homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » 45% of American Roman Catholics do not know the RCC's teaching on the Real Presence (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: 45% of American Roman Catholics do not know the RCC's teaching on the Real Presence
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
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.

[Confused] I don't think it is beneath the interest of a Christian, I am perfectly fine for other Christians to want to understand what exactly happens at the Eucharist.

--------------------
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      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.

That in the minds of the people the Real Presence has been bound to Aristotelian metaphysics is unfortunate. It simply shouldn't have been and amounts to the kind of scholastic speculation that has been so rightly criticised throughout the centuries. The problem is that in the RC, at least, this philosophical method under the name of Thomism has been semi-dogmatised so that you can no longer speak of the Real Presence except in those Thomistic terms. What if you reject Aristotelian metaphysics? For most it means they reject its conclusions and loss of faith in the Real Presence is almost inevitable.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
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.

The reality of people existing is independently observable. You just look all around you and see them. Hence if you assume that God is the Creator, you have objective proof that God created people - and whether Genesis is a literal or mythical account of this creation does not change that.

The reality of God's presence in the consecrated bread and wine is not independently observable. No matter how hard you look, you cannot see or otherwise detect Him there. Hence even if you believe that God exists, you have no objective proof that He is really present under the species of bread and wine. If you now say that you do not know that God's real presence is the literal truth, then we must conclude that this "real" of yours could be anything from the actual over the symbolic to the delusional.

Or in short, something that is not literally real is likely imaginary.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That in the minds of the people the Real Presence has been bound to Aristotelian metaphysics is unfortunate. It simply shouldn't have been and amounts to the kind of scholastic speculation that has been so rightly criticised throughout the centuries.

Scholastic "speculation" for the most part has not been rightly criticized. It has been abandoned without much argument in the "enlightenment" move to modernist philosophy, and dissed by reformers of all kinds for its association with power structures they wanted to get rid off.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The problem is that in the RC, at least, this philosophical method under the name of Thomism has been semi-dogmatised so that you can no longer speak of the Real Presence except in those Thomistic terms.

In fact, when Trent pronounced dogma on the real presence, it studiously avoided the standard Aristotelian / Thomist terminology. That Thomism has retained its position in Catholic theology over the centuries (to a rather variable degree, it has to be said), has a simple reason: it is really, really good.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What if you reject Aristotelian metaphysics? For most it means they reject its conclusions and loss of faith in the Real Presence is almost inevitable.

This is just trashy rhetoric. The number of people who can reject Aristotelian metaphysics in a meaningful manner is very small. And people who are that educated in philosophy certainly do no lose their faith "inevitably" over such a rejection.

--------------------
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
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966

 - Posted      Profile for Cara     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
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.

I know Jade can respond perfectly adequately on her own account, but still I'd like to say this "not wanting to go further" doesn't seem the same to me as "apathy," a word you used upthread, or as "saying it doesn't matter."

To me, accepting that the bread and wine ARE God, without wanting to define the mystery any further, is an attitude of reverence and wonder and deep appreciation, just as much as might be felt by someone who tries to go deep into explaining the heart of the mystery.

You can try to go deep into the mystery without wanting it to be explained or defined. But deep in a meditative, beyond-logic-of-words kind of way. Such an attitude isn't inferior to one that wants to understand and define; it's just a different way of approach.

What I love about the Anglican church is that there's room for all these different ways.

IngoB, I appreciate your clarification that transubstantiation is not an explanation of the mystery--not a claim about how it happens--but a statement about what happens. I am always saying that transubstantiation tries to explain "how," so I stand corrected...I think.

(You would say C.S, Lewis is wrong, then, when he says something like "It's enough for me that it happens, I don't need to know how." --and that's why he doesn't need to go into the doctrines of con-or trans-substatiation? Because those doctrines don't really talk about the "how" ? I feel as if they do. As if your distinction between "explanation" and statement" is a really fine one....)

But even if it is just a statement about what happens, made in such a way that we can account for both the presence of God and the continual appearance of bread and wine as bread and wine, it still seems to me to go further than necessary in defining and describing something that's really indefinable and indescribable.

I, like Jade, can't understand joining a church without knowing what that church believes doctrinally, and how it differs from others. That is different from wanting to understand the inner workings of every mystery.

--------------------
Pondering.

Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Okay. Now I'm thoroughly confused.

I'm an Angican doing a unit on "Sacraments in the Catholic Tradition" at a Catholic university.

I just got home from a lecture that said Catholics do not eat and drink the literal body and blood of Christ.

I was taught the doctrine was based on the Greek words Soma (body) and haimee (blood)

Soma means WHOLE being (including the physical body) and haimee literally means blood but figuratively means life or source of life (remember in the OT you aren't allowed to drink blood cos it symoblizes someone's life?).

So in eating the bread and drinking the wine, a Catholic LITERALLY eats and drinks the PRESENCE of the risen Christ - but not the LITERAL blood and body.

The presence of the risen Christ is EXACTLY the same in both the bread and the wine - hence communion in one kind is full communion. This also emphasizes that the bread and wine can't be the literal body and blood cos then communion wouldn't be full communion in one kind.

Also, apparently the how bit (transubstantiation) which got the reformers in such a knot is not dogma - just the Real Presence of the risen Christ is dogma.


He emphasized repeatedly that Catholics do not literally eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus. ( He is a priest btw )

So it seems to me the article is incorrect.

[ 20. May 2013, 08:44: Message edited by: Evensong ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
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.

Well, I don't think it's just 'you'. But it perhaps is a lot to do with who you are and what you want to get from your experience of church. And nothing wrong with that. Paul tells us to be able to explain why we have the faith we have. Though in what degree of detail is another question!

Many people put what they get from 'belonging' to their church above the need for a meticulous manifesto of what they're supposed to be 'believing'. So when they're going to the rail - or the queue - they're not necessarily thinking super consciously of whatever it was they can remember back when they were seven, doing their communion classes. They're more aware of the whole experience; this is my church since before I can remember, this is my family's church, this is where I see my friends, my neighbours, the people I work with etc etc. And this is what we do to be who we are.

Not everyone wants to analyze why what they do seems right or at least natural to them. Not everyone has the leisure-time, education or inclination, apart from anything else.

I'm sure the Roman Catholic church are very good at offering opportunities for learning the 'why'; and also why it can be important to know these things. So it's admirable when people take a deeper than normal interest. But, in the ordinary way of things, if our Lord had waited till the disciples' theological education had caught up with their praxis, there wouldn't be a Church today!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
To me, accepting that the bread and wine ARE God, without wanting to define the mystery any further, is an attitude of reverence and wonder and deep appreciation, just as much as might be felt by someone who tries to go deep into explaining the heart of the mystery.

You can try to go deep into the mystery without wanting it to be explained or defined. But deep in a meditative, beyond-logic-of-words kind of way. Such an attitude isn't inferior to one that wants to understand and define; it's just a different way of approach.

I really am not an enemy of "mystical appreciation" of the Eucharist. My own way into Catholicism was through Zen meditation, and contemplative approaches remain the only ones that really move me spiritually. But my own religious ideal is still Master Eckhart (though I do not agree with all his positions), who was a masterful theologian, deep mystic, splendid preacher and competent administrator - all at the same time. Theology, mysticism and practice must form a whole greater than its parts, rather than fight with each other.

