But I wouldn't want to catch her in a set of prescriptions, laws and formulas. There should always remain a bit of a Mystery about her. That's what makes her interesting.
To me, the same thing is true about the Holy Supper.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Obviously the Christian Faith and relationships will have mystery- my point being that no one who really loves someone says "I really don't want to know you." Just because something is a mystery doesn't mean there is nothing to know, and to love someone, or the Christian faith, is to delight in knowing.
I delight in the person. Not in propositions about them.
I hate to make this personal, but this seems obviously false when I ponder my relationships. I love the movies my fiancee likes to watch and the color of her hair. I love lots of propositions about my fiancee, and it's because I love her that they are important to me. It's the people I don't love that I have little interest in.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I want to keep a bit of mystery about X ≠ I don't want to know anything about X.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I want to keep a bit of mystery about X ≠ I don't want to know anything about X.
By all means clarify the difference. Your post there sure makes it sound like you prefer not to know.
[ 20. May 2013, 01:52: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. Transubstantiation does not explain away any mystery. It is not really a "how" in the sense of a mechanism or method. Transubstantiation is simply a particularly cogent way of stating the mystery in terms compatible with observation (bread and wine sure do not appear to change at all) and faith (Jesus nevertheless is truly present in His physicality, and bread and wine absent, in some objective sense not just by individual subjective imagination). Let me emphasise this again: it is a way of stating the mystery, not of explaining it.
If transubstantiation fails, then not like the blueprint of a machine or a physical hypothesis fail. Rather, it may fail like a dictionary definition can fail, namely by not defining reality through words into conceptually useful units. The point of transubstantiation is to set out clearly for your mind the contrast between appearing as bread/wine but being the body/blood of Christ. The point is not how this works (we do not know), but what this even means. What are we saying there, if it is not simply gibberish? Obviously you need to say what it means for something to be something, and how this relates to something appearing in some way. That's where the Aristotelian philosophy comes in. You could potentially use some other philosophical system, but only if it allows you to make the same kind of statement about bread/wine and body/blood. That's all.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.
Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.
I'm not aware that anybody has ever attempted to explain how transubstantiation works. (If we do not count "God does it" as explanation...)
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.
Well, I'm happy that you are happy. However, if you do not care "whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else", then you do not really know what "bread and wine are God" means. Such knowledge may not affect the practice of your faith, but then again it might.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.
Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.
Might I presume that this follows from the "Anglican party line?" In which case, just because Anglicanism sets the minimum standard of belief to count as an Anglican there doesn't mean we have to stop there. When you say you don't particularly care, it makes it seem that you think it theoretically possible to go further, but you refuse out of sheer apathy.
This touches on the attitude I find so perplexing. How can you possibly not care? I strive to work past the minimum standard of belief for Anglicans, to get closer and closer to the ultimate mystery at the center of this miracle, precisely because I am struck with awe at the mighty work of God in the life of a sinner. I think this work is so marvelous that I want to know as much as possible about it.
[ 20. May 2013, 03:11: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.
Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.
Might I presume that this follows from the "Anglican party line?" In which case, just because Anglicanism sets the minimum standard of belief to count as an Anglican there doesn't mean we have to stop there. When you say you don't particularly care, it makes it seem that you think it theoretically possible to go further, but you refuse out of sheer apathy.
This touches on the attitude I find so perplexing. How can you possibly not care? I strive to work past the minimum standard of belief for Anglicans, to get closer and closer to the ultimate mystery at the center of this miracle, precisely because I am struck with awe at the mighty work of God in the life of a sinner. I think this work is so marvelous that I want to know as much as possible about it.
Horses for courses, I guess. I know plenty of Anglicans who choose to go further and I know I don't have to leave it there, but I just choose to. I have no interest in working it out when it wouldn't make a difference to my faith or change how I take Communion. I enjoy the mystery of not knowing.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.
I'm not aware that anybody has ever attempted to explain how transubstantiation works. (If we do not count "God does it" as explanation...)
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.
Well, I'm happy that you are happy. However, if you do not care "whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else", then you do not really know what "bread and wine are God" means. Such knowledge may not affect the practice of your faith, but then again it might.
Well, for me, it is just that - the bread and wine are God to me. Whether that is literally true or not does not matter to me. It's just like the creation story - whether or not Adam and Eve were actual people doesn't matter to me, knowing that God created His people is enough.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Horses for courses, I guess. I know plenty of Anglicans who choose to go further and I know I don't have to leave it there, but I just choose to. I have no interest in working it out when it wouldn't make a difference to my faith or change how I take Communion. I enjoy the mystery of not knowing.
In that case, it's not mystery you are enjoying, but mere conscious ignorance.
You are going further already though- saying it doesn't matter, and is beneath the interest of a Christian, is quite a fearsome statement.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