The problem I have with most claims for spiritual simplicity is that the people making those claims are often not particularly simple. I have no doubts that many Roman Catholics through the ages have received the Eucharist in a manner most pleasing to God and have been showered with graces in return - without having the slightest clue about transubstantiation or indeed any other such "sophistication". However, one cannot regain the theological innocence that made this possible if one has progressed to a more "adult" appreciation of faith. We must be child-like before God as we actually are, we must not deny ourselves in order to fake simplicity. That is childish hypocrisy, not child-like humility.

My point is then that for most people here on SoF it is not enough to go with the flow of what their community does, naively trusting that they will do right before God, and leaving all conceptual work to be someone else's business. Because that is in fact not the place where most people here on SoF are at. The level at which you have to think about the Eucharist is the level at which you generally think. And with people on SoF, that's a rather sophisticated level, typically. I appreciate the point that one should not over-think the Eucharist. But I insist in response that one cannot under-think it either. One has to be who one is, in this matter as in any, for we stand before God as we truly are.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
(You would say C.S, Lewis is wrong, then, when he says something like "It's enough for me that it happens, I don't need to know how." --and that's why he doesn't need to go into the doctrines of con-or trans-substatiation? Because those doctrines don't really talk about the "how" ? I feel as if they do. As if your distinction between "explanation" and statement" is a really fine one....)

It is true that most people do not need any such doctrine, other than in the sense that it will be enacted by and with their community for them. It is also true that C.S. Lewis was deeply wrong concerning this (if he indeed said something like this) - as far as C.S. Lewis himself was concerned. Somebody who clearly spent much of their life thinking through faith at a very high level cannot simply declare a naive no-go zone for their mind. It would be different if C.S. Lewis had declared some kind of doctrinal agnosticism (after thinking it through carefully failed to come to a conclusion), but somebody so intellectually active in their faith cannot just opt for doctrinal apathy. If you are not true to yourself, you cannot be true to God.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
But even if it is just a statement about what happens, made in such a way that we can account for both the presence of God and the continual appearance of bread and wine as bread and wine, it still seems to me to go further than necessary in defining and describing something that's really indefinable and indescribable. I, like Jade, can't understand joining a church without knowing what that church believes doctrinally, and how it differs from others. That is different from wanting to understand the inner workings of every mystery.

What "inner workings" are you actually talking about in this specific case? If you actually try to make your critique concrete here, I think you will realise that it is empty. When you state, as you apparently do, that this consecrated bread and wine really are the body and blood of Christ, then you are in fact making an implicit definition. Because it is simply undeniable, by virtue of the most basic observation, that your "really are" cannot have its standard meaning. For the standard meaning would require that Christ's body and blood appear to be present is some form, and they are not. What you are in fact doing is to define by example: your new meaning of "really are" is demonstrated by you pointing at the consecrated bread and wine and making that statement.

My point has been that transubstantiation really is little more than putting into words what you act out. Like any verbalising, this can fail: the words may not do justice to the situation. (I don't think that they fail, but that's debatable.) However, in my opinion you falsely accuse transubstantiation of going too far, when it is really just trying to describe the move that you are making yourself. Like it or not, you are already saying something seriously strange about reality and being. It is odd to demand then that others may not try to comprehend what you are saying, when apparently you have comprehended this sufficiently yourself to make such a statement.

I think there's a more basic fear at work here, the idea that the cold gaze of the intellect will extinguish the fire of the heart. But think of a rocket: to propel ourselves to the stars, we do need both fire and steel. If you just dump a ton of steel on a fire, it will be snuffed out. If you just light a fire, it may burn down your house. It is the right combination that achieves most. And if all the fire and steel you need in your own life is the little engine that drives you to the supermarket, this does not mean that you have to condemn the rocket engineers pushing the boundaries of what is humanly feasible.

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Also, apparently the how bit (transubstantiation) which got the reformers in such a knot is not dogma - just the Real Presence of the risen Christ is dogma.

He emphasized repeatedly that Catholics do not literally eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus. ( He is a priest btw )

Evensong, with all due respect, I'm not sure that your report there is accurate and detailed enough to meaningfully critique your teacher. However, the fact that he is a (presumably RC) priest and that you are studying at a (presumably Roman) Catholic university does not as such inspire particular confidence that you are being taught good RC doctrine. Unfortunately.

It sound to me like you may have misunderstood a sophisticated point about the meaning of "body and blood". To say that "body" is not simply the material flesh and bone, and "blood" is not simply the red liquid - in the literal sense that those words have in our times - does not mean that body and blood are not "really present" in the literal sense that those words had in Christ's time. Alternatively, it sounds a bit like your priest follows the doctrine of "transignification", which was popular in RC circles for a while but has been largely rejected by the Magisterium:
quote:
Mysterium Fidei
Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called "transignification" and "transfiguration," or finally to propose and act upon the opinion according to which, in the Consecrated Hosts which remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ Our Lord is no longer present. ...

To avoid misunderstanding this sacramental presence which surpasses the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind [cf. Encycl. Mirae Caritatis, Acta Leonis XIII, Vol. XXII, 1902-1903, p. 123] we must listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. This voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way Christ is made present in this Sacrament is none other than by the change of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood, and that this unique and truly wonderful change the Catholic Church rightly calls transubstantiation. [cf. Council of Trent, "Decree on the Eucharist," Ch. 4, and Can. 2] As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but become the sign of something sacred, the sign of a spiritual food. However, the reason they take on this new significance and this new finality is simply because they contain a new "reality" which we may justly term ontological. Not that there lies under those species what was already there before, but something quite different; and that not only because of the faith of the Church, but in objective reality, since after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical "reality" is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.

As for the dogmatic definitions in this regard, they are sharp and clear:
quote:
The Council of Trent - 13th session
CHAPTER IV. On Transubstantiation.
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. ...

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

CANON I. If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II. If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III. If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

It is true that the RCC did not dogmatically define the label "transubstantiation" there. But she sure as heck defined a dogma most aptly called transubstantiation. It is rather cheeky to claim that Trent defined the real presence but not transubstantiation based on that actual text. At a minimum, this claim requires quite some leg work to show why in the meantime the label has ceased to be "most apt" for the dogma.

Finally, the comment on the presence of Christ in both species, as you relate it, is weak. The actual RC doctrine there is "concommitance". The basic point is simple. Assume that for some reason I'm only reliably informed that your body is present in a room, not more. For example, I have a short glimpse of you sitting there. Then if I assume that you are alive, I also know that your blood is present in that room (namely coursing through your veins). And as much as we can say that a soul is localizable, also your soul will be in that room. Etc. A living Evensong cannot be one somehow chopped into pieces, even if I have data only about one of the pieces (the body) being present. Likewise, if the body of the living Christ is really present in the bread, then the "rest" of Christ must be present as well. Nevertheless, the "rest" is not present in quite the same manner. Just as my eyes only told me that your body is in that room, so the bread only tells me that Christ's body is really present. The "rest" is only present to me because I know that His life cannot be divided but is a whole.

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yesterday after Mass I took Communion to two housebound parishioners.When going in to the housing complex I met an elderly Catholic who makes a special effort every Sunday to get to Mass herself,paying for a taxi to take her to the 'cathederal' as she calls it in her Northern Irish accent.I said 'Oh,it might be the bishop today because it is a Solemnity.Do you know what feast it is today. ?She replied 'Well I'm sure I ought to,but I don't know.' 'It's Pentecost today,' said another lady waiting for a car to take her to the Church of Scotland.When I asked her how she knew when the Catholic didn't know she said it had been on the radio that morning.

I didn't dare to ask the old lady to explain the RC theory of the Real Presence to me.Should she be able to explain it just because she has gone every week for the last 80 years and made a huge effort to be present in the midst of the community ?

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966

 - Posted      Profile for Cara     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
To me, accepting that the bread and wine ARE God, without wanting to define the mystery any further, is an attitude of reverence and wonder and deep appreciation, just as much as might be felt by someone who tries to go deep into explaining the heart of the mystery.

You can try to go deep into the mystery without wanting it to be explained or defined. But deep in a meditative, beyond-logic-of-words kind of way. Such an attitude isn't inferior to one that wants to understand and define; it's just a different way of approach.

I really am not an enemy of "mystical appreciation" of the Eucharist. My own way into Catholicism was through Zen meditation, and contemplative approaches remain the only ones that really move me spiritually. But my own religious ideal is still Master Eckhart (though I do not agree with all his positions), who was a masterful theologian, deep mystic, splendid preacher and competent administrator - all at the same time. Theology, mysticism and practice must form a whole greater than its parts, rather than fight with each other.

The problem I have with most claims for spiritual simplicity is that the people making those claims are often not particularly simple. I have no doubts that many Roman Catholics through the ages have received the Eucharist in a manner most pleasing to God and have been showered with graces in return - without having the slightest clue about transubstantiation or indeed any other such "sophistication". However, one cannot regain the theological innocence that made this possible if one has progressed to a more "adult" appreciation of faith. We must be child-like before God as we actually are, we must not deny ourselves in order to fake simplicity. That is childish hypocrisy, not child-like humility.

My point is then that for most people here on SoF it is not enough to go with the flow of what their community does, naively trusting that they will do right before God, and leaving all conceptual work to be someone else's business. Because that is in fact not the place where most people here on SoF are at. The level at which you have to think about the Eucharist is the level at which you generally think. And with people on SoF, that's a rather sophisticated level, typically. I appreciate the point that one should not over-think the Eucharist. But I insist in response that one cannot under-think it either. One has to be who one is, in this matter as in any, for we stand before God as we truly are.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
(You would say C.S, Lewis is wrong, then, when he says something like "It's enough for me that it happens, I don't need to know how." --and that's why he doesn't need to go into the doctrines of con-or trans-substatiation? Because those doctrines don't really talk about the "how" ? I feel as if they do. As if your distinction between "explanation" and statement" is a really fine one....)

It is true that most people do not need any such doctrine, other than in the sense that it will be enacted by and with their community for them. It is also true that C.S. Lewis was deeply wrong concerning this (if he indeed said something like this) - as far as C.S. Lewis himself was concerned. Somebody who clearly spent much of their life thinking through faith at a very high level cannot simply declare a naive no-go zone for their mind. It would be different if C.S. Lewis had declared some kind of doctrinal agnosticism (after thinking it through carefully failed to come to a conclusion), but somebody so intellectually active in their faith cannot just opt for doctrinal apathy. If you are not true to yourself, you cannot be true to God.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
But even if it is just a statement about what happens, made in such a way that we can account for both the presence of God and the continual appearance of bread and wine as bread and wine, it still seems to me to go further than necessary in defining and describing something that's really indefinable and indescribable. I, like Jade, can't understand joining a church without knowing what that church believes doctrinally, and how it differs from others. That is different from wanting to understand the inner workings of every mystery.

What "inner workings" are you actually talking about in this specific case? If you actually try to make your critique concrete here, I think you will realise that it is empty. When you state, as you apparently do, that this consecrated bread and wine really are the body and blood of Christ, then you are in fact making an implicit definition. Because it is simply undeniable, by virtue of the most basic observation, that your "really are" cannot have its standard meaning. For the standard meaning would require that Christ's body and blood appear to be present is some form, and they are not. What you are in fact doing is to define by example: your new meaning of "really are" is demonstrated by you pointing at the consecrated bread and wine and making that statement.

My point has been that transubstantiation really is little more than putting into words what you act out. Like any verbalising, this can fail: the words may not do justice to the situation. (I don't think that they fail, but that's debatable.) However, in my opinion you falsely accuse transubstantiation of going too far, when it is really just trying to describe the move that you are making yourself. Like it or not, you are already saying something seriously strange about reality and being. It is odd to demand then that others may not try to comprehend what you are saying, when apparently you have comprehended this sufficiently yourself to make such a statement.

I think there's a more basic fear at work here, the idea that the cold gaze of the intellect will extinguish the fire of the heart. But think of a rocket: to propel ourselves to the stars, we do need both fire and steel. If you just dump a ton of steel on a fire, it will be snuffed out. If you just light a fire, it may burn down your house. It is the right combination that achieves most. And if all the fire and steel you need in your own life is the little engine that drives you to the supermarket, this does not mean that you have to condemn the rocket engineers pushing the boundaries of what is humanly feasible.

Very eloquently and clearly put, IngoB, as always. So you are saying, if I state that the bread and wine really are the body and blood of Christ, all that the doctrine of transubstantiation is doing is putting that into more precise words. In order, I guess, to answer the natural question, "But how can that be?"

You are right, just by saying the consecrated elements ARE the body and blood of Christ, I am saying something "seriously strange about reality and being." But I am not expecting anyone to try to comprehend it, and I'm not trying to comprehend it myself.

Don't we just accept the mystery, without further analysis or definition, in other areas of the faith?
"Jesus died and rose again."
"Mary became pregnant by the agency of God, without sexual intercourse."

We make these statements but are not required--as far as I know not even by the RCC--to have any further definition about them.
We say that Jesus truly rose again, and appeared on earth, not just as a ghost but as a real flesh-and-blood person, still bearing the marks of the crucifixion. But that's as far as we go--no discussion of how the spirit was removed from his body and the re-entered it, or whatever happened.
We say Mary conceived--somehow a child grew in her without her having slept with a man. We don't have to define, or have any special belief about, exactly how it happened--supernatural sperm? Miraculous infusion of a fertilized zygote??

So why can't we just say, The bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus, and leave it there?

I suppose you might answer that it needs more precise definition because it happens in our time, now, and affects us most intimately every Sunday??

You are right in saying I'm a bit afraid that the "cold gaze of the intellect" might extinguish the fire of the heart. And your "rocket" image is poetic.

But actually, what sends me away from the doctrine of transubstantiation is the attitude seen in the Canons you quote in your reply to Evensong, where it says, if a person doesn't believe it all exactly thus and so, "let him be anathema." This dogmatic rigidity gives me the heebie-jeebies...

It's very interesting when you drop hints bout your own trajectory, coming to the RCC via Zen meditation--the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church as seen in these Canons and elsewhere seem to me as far from Zen meditation as one could possibly get!

OTOH I do appreciate what you say about coming to God as we are, and if we think things through in other areas of life we should do so in religion as well....that actually relates to what's been said about how some people care about the doctrines of different denominations and others don't.

I just think some things are beyond even the sharpest intellect and must remain so...and if we don't want to pin them down into words as precisely as the RCC does, we shouldn't have to feel we are anathema!

--------------------
Pondering.

Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks IngoB.

There's a lot of word play going on in these explanations.......literally doesn't really seem to mean literally for a start. And substance, nature and species.....crickey - is that Aristotelian?

And it seems you could "translate" body and blood as whole being and life as well as body (muscles) and blood (corpuscles). Tho its not muscles and corpuscles as we know it because we can't see it.

"Literally" really seems to be the wrong word to use in this context.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
You are right in saying I'm a bit afraid that the "cold gaze of the intellect" might extinguish the fire of the heart. And your "rocket" image is poetic.

But actually, what sends me away from the doctrine of transubstantiation is the attitude seen in the Canons you quote in your reply to Evensong, where it says, if a person doesn't believe it all exactly thus and so, "let him be anathema." This dogmatic rigidity gives me the heebie-jeebies...

I'm all in favour of theologians (and wannabes like me!) trying to define doctrinal matters like transubstantiation. Like IngoB I see such efforts as important; I'd describe them as seeking to ward off the cognitive dissonance that can arise when we're expected to believe things we can't really make sense of.

But 'Let him be anathema'? It gives me the heebie-jeebies too, Cara! I think it's much better to hold our theories and definitions lightly, offering them to the worldwide body of Christ (and humanity in general) but being careful to acknowledge that (a) others hold, in good faith, to different explanations; (b) our theories may well be wrong; and (c) God doesn't administer a theological entrance exam to his kingdom.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966

 - Posted      Profile for Cara     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
You are right in saying I'm a bit afraid that the "cold gaze of the intellect" might extinguish the fire of the heart. And your "rocket" image is poetic.

But actually, what sends me away from the doctrine of transubstantiation is the attitude seen in the Canons you quote in your reply to Evensong, where it says, if a person doesn't believe it all exactly thus and so, "let him be anathema." This dogmatic rigidity gives me the heebie-jeebies...

I'm all in favour of theologians (and wannabes like me!) trying to define doctrinal matters like transubstantiation. Like IngoB I see such efforts as important; I'd describe them as seeking to ward off the cognitive dissonance that can arise when we're expected to believe things we can't really make sense of.

But 'Let him be anathema'? It gives me the heebie-jeebies too, Cara! I think it's much better to hold our theories and definitions lightly, offering them to the worldwide body of Christ (and humanity in general) but being careful to acknowledge that (a) others hold, in good faith, to different explanations; (b) our theories may well be wrong; and (c) God doesn't administer a theological entrance exam to his kingdom.

Indeed.

--------------------
Pondering.

Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Let him be anathema" is merely drawing the line between Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic. And that line has to be drawn, if "Roman Catholic" is to continue to mean anything.

The same goes for "Anglican," by the by.

[ 20. May 2013, 14:22: 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
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Let him be anathema" is merely drawing the line between Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic. And that line has to be drawn, if "Roman Catholic" is to continue to mean anything.

'Merely drawing the line'? People were killed for it, 500 years ago ...

"Let him be anathema" is a damning statement. The person being cast out is seen to be a heretic who believes a false gospel. Which of course is what many conservative evangelicals have believed about Roman Catholics ...!

quote:
The same goes for "Anglican," by the by.
Depends. There are at least three streams within Anglicanism: Anglo-Catholic, evangelical and liberal.

I've been worshipping in Anglican churches for 30 years and am a licensed Reader in the Church of England.

Out of all the Protestant churches on offer, I find the Anglican approach to Holy Communion the deepest and most profound.

But with regard to the other sacrament, I am not a paedobaptist. I respect the arguments for infant baptism and don't regard it as unbiblical, but I do prefer believers' baptism. I was baptised by immersion at the age of 16 and it's a powerful experience. The symbolism is terrific: dying, buried and being raised to life.

So I don't tick all the little Anglican boxes and I highly doubt that God minds.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
'Merely drawing the line'? People were killed for it, 500 years ago ...

"Let him be anathema" is a damning statement. The person being cast out is seen to be a heretic who believes a false gospel. Which of course is what many conservative evangelicals have believed about Roman Catholics ...!

People who don't believe the faith revealed in the Holy Scriptures are heretics that believe in a false Gospel.

No one is being killed for it now, and no one is proposing that anyone ought to be. If it's just the word that is so offensive, then substitute the phrase "Ain't Roman Catholic" and we're on our way.

quote:
Depends. There are at least three streams within Anglicanism: Anglo-Catholic, evangelical and liberal....
Anglican Churches might draw a wider circle that Roman Catholicism, but a circle is drawn nonetheless. A person that does not believe that Jehovah is the only God, that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the Christian faith is uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures is, to use Catholic terms, anathema from the Faith as Anglicans understand it.

quote:
So I don't tick all the little Anglican boxes and I highly doubt that God minds.
The New Testament clearly connects salvation to belief, so I rather think God does mind.

[ 20. May 2013, 14:55: 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
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find it odd that some find anathema objectionable when defending the faith. I take it such reject the anathemas of the seven ecumenical councils against the heretics too? Or should have Arius, for instance, been allowed to continue to spread his heresy within the Church?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
People who don't believe the faith revealed in the Holy Scriptures are heretics that believe in a false Gospel.

No one is being killed for it now, and no one is proposing that anyone ought to be. If it's just the word that is so offensive, then substitute the phrase "Ain't Roman Catholic" and we're on our way.

I see from your profile that you're Episcopalian, so you can join me in our mutual Protestant heresy and we can both be anaethema to the RCC together. So that's that.

quote:
The New Testament clearly connects salvation to belief, so I rather think God does mind.
I beg your pardon? [Confused]

I'm a Christian, Zach. Is that not sufficient for you? [Mad]

Fortunately, God is not an Anglican!

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I see from your profile that you're Episcopalian, so you can join me in our mutual Protestant heresy and we can both be anaethema to the RCC together. So that's that.
Uh... what? I don't think the Roman Catholic Church is right in every matter, only that it is right to define what it teaches for itself and its believers. Talk about anathema and orthodoxy is merely talk about what constitutes the Christian Faith- and if that makes you angry, then I am sorry.

quote:
I beg your pardon? [Confused]

I'm a Christian, Zach. Is that not sufficient for you? [Mad]

Fortunately, God is not an Anglican!

I understand what you are on about less and less. You said God doesn't care what we believe, which I do not think is the proposition of the Christian Faith. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16)." If you disagree, then bully for you.

--------------------
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
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I find it odd that some find anathema objectionable when defending the faith. I take it such reject the anathemas of the seven ecumenical councils against the heretics too? Or should have Arius, for instance, been allowed to continue to spread his heresy within the Church?

I'd say not. But you do meet people who are inclined to deplore the fact that Arians, Donatists, Docetists et al. were anathematized, and who take a postmodern "We can't know who was/is right, nobody has the truth, we only have opinions" attitude to every aspect of Christianity. This attitude, of course, very neatly legitimizes any heterodoxy one might hold... [Biased]

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Talk about anathema and orthodoxy is merely talk about what constitutes the Christian Faith- and if that makes you angry, then I am sorry.

The only thing that is making me angry is the silly way you have misinterpreted my post.

quote:
You said God doesn't care what we believe, which I do not think is the proposition of the Christian Faith.
I most certainly did NOT say that. [Mad] I said that I was more accepting of believer's baptism than infant baptism. Somehow you have twisted my words to imply that I'm not, in fact, a Christian. [Paranoid]

Baffling.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I most certainly did NOT say that. [Mad] I said that I was more accepting of believer's baptism than infant baptism. Somehow you have twisted my words to imply that I'm not, in fact, a Christian. [Paranoid]

What you said was "So I don't tick all the little Anglican boxes and I highly doubt that God minds."

I never said you weren't a Christian, only that some of your beliefs are not in accordance with the Scriptures. Christianity is not an all or nothing affair, and outside of your hasty conclusions I haven't proposed otherwise; neither, for that matter, has Rome.

--------------------
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
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does the knowing of the teaching, the dogma, result in sin? Does it really, really matter? The anathema talk makes me think of medieval pointy hatted people with holy murder in their hearts.

I suspect because it distinctly does not matter to the average person, that this high percentage would get the question wrong if subject to an inquisitor's question. Might some things be left to those with burning tapers or thunderbolts in their hands and the right erudition in their minds, and the mystery of faith be sufficient to those with more practical preoccupations? I might think, given comparably low birthrates in RC adherents to those with other adherences, that RCers also don't know (or don't care) about the RCC's teaching on the (non)separation of sperm from egg.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does the knowing of the teaching, the dogma, result in sin? Does it really, really matter? The anathema talk makes me think of medieval pointy hatted people with holy murder in their hearts.

I suspect because it distinctly does not matter to the average person, that this high percentage would get the question wrong if subject to an inquisitor's question. Might some things be left to those with burning tapers or thunderbolts in their hands and the right erudition in their minds, and the mystery of faith be sufficient to those with more practical preoccupations? I might think, given comparably low birthrates in RC adherents to those with other adherences, that RCers also don't know (or don't care) about the RCC's teaching on the (non)separation of sperm from egg.

Well, there's a lot of difference between "I don't fully understand the Trinity" and "It doesn't matter what I believe about the Trinity." And there are most certainly sins of intellect as well as sins of the body.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not everyone is called to be a theologian, and no one is saying that intellectual discourse provides even the primary mode of Christian knowing, no less than the only mode. But Jesus does say to every believer "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind (Matt 22:37)." What is perplexing to me is a faith that does not seek understanding, that consciously withholds exercise of the intellect in matters of faith out of a misguided idea that Mystery equals not knowing.

--------------------
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
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By way of double posting, I propose that transubstantiation is Mystery. Declaring that God is present in some vague, unexamined manner is not Mystery at all. It requires less faith for the very reason that it is merely a vague proposition and not a definite one.

--------------------
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
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zach82 - which of my beliefs are not in accord with the Scriptures?

Are you talking about believers' baptism?

Because that is perfectly in accord with the Scriptures.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Zach82 - which of my beliefs are not in accord with the Scriptures?

Are you talking about believers' baptism?

Because that is perfectly in accord with the Scriptures.

If you want to start a debate on believer's baptism, but all means start a thread. I am arguing here that God cares what we believe- in the face of you saying the opposite.

While not believing in the baptism of infants may not be an automatic ticket to hell, it doesn't follow that God doesn't care, and that it can't be a criteria for Catholic or Anglican belief.

--------------------
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
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does the knowing of the teaching, the dogma, result in sin? Does it really, really matter? The anathema talk makes me think of medieval pointy hatted people with holy murder in their hearts.

I suspect because it distinctly does not matter to the average person, that this high percentage would get the question wrong if subject to an inquisitor's question. Might some things be left to those with burning tapers or thunderbolts in their hands and the right erudition in their minds, and the mystery of faith be sufficient to those with more practical preoccupations? I might think, given comparably low birthrates in RC adherents to those with other adherences, that RCers also don't know (or don't care) about the RCC's teaching on the (non)separation of sperm from egg.

Well, there's a lot of difference between "I don't fully understand the Trinity" and "It doesn't matter what I believe about the Trinity." And there are most certainly sins of intellect as well as sins of the body.
Are we talking of the "save the cab fare, you lusted after her/him in your heart, so you're already guilty" school of thought?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, there's a lot of difference between "I don't fully understand the Trinity" and "It doesn't matter what I believe about the Trinity." And there are most certainly sins of intellect as well as sins of the body.

Are we talking of the "save the cab fare, you lusted after her/him in your heart, so you're already guilty" school of thought?
No.

A sin of the intellect is something like the following : I swore a vow of celibacy, but my sleeping around doesn't violate it because what celibacy means to me is that I don't get married. Or, I swore a vow of obedience but it's okay for me to disobey my bishop/prior/etc. because my vow of obedience was really to my own conscience.

[ 20. May 2013, 18:14: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...Jehovah is the only God...

Who is this Jehovah of whom you speak?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...Jehovah is the only God...

Who is this Jehovah of whom you speak?
He's in psalm 83, assuming you use the Bible Jesus gave to King Jimmy. [Biased]

--------------------
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
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'Jehovah' is an inaccurate Latinised rendering of YWHH. It is not used in modern Bible translations - rightly so.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you want to start a debate on believer's baptism, but all means start a thread.

I'm not interested in doing so. This whole tangent began with you casting aspersions on my Christian faith, as if I was saying it didn't matter what anyone believed. I NEVER SAID THAT. What I said was THIS: that the Lord does not mind my belonging to an Anglican church whilst preferring believers' baptism to infant baptism. Anglicanism is not infallible and Christ's Church is much bigger than mere Anglicanism. I am a Christian before I am an Anglican. I am an evangelical who believes that denominational barriers should come crashing down. Maybe you prefer to have them more rigidly in place. You're welcome to your vision, but I prefer mine.

quote:
I am arguing here that God cares what we believe- in the face of you saying the opposite.
[brick wall] There is something quite wilful in the way you keep on insisting that is what I said, when it is not.

quote:
While not believing in the baptism of infants may not be an automatic ticket to hell, it doesn't follow that God doesn't care, and that it can't be a criteria for Catholic or Anglican belief.
Yes. Obviously. There is of course nothing here which contradicts anything I said earlier. [Roll Eyes] Of course I don't believe that Anglicans and Catholics are WRONG for believing in infant baptism. I never said so. That was you, jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I said I preferred believer's baptism - NOT that infant baptism was unbiblical. And now I'm done with this tangent.

To return to the topic of the thread, my views on the Real Presence would seem to accord with yours, for what it's worth. It's a Mystery, one which I don't fully understand.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I'm not interested in doing so. This whole tangent began with you casting aspersions on my Christian faith, as if I was saying it didn't matter what anyone believed. I NEVER SAID THAT. What I said was THIS: that the Lord does not mind my belonging to an Anglican church whilst preferring believers' baptism to infant baptism.
I was going off what you said- I had no idea whatsoever what you meant besides what you said.

For that matter, I think what we believe matters to God even if we are limiting ourselves to beliefs in infant baptism.

quote:
Anglicanism is not infallible and Christ's Church is much bigger than mere Anglicanism. I am a Christian before I am an Anglican. I am an evangelical who believes that denominational barriers should come crashing down. Maybe you prefer to have them more rigidly in place. You're welcome to your vision, but I prefer mine.
When Anglican Churches affirm that baptism of infants, along with the mentally retarded and anyone else unable to consciously assent to the beliefs of the Christian Faith, we are not merely making a statement of what Anglicans ought to believe, but of what the Gospel itself is. We are making a statement of what we think all Christians ought to believe. That's what "True" means. Weak statements like "This is what we Anglicans believe, it's perfectly OK if you don't believe it" would mean we Anglicans waste our time with meaningless trivialities.

Wwe can't have denominational barriers "come crashing down" unless we at least implicitly say that beliefs about our differences do not matter. Which gets us back to that proposition you are now strenuously denying- that God doesn't care what we believe.


quote:
To return to the topic of the thread, my views on the Real Presence would seem to accord with yours, for what it's worth. It's a Mystery, one which I don't fully understand.
I affirm the mystery of transubstantiation most strenuously. I have seen you affirm the truth of no Eucharistic mystery whatsoever on his thread. Mystery, in my mind, does not mean "vague" or "unexamined."

--------------------
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
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I find it odd that some find anathema objectionable when defending the faith. I take it such reject the anathemas of the seven ecumenical councils against the heretics too? Or should have Arius, for instance, been allowed to continue to spread his heresy within the Church?

I'd say not. But you do meet people who are inclined to deplore the fact that Arians, Donatists, Docetists et al. were anathematized, and who take a postmodern "We can't know who was/is right, nobody has the truth, we only have opinions" attitude to every aspect of Christianity. This attitude, of course, very neatly legitimizes any heterodoxy one might hold... [Biased]
Well, let me say that I find the concept of anathema thoroughly objectionable. IMO, no person or institution has the right (and shouldn't have the power) to forbid anyone from teaching this or that doctrine. Let so-called heresies stand or fall on their merits.

I wouldn't describe this view as postmodern; certainly I'm not saying that there is no absolute truth. I am saying, however, that we cannot know who has the greatest portion of truth. It's therefore incumbent on all Christians and Christian institutions to hold their beliefs gently and to be gracious towards those who believe differently.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Well, let me say that I find the concept of anathema thoroughly objectionable. IMO, no person or institution has the right (and shouldn't have the power) to forbid anyone from teaching this or that doctrine. Let so-called heresies stand or fall on their merits.
As has already been explained, that is not strictly implied by the concept of anathema. Anathema and orthodox are mere statements of what the Christian Faith is and isn't. The idea that those outside the Faith are dangerous criminals that have to be forced to conform was an unfortunate turn of logic starting with Constantine's banishment of the Arians (then the catholics), but we've thankfully moved well past that today.

[ 20. May 2013, 20:13: 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
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, let me say that I find the concept of anathema thoroughly objectionable. IMO, no person or institution has the right (and shouldn't have the power) to forbid anyone from teaching this or that doctrine.

Not absolutely, no, but within the context of a particular communion, yes. If they continue they are outside and as such have been given up to the devil unless they should repent. This is exactly what the councils did.

[ 20. May 2013, 20:24: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I actually don't mind excommunication as a consequence for teaching heresy. There's no good reason the church should have to tolerate open denial of the Trinity or the Incarnation.

I don't favor criminal penalties for heresy.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
So you are saying, if I state that the bread and wine really are the body and blood of Christ, all that the doctrine of transubstantiation is doing is putting that into more precise words. In order, I guess, to answer the natural question, "But how can that be?"

Basically. You can view it as an exercise in philosophical theology that tries to answer the question: what could Cara possibly mean when she says that this "really is" that, given that this is definitely not the case in any commonsensical meaning of the words? The potential value of such precision to you is not so much in the content as such (you believe that anyway), but in providing you with a way of thinking about things. And if what you believe can be expressed in a way that "makes coherent sense", then maybe you can use that novel sense to explore other matters of faith.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
You are right, just by saying the consecrated elements ARE the body and blood of Christ, I am saying something "seriously strange about reality and being." But I am not expecting anyone to try to comprehend it, and I'm not trying to comprehend it myself.

That is not true. If you were to say "Jesus afhla'pg jgasvdb kfhkksdl," then you would not expect anyone to comprehend that. But you are not merely mouthing such nonsensical sounds about Jesus. You are forming words into sentences that are supposed to convey some meaning to the mind of the listener. You are attempting to communicate, and hence certainly you both comprehend and wish others to comprehend what you are saying.

What I think you are really after here is the maintenance of a kind of "mystical tension". You think that if you explain too much, then somehow you disperse the Divine mystery. That would be a bit like telling kids that there is no Santa Claus, but that mum and dad are providing the gifts. The rational explanation "kills the magic" there. You don't want to "kill the magic" by saying too much.

However, I think this attitude is false precisely because we are talking about true Divine mystery. The magic of Santa Claus (the gift distributor version, not the actual saint) can be killed, because there is no Divine mystery there, just a nice story to entertain kids. Or to be less friendly, Santa Claus is a lie. If the scalpel of rational thought is applied to that lie, it's going to be ugly and bloody. But this is not what happens when the scalpel of rational thought tries to cut into Divine mystery. Not at all. This is what happens. Infinite depth. And always the sound of one hand clapping. All you end up doing is make the mystery become starker and clearer, until the finite power of your mind is spent and you can go no further towards the light. You know what Aristotle would have said about transubstantiation? That it is madness! It just makes no sense in his metaphysics, which faithfully tracks how stuff changes in nature. Folly to the Greeks this is. Yet somehow it is not possible to prove this madness wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
We say Mary conceived--somehow a child grew in her without her having slept with a man. We don't have to define, or have any special belief about, exactly how it happened--supernatural sperm? Miraculous infusion of a fertilized zygote??

So why can't we just say, The bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus, and leave it there?

Again you return to the false conception that transubstantiation provides some mechanistic explanation. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't. What it does is simply to attempt to explain what you are even saying there. That leaves things in exactly the same place: nobody has the foggiest how substances can be switched out while species remain. The only thing that is happening is that you say more precisely what you are leaving there.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
But actually, what sends me away from the doctrine of transubstantiation is the attitude seen in the Canons you quote in your reply to Evensong, where it says, if a person doesn't believe it all exactly thus and so, "let him be anathema." This dogmatic rigidity gives me the heebie-jeebies...

But these canons are not really aimed at at the naive, the uneducated, the weak of faith, the cafeteria believers, ... These canons are aimed at people that are every bit as rigid, zealous and informed as the most fiendish Spanish inquisitor that you can imagine - just about false doctrine. "Here I stand, I can do no other!" is not about wishy-washy compromise either. The Council of Trent's canons largely just outline the Protestant black to the Catholic white. If you are some mild shade of grey, then in general both sides simply would consider you as a matter for further pastoral management, not as fodder for these canons.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
It's very interesting when you drop hints bout your own trajectory, coming to the RCC via Zen meditation--the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church as seen in these Canons and elsewhere seem to me as far from Zen meditation as one could possibly get!

It would take a while to explain why I see this quite differently. But one thing I will say is that there is Zen, and then there is Zen. Authentic Zen may not be quite what you think it is...

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I just think some things are beyond even the sharpest intellect and must remain so...and if we don't want to pin them down into words as precisely as the RCC does, we shouldn't have to feel we are anathema!

Read those canons again. People get anathematised not for failing to pin things down, but for pinning things down the wrong way. Anathemas are primarily aimed at actual heretics, at those who have made a definite choice to adopt a false doctrine.

--------------------
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
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, there's a lot of difference between "I don't fully understand the Trinity" and "It doesn't matter what I believe about the Trinity." And there are most certainly sins of intellect as well as sins of the body.

Are we talking of the "save the cab fare, you lusted after her/him in your heart, so you're already guilty" school of thought?
No.

A sin of the intellect is something like the following : I swore a vow of celibacy, but my sleeping around doesn't violate it because what celibacy means to me is that I don't get married. Or, I swore a vow of obedience but it's okay for me to disobey my bishop/prior/etc. because my vow of obedience was really to my own conscience.

Ah, thank-you. The Clintonesque sin of "I did not have "sex" with that woman" and debates of the meaning of the word "the". A sin of deviousness I think then. I'm not quite seeing the 'real presence' in that way, because it is rather undeliberate and conceptually harder. We all know that oral sex is sex, but mightn't well meaning people with no transgressive intention not at all know what real presence is about? Methinks yes, and cannot think the intent would be to damn them for ignorance.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, let me say that I find the concept of anathema thoroughly objectionable. IMO, no person or institution has the right (and shouldn't have the power) to forbid anyone from teaching this or that doctrine.

Not absolutely, no, but within the context of a particular communion, yes. If they continue they are outside and as such have been given up to the devil unless they should repent. This is exactly what the councils did.
You say 'within the context of a particular communion', but then you say people who persist in teaching what has been defined as heresy (defined by 'a particular communion', presumably) have been 'given up to the devil'.

So someone who's been put 'outside' 'a particular communion' is in the devil's clutches? Does this apply to someone who has been put outside any 'particular communion', or just yours?

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
South Coast Kevin:
quote:
So someone who's been put 'outside' 'a particular communion' is in the devil's clutches? Does this apply to someone who has been put outside any 'particular communion', or just yours?
You have to ask?

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, let me say that I find the concept of anathema thoroughly objectionable. IMO, no person or institution has the right (and shouldn't have the power) to forbid anyone from teaching this or that doctrine.

Not absolutely, no, but within the context of a particular communion, yes. If they continue they are outside and as such have been given up to the devil unless they should repent. This is exactly what the councils did.
You say 'within the context of a particular communion', but then you say people who persist in teaching what has been defined as heresy (defined by 'a particular communion', presumably) have been 'given up to the devil'.

So someone who's been put 'outside' 'a particular communion' is in the devil's clutches? Does this apply to someone who has been put outside any 'particular communion', or just yours?

Of course, it's an ecclesiological question. If I believe that a certain communion I belong to is the Church and I deliberately persist in a heresy condemned by the Church, let's say the heresy of Arius, then I would indeed be anathema, outside the Church and thus delivered up to the devil unless I should repent. We must remember, of course, that my ecclesiology (that of Orthodoxy) is different to yours. Certainly what the RC, for example, teaches is really no concern of ours except in the context of ecumenism precisely because we do not consider the RC to be the Church.

[ 20. May 2013, 22:02: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: By all means clarify the difference. Your post there sure makes it sound like you prefer not to know.
I don't know very well how I can explain Mystery any better to you. To be honest, it feels a bit like Geordi trying to explain the concept of humour to Data. It is hard to argue with someone who seems to think in terms of "Either you want to know everything about X, or you are not interested in knowing anything about X." (Come to think of it, I think that Data would spot the different quantifiers.)

I'll try it one more time. When you're in a relationship with someone, you want to know everything about her. But at the same time, you should realize that you'll never completely understand her. You can try to formulate some rules and propositions that help you understand her behaviour ("She's always cranky before her first cup of coffee in the morning"), but trying to completely 'catch' her in a set of propositions like this doesn't make sense. There will be always something about her that escapes this framework. And to me, it is this part of her that makes her the most interesting.

quote:
IngoB: I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. Transubstantiation does not explain away any mystery.
I agree, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought that.

quote:
Zach82: Declaring that God is present in some vague, unexamined manner is not Mystery at all. It requires less faith for the very reason that it is merely a vague proposition and not a definite one.
I don't really care whether you find that my religious position requires more or less faith than yours.

But the problem with this argument is that it can be used for almost anything.

A wonder-healing TV pastor can say "Your position that God is a healing presence is vague and requires less faith than mine that the Spirit really makes lame people walk through me."

Emily Windsor-Cragg can say "Your position that there might be life out there is vague and requires less faith than mine that the Annunaki visit the Earth every 3000-something years."

It makes it rather meaningless.

--------------------
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      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I haven't seen you try to explain Mystery at all, LeRoc, so I am not understanding you merely because I am a simpleton. If that is all you have, then we are at an impasse, because I honestly have no idea what you are talking about when you start talking about "catching the Eucharist in a set propositions." Emily Windsor-Cragg's posts make more sense than that gobbledigook.

Unless by "Mystery" you mean some vague emotional state that relies on not thinking about the Eucharist too much, in which case I cease to care.

quote:
I don't really care whether you find that my religious position requires more or less faith than yours.

But the problem with this argument is that it can be used for almost anything.

There isn't a Mystery to be had without a set of propositions that don't quite work out unless the intervention of God is invoked. There is, for example, no mystery about a match burning or bread rising.

So by robbing the Eucharist of definite propositions out of silly idea of keeping it mysterious, one is really just making the system safer and less mysterious.

[ 21. May 2013, 00:30: 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
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better.

--------------------
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
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
'Jehovah' is an inaccurate Latinised rendering of YWHH. It is not used in modern Bible translations - rightly so.

Hey. You want to poke Zach82? Get your own stick.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I haven't seen you try to explain Mystery at all, LeRoc, so I am not understanding you merely because I am a simpleton. If that is all you have, then we are at an impasse, because I honestly have no idea what you are talking about when you start talking about "catching the Eucharist in a set propositions." Emily Windsor-Cragg's posts make more sense than that gobbledigook.

Unless by "Mystery" you mean some vague emotional state that relies on not thinking about the Eucharist too much, in which case I cease to care.

Zach, if I may: Here is the Wikipedia article on Picasso's Guernica. Read it through, if you will (or at least glance across it to gather the sort of information you would gain if you did).

Now, here is Guernica. (Or at least a picture of it, the real deal is a lot more impressive still.) Look at it.

Now, tell me, was it advantageous to read the article before viewing the painting? In a sense surely so, a specific kind of appreciation of the painting is only possible if you have all that information: you gain historical context, an eye for detail you may have missed, know interpretations you can agree or disagree with...

However, I also think that if you want to really see the picture, you need all that information to shut up for a while as you soak up the impression of it yourself. There's something like a direct impact, a feeling of the vibes, a losing yourself in the painting, ... You must grow quiet internally in order to let the painting say what it will, for it to come at you through your eyes, unfiltered. And all that information then is way too much information, and instead of being helpful the information becomes this mad little narrator who constantly tries to win you ear by telling you this or that about the painting while you really only want to be and see.

We can "directly touch" with our minds. Most people can do it with paintings and music, because these objects were designed by artists to make that happen. But if we are lucky, we can also "directly touch" places, situations, people, ... Some people have this more, some people have this less, as with all things. But everybody has some, and hence everybody can experience the tension this "direct touch" has with usual information gathering and processing, with ratiocination.

Many people cherish the "direct touch" above all, and the ratiocination never gave them anything special (as it does to me, by profession). So they kind of protect the parts precious to them against the intrusion of too much information, because that might just ruin it all. Can you really fault them then for defending their relationship with God against some mad narrator in their minds lobbing unwanted bits of information at them?

Or in short: There is truth. But there also is beauty.

--------------------
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
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966

 - Posted      Profile for Cara     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
So you are saying, if I state that the bread and wine really are the body and blood of Christ, all that the doctrine of transubstantiation is doing is putting that into more precise words. In order, I guess, to answer the natural question, "But how can that be?"

Basically. You can view it as an exercise in philosophical theology that tries to answer the question: what could Cara possibly mean when she says that this "really is" that, given that this is definitely not the case in any commonsensical meaning of the words? The potential value of such precision to you is not so much in the content as such (you believe that anyway), but in providing you with a way of thinking about things. And if what you believe can be expressed in a way that "makes coherent sense", then maybe you can use that novel sense to explore other matters of faith.
ok, transubstantiation as an exercise in philosophical theology, I can accept that.

Re the part about comprehension (I'm now addressing the other parts of your post without quoting and interweaving my comments as I'm still working out how to do that and keep the bold/not bold correct! Need to practice...):
You say that in stating "The bread and wine are really the body and blood of Jesus" I am trying to comprehend and be comprehended, as I am making a statement and not speaking gobbeldygook, and am trying to communicate--but I think you know what I meant.
It would be a statement of faith that I can make, while simultaneously accepting that it doesn't make sense to the normal view of reality. Just as when I say "Jesus dies and rose again," or "The Trinity is one God in three Persons." I don't really "comprehend" any of these rationally.

You are probably right that I am after "the maintenance of a kind of "mystical tension", and I will have to think more about this bit, about your saying that going deeper into the mystery does not break it apart when it's a real divine mystery. I haven't watched the video yet either, I'm afraid.

You say that the doctrine of transubstantiation is just an attempt to "say more precisely" exactly what we are leaving at that....
but WHY the need to say it more precisely? When the Church doesn't feel this need in the case of Mary's conception of Jesus, Jesus's resurrection, his resuscitation of Lazarus, etc etc.

What you say about Zen is most intriguing.....

Ok. So you have said the doctrine of transubstantiation is really not trying to explain the mystery, just to define it more precisely. An exercise in philosophical theology. Fair enough.

And that it can provide me with" a way of thinking about things" that might have wider implications in my faith....hm. That's interesting--although, for me, it isn't, so far, a helpful way of thinking about things.

And that the anathemas are not aimed at the wishy-washy, but at those who firmly and defiantly hold to some heretical belief. Ok, that's an improvement on the impression I had.

Then, if this doctrine of transubstantiation is an exercise in philosophical theology, just a way to precisely define the Real Presence, I could be a Roman Catholic without necessarily agreeing with the Church that this is the most apt and precise definition of what happens?

I could believe in the Real Presence without having to define it as transubstantiation, and I could be a Catholic in good standing? (Assuming I believed other RCC doctrines, which in many cases I do not, so it's an academic question as far as I am concerned; but the answer is still important because I thought a Catholic was obliged to accept the transubstantiation view of the Real Presence.)

Well, in the end it seems to me a temperamental difference as to whether one wants to thus precisely define the mystery or not.

Certainly not a question of "apathy!" But rather of awed silence.

--------------------
Pondering.

Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966

 - Posted      Profile for Cara     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I haven't seen you try to explain Mystery at all, LeRoc, so I am not understanding you merely because I am a simpleton. If that is all you have, then we are at an impasse, because I honestly have no idea what you are talking about when you start talking about "catching the Eucharist in a set propositions." Emily Windsor-Cragg's posts make more sense than that gobbledigook.

Unless by "Mystery" you mean some vague emotional state that relies on not thinking about the Eucharist too much, in which case I cease to care.

Zach, if I may: Here is the Wikipedia article on Picasso's Guernica. Read it through, if you will (or at least glance across it to gather the sort of information you would gain if you did).

Now, here is Guernica. (Or at least a picture of it, the real deal is a lot more impressive still.) Look at it.

Now, tell me, was it advantageous to read the article before viewing the painting? In a sense surely so, a specific kind of appreciation of the painting is only possible if you have all that information: you gain historical context, an eye for detail you may have missed, know interpretations you can agree or disagree with...

However, I also think that if you want to really see the picture, you need all that information to shut up for a while as you soak up the impression of it yourself. There's something like a direct impact, a feeling of the vibes, a losing yourself in the painting, ... You must grow quiet internally in order to let the painting say what it will, for it to come at you through your eyes, unfiltered. And all that information then is way too much information, and instead of being helpful the information becomes this mad little narrator who constantly tries to win you ear by telling you this or that about the painting while you really only want to be and see.

We can "directly touch" with our minds. Most people can do it with paintings and music, because these objects were designed by artists to make that happen. But if we are lucky, we can also "directly touch" places, situations, people, ... Some people have this more, some people have this less, as with all things. But everybody has some, and hence everybody can experience the tension this "direct touch" has with usual information gathering and processing, with ratiocination.

Many people cherish the "direct touch" above all, and the ratiocination never gave them anything special (as it does to me, by profession). So they kind of protect the parts precious to them against the intrusion of too much information, because that might just ruin it all. Can you really fault them then for defending their relationship with God against some mad narrator in their minds lobbing unwanted bits of information at them?

Or in short: There is truth. But there also is beauty.

Yes, IngoB. This.

The "direct touch." I have felt this through art. Through poetry. Through nature.

Those glimpses of "direct touch" seemed to me a glimpse of something beyond--of God--and I want more of that.
I want to experience God that way.

And sometimes that "mad narrator" lobbing unwanted bits of info is not just in our minds, but seems to be speaking through one or another Christian denomination.

--------------------
Pondering.

Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools