|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 45% of American Roman Catholics do not know the RCC's teaching on the Real Presence
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
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.
The Church generally does not attempt to define what is right, but rather what is wrong. And she does so typically in reaction to other people proclaiming their errors strongly. We tend to lose track of this because describing errors requires some positive content and our minds zero in on this. Hence we say for example that Nicaea defined the Son to be consubstantial with the Father. That is true, but really Nicaea was about telling Arius and his followers that considering the Son as a subordinate creature of the Father is wrong. It was a defensive move that brought this issue into focus. So the answer why the Church has not bothered to define this or that typically is just that nobody has been insistently and loudly wrong about it. Yet. In a way one can even say that orthodoxy doesn't really exist until heresy forces it to take shape. It is when people say in their minds "no, this surely is not right" that they are forced to define at least to some extent what actually is right. Before that moment, faith is in a more inchoate state of a general feeling about how things are. Now, you may regret that and prefer the state before orthodoxy coalesces like a pearl around some irritating heresy. But I think that this is in fact the (super-)natural way in which faith develops and I think the pearls that form are of great price...
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
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.
Well, have you tried? Not that I say that you must, to each their own. But unless you have seen for yourself what such Aristotelian philosophy can do in the hands of say Aquinas, it seems premature to judge its usefulness to you.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
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?
Let me try an analogy. Let's say for you pi is "a number that is about three." And that really is all that you need to know about pi in your life. For example, you can calculate with that how much building materials you need for a roughly circular pond in your garden. Now, some mathematical authority states instead this: "One can definitely not say that pi is 3, because it is not a whole number. Indeed, while one can approximate it better by for example 355/113, it definitely is not a rational number either. It is in fact an irrational number, and hence we can only write it properly with an infinite number of digits: 3.14159..." Now, you and the mathematical authority are not really in conflict there: your "about three" is in fact compatible with what the mathematical authority is saying, even though it obviously lacks all that precision and detail, and we have already said that it works just fine for you. But note what you cannot really do there. You cannot now say "I do not think that the mathematical authority is giving an apt and precise definition of pi." Or at least you cannot do so and then continue with "really, they should just say that pi is about three, as I do." You are fine while you stick to your level of description, and let the mathematical authority be a their level of description (since there is no real contradiction between these). But if you start to critique the mathematical authority at their level, then you also must step on their turf. Then you really have to say things like "no, I can show that pi actually is rational, starting with the following lemma..." Going on about how pi is roughly three will not do the trick. However, if the mathematical authority insisted that you compute the amount of building supplies you need for a circular pond with pi to a ten digits accuracy, then you could complain about them. Then they have stepped on your turf and need to adapt to your level of description.
I hope the analogy is clear. So I would say that you can be (or indeed become) a Catholic in good standing while having a fairly "fuzzy" idea about the real presence. But you cannot tell the RCC that her doctrinal definitions are insufficient and be a Catholic in good standing. Or more precisely, if you want to put forth such critique as good Catholic then you better be a really good theologian who is thoroughly qualified to operate at that level. Whereas it would be pastorally clumsy (to say the least) for the RCC to force you to declare verbatim allegiance to some precise definition of transubstantiation, when you are doing perfectly fine with your worship of the real presence as you understand it. It's a kind of "live and let live" thing, and in practice there rarely is much necessity to step on each other's toes.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
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.
So do I. Well, if we were talking about this in more detail then I would have to qualify that with comments about how the Incarnation (and indeed even the veneration of saints) are rather crucial to this "direct touch" business. But in this context here, my point is that truth and beauty (in the sense of "ratiocination" vs. "direct touch") unite in God. In a somewhat similar way that justice and mercy unite in God. There is a real conflict there, but I believe that this conflict is in us, not in God. So we have to find a compromise, a balance, in our approach. And just as with justice and mercy, I feel that many people make the mistake of going totally one-sided, largely abandoning one for the other in a mistaken attempt to avoid the conflict. I think we have to suffer this conflict if we want to draw near to God, as we try to maintain a healthy balance of mindful faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
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.
Maybe. I think these days for many of us church happens by default strictly on our terms. Being annoyed at church is then a lot like being annoyed at a post on SoF. Not scrolling past it is in fact a choice that we make...
--------------------
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
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
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.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But it was such a good stick, I couldn't resist using it again! ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
IngoB, thank you for this post. It explains a lot of things that I couldn't put into words.
In fact, this 'beauty' aspect is rather important in the way I live my faith. Many times it is exactly there that we try to look for God.
I don't have much problems with the idea of Transsubstantiation. I don't believe in it, but I respect that the Catholic Church and some others do.
What I am a bit cautious about, are ideas of the form "Eucharist/Holy Supper is only valid if we do X" or "If we do Eucharist/Holy Supper in the right way, God will do Y".
In our church group, when it comes down to it, we share and eat the bread, we share and drink the wine (the sharing part is important), and we give room to God to do whatever it is She wants, even if we won't completely understand it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
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)....
I know all that, IngoB- I did study literature in college after all. But I don't think anyone touches the mystery of the Eucharist any more directly through feelings than through reason. It is a mystery that can only be touched with faith (as St Thomas Aquinas believed if I am not mistaken), which makes it all the more important to have an awareness of what that faith is in.
That's what transubstantiation is about for me- a clear proposal of something that is only possible in the mind of one who trusts Jesus at his word, and is impossible to a person that doesn't. "Some vague presence or other" is believable by anyone.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: But I don't think anyone touches the mystery of the Eucharist any more directly through feelings than through reason. It is a mystery that can only be touched with faith
But isn't faith linked to both emotions and reason?
quote:
Zach82: "Some vague presence or other" is believable by anyone.
I don't call it 'some vague presence or other', that's your pejorative description for it. I don't think that the Mystery of Holy Supper is easily believable by anyone, I know plenty of people who don't believe in it. I'm also not sure, even if it would be easily believable by anyone, if it would have less worth.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
But isn't faith linked to both emotions and reason?
Of course. I am concerned, however, that emotion and reason ought to be at the service of faith, and not the other way around. Forgive me for bringing up water under the bridge, but I've seen in your sacramental thinking a tendency to think there is a sacrament wherever you feel it is, rather than where Jesus says it is in the Scriptures, which I think is a result of getting priorities out of order.
To be a Christian mystery, the focus has to be on believing the promises of Jesus, not in feelings or reason.
quote:
I don't call it 'some vague presence or other', that's your pejorative description for it. I don't think that the Mystery of Holy Supper is easily believable by anyone, I know plenty of people who don't believe in it. I'm also not sure, even if it would be easily believable by anyone, if it would have less worth.
You sure make it sound like it's indefinite and difficult to explain, which is basically what "vague" means.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: I've seen in your sacramental thinking a tendency to think there is a sacrament wherever you feel it is, rather than where Jesus says it is in the Scriptures, which I think is a result of getting priorities out of order.
Well, Jesus doesn't say an awful lot in the Scriptures about what the Sacraments are. "Do this in remembrance of Me" is hardly a comprehensive User's Manual for the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I fully accept that the Sacraments probably have a different meaning in your church tradition than in mine, and I don't have a problem with that.
In my way of thinking, there is something of a two-way channel. God is present (I'd say 'immanent') in the Universe, and either we react to that or we don't. I don't think I'm really priorize one end of the channel over the other.
quote:
Zach82: You sure make it sound like it's indefinite and difficult to explain, which is basically what "vague" means.
But God is indefinite and difficult to explain. That's the whole point! Our puny words and concepts are simple to small to be able to grasp Him. If you call Him 'vague' because of this, then so be it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Quinquireme
Shipmate
# 17384
|
Posted
Pardon my ignorance, but can somebody clarify this:- is this a matter of some people really believing they are consuming the Body and Blood, and others treating it as a symbolic act? If so, which subdivisions within Christianity are on which side?
Posts: 56 | From: SE London | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Quinquireme: is this a matter of some people really believing they are consuming the Body and Blood, and others treating it as a symbolic act?
I don't think that these are the only options.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Well, Jesus doesn't say an awful lot in the Scriptures about what the Sacraments are. "Do this in remembrance of Me" is hardly a comprehensive User's Manual for the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I fully accept that the Sacraments probably have a different meaning in your church tradition than in mine, and I don't have a problem with that.
Neither is transubstantiation- which is about maintaining the reality of what Jesus does say without equivocation. Which is the whole issue I see with rejecting it- spiritualizing it or keeping it vague is, to put it overly bluntly, a cop out. It explains away rather than maintains the mystery of the Eucharist.
quote:
But God is indefinite and difficult to explain. That's the whole point! Our puny words and concepts are simple to small to be able to grasp Him. If you call Him 'vague' because of this, then so be it.
As IngoB has explained, transubstantiation is not an attempt to explain the mystery of the Eucharist, but to prevent it from being explained away.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: Neither is transubstantiation- which is about maintaining the reality of what Jesus does say without equivocation. Which is the whole issue I see with rejecting it- spiritualizing it or keeping it vague is, to put it overly bluntly, a cop out. It explains away rather than maintains the mystery of the Eucharist.
First you say I explain nothing, then you say I explain something away... The way I see it, we are simply seeing the Mystery of the Eucharist/Holy Supper in a different place. And I'm cool with that.
quote:
Zach82: As IngoB has explained, transubstantiation is not an attempt to explain the mystery of the Eucharist
I don't believe it is.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Zach82: Neither is transubstantiation- which is about maintaining the reality of what Jesus does say without equivocation. Which is the whole issue I see with rejecting it- spiritualizing it or keeping it vague is, to put it overly bluntly, a cop out. It explains away rather than maintains the mystery of the Eucharist.
First you say I explain nothing, then you say I explain something away... The way I see it, we are simply seeing the Mystery of the Eucharist/Holy Supper in a different place. And I'm cool with that.
quote:
Zach82: As IngoB has explained, transubstantiation is not an attempt to explain the mystery of the Eucharist
I don't believe it is.
It's not one or the other- you make the Eucharist safe by refusing to look at what the Mystery entails. You make it rely on your feelings of togetherness rather than on the promises of God.
I argue this not from a relative perspective, but from the perspective that there is an objective truth of the matter that holds for you, me, and the entire world, and that we can discern that objective truth if we look at the propositions involved with rational clarity.
[ 21. May 2013, 18:02: 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
quote:
Zach82: It's not one or the other- you make the Eucharist safe by refusing to look at what the Mystery entails.
I don't refuse to look at the Mystery, I simply acknowledge that I'll never be able to fully comprehend it fully. (I'm also reminded of some passages in the OT where it wasn't recommendable to look at God's Face directly.)
quote:
Zach82: You make it rely on your feelings of togetherness rather than on the promises of God.
That's your kind of language, not mine. "Where does the Holy Supper rely on?" or "How do we know it's valid?" aren't very important questions in my tradition. If anything, it relies on the words of Jesus "Do this in remembrance of Me" and on the immanence of God in the Universe.
quote:
Zach82: I argue this not from a relative perspective, but from the perspective that there is an objective truth of the matter that holds for you, me, and the entire world, and that we can discern that objective truth if we look at the propositions involved with rational clarity.
I wish you good luck with that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Neither is transubstantiation- which is about maintaining the reality of what Jesus does say without equivocation...
How can you be sure that Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Neither is transubstantiation- which is about maintaining the reality of what Jesus does say without equivocation...
How can you be sure that Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically?
How can you be sure that he wasn't inviting his disciples to partake in an act of literal cannibalism?
--------------------
"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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I am coming to this thread very late and have not read all the previous posts. I apologize also for going off topic by not commenting on Catholic's knowledge of the real presence. What I wanted to say was that transubstantiation is one of the main attractions of the RCC for me. In this I am not referring to the finer details of accidents and substance but to people's need to have God present in a visible, tactile way. Yes, we can say that God is present everywhere in some way but only with the Eucharist can we say "this thing, this thing you can see, touch, hold, and taste - it is God. Of course, it is also Human. And God is Three Persons, One Essence and the Eucharist is specifically the Body and Blood of Christ. And His presence on Earth 2000 years ago was different from His Eucharistic presence. But the Eucharist, to put it perhaps too bluntly, is God. So there is no problem in trembling before it and lying prostrate before. Something that a lot of monotheistic religions lack that Paganism has is the ability to point at something and say, look, that is God, worship it! Now the Old aTestament is full of examples of people pointing at the wren thing an saying that but the cloud still lay over the Ark of the Covenant when the High Priest went in to it on Yom Kippur. So Judaism, as much as it opposes idoloatry, still had a sensory and real manifestation of the divine to worship. In Catholicism we have that sensory and real manifestation, but everyone can experience it, not just a high priest (Christ is our high priest, but let's not get into arguments over the priesthood here). I think it is good that his like the pagans we can point to something, say "that's God," and bow down and adore (ie, worship) it. It fills a fundamental human need. It is not just awe-inspiring, of course - it is also a comforting reminder of God's love - but the fact that it is awe-inspiring is important.
I also like transubstantiation because it rings us as close to human sacrifice and cannibalism as we can actually get without actually performing it. Human sacrifice and cannibalism are terrible and wrong things, but at least a fear of it, if not an acutal historical memory of its practice seems to be stuck in the human psyche just about everywhere. Worshipping God seems to require sacrifice - and not just of some substitute like plants or animals but of our very selves. Christ makes this possible. But just remembering the past sacrifice or having Christ present because of that sacrifice is not enough. We need to be present at that sacrifice offer it to God with and through Christ. (Now the ministerial priesthood offers it in a different way than the baptismal priesthood but let's not get into that here). Not only that, but we also need to eat and drink from that sacrifice, just like the Jewish priests and their families are parts of what was sacrificed an offered at the temple. That is what we do when we receive the Eucharist. In fact, I do not really understand how eating Christ's Body and drinking His Blood is not cannibalism. I know cannibalism is horrific and morally wrong but I think the idea of giving our lives to and for God through Christ and then eating and drinking Christ the sacrificial victim is great. It takes the horror and terror of human Religous experience across thousands and thousands of years and makes it morally acceptable whole still being real and terrifying. It turns human sacrifice on its head because God is sacrificed for us and humans eat and drink God. I could go on and on.
So I love transubstantiation because it prevents the "pagan" elements (worshipping God's actual presence, human sacrifice, cannibalism) of the Eucharist from being watered down.
Could someone please explain how transubstantiation is not cannibalism? I don't believe it is but I don't know why.
Also, why do the Eastern Orthodox call the Eucharist the bloodless (or unbloody) sacrifice? If it is the same sacrifice as that on the Cross and if we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ in it, how can it be called bloodless or unbloody?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
That's your kind of language, not mine...
This, by the way, is the basis of comments like "You don't bother to look at the Mystery at all." You say things like "I don't like that language, therefore it doesn't apply to me."
But it does apply to you, and to everyone, and ignoring it doesn't make it irrelevant. The result is you don't have a Mystery- there are no propositions that are impossible to resolve in your system, so there is nothing to mysterious to be had. All you have is a feeling in your heart which I can't question, and you won't question. You have erected a system which is beyond challenge, which is why I think making the propositions around the Eucharist clear is so important- for in faith we ourselves come into question and God is vindicated.
[ 21. May 2013, 19:47: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Also, why do the Eastern Orthodox call the Eucharist the bloodless (or unbloody) sacrifice? If it is the same sacrifice as that on the Cross and if we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ in it, how can it be called bloodless or unbloody?
Because it is the risen Christ we receive in holy communion.
[ 21. May 2013, 19:46: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Ok, so it is a sacrifice that had blood in it, but at the moment of receiving the Eucharist the Body is inside Christ's risen Body and not spilled everywhere. That makes sense. However, the Eucharisitc Liturgy still involves the re-presentation of (ie, the union in space and time with) the Sacrifice of the Cross, which certainly was bloody, in addition to the resurrection. How can the whole Liturgy be called unbloody then?
[ 21. May 2013, 20:11: Message edited by: stonespring ]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ok, so it is a sacrifice that had blood in it, but at the moment of receiving the Eucharist the Body is inside Christ's risen Body and not spilled everywhere. That makes sense. However, the Eucharisitc Liturgy still involves the re-presentation of (ie, the union in space and time with) the Sacrifice of the Cross, which certainly was bloody, in addition to the resurrection. How can the whole Liturgy be called unbloody then?
Because it's not a re-sacrificing anew of Christ, but a re-presentation to the Father of the one sacrifice on the Cross.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ok, so it is a sacrifice that had blood in it, but at the moment of receiving the Eucharist the Body is inside Christ's risen Body and not spilled everywhere. That makes sense. However, the Eucharisitc Liturgy still involves the re-presentation of (ie, the union in space and time with) the Sacrifice of the Cross, which certainly was bloody, in addition to the resurrection. How can the whole Liturgy be called unbloody then?
Well, I don't know. And this is what narks me off with scholastic explanations because at the end of the day all they are is speculation. I believe that the bread is transformed into the body of our Lord and that the wine is transformed into the blood of our Lord.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Yes, it is a re-presentation to the Father of the one Sacrifice on the Cross, and that Sacrifice is a
Bloody one, isn't it?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: You say things like "I don't like that language, therefore it doesn't apply to me."
Allow me to try to look at myself through your eyes for a moment. You believe in Transsubstantiation, and like I said I'm ok with that. (BTW The word has 2 consecutive s'es in Portuguese, does it really have only 1 in English?)
I guess yours is something of an all-or-nothing position. Either the bread and wine do get transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus, or they don't. There's no in-between. So, for you it's important to make a distinction between a real Eucharist (where Transsubstantiation happens) and a fake, make-believe one.
That's why you want to put it into a logical-legalistic framework. Because it allows you to decide whether something is a real Eucharist or something fake. And it allows you (or more accurately, your church) to make sure it will be the real thing. I guess it comes down to some kind of control.
Because this logical-legalistic framework is the only lens through which you can see the Eucharist, you regard my remarks in this way as well. You think that I use the same kind of framework, only I use different kinds of proof in my legalistic argument.
I guess you imagine me participating in Holy Supper and afterwards making the argument (in my thoughts, or trying to convince other people): "It was real, because that's what I felt."
The trouble is: when it comes to Holy Supper, I don't think within this framework. That's what makes it difficult for me to follow your language.
I participate in Holy Supper, I think and feel lots of things, maybe I experience something maybe I don't, maybe God does something maybe She doesn't, and afterwards I go back to my pew and quietly thank God. I make no thoughts at all about whether this Holy Supper was real or not, or how I'd go about proving it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess yours is something of an all-or-nothing position. Either the bread and wine do get transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus, or they don't. There's no in-between.
This is called the "law of the excluded middle" and goes back (at least) to Aristotle. It is a prerequisite of consistent reasoning, not a category of religious belief.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: This is called the "law of the excluded middle" and goes back (at least) to Aristotle. It is a prerequisite of consistent reasoning, not a category of religious belief.
I agree, but it has an applicability that's limited. The Law of the excluded middle is very useful and valid for questions that require a yes/no answer. For Zach82 (and many others), the Eucharist implies a yes/no question "Did the bread and wine turn into Jesus' Body and Blood, or not?" So for him, the Law of the excluded middle applies to the Eucharist.
However, the Law of the excluded middle isn't very useful for questions of the form "How was your day today?" Maybe it was good, maybe it was bad, quite probably it was something in the middle.
To me, there isn't a clear yes/no question when I participate in Holy Supper.
You could probably counter by asking me "What you participated in, is that Holy Supper or not?" as a yes/no question.
But my answer would be probably something like:
From the traditional Catholic/Orthodox view, it wasn't Eucharist.
From a practical, programmatical view, it was Holy Supper. After all, we did share bread and wine.
From a Biblical view, well, the Bible doesn't give very clear criteria of what constitutes Holy Supper and what doesn't.
From my personal view it was Holy Supper, because I felt something.
From God's point of view, well, I guess you'd have to ask Her.
And why is the question important again?
--------------------
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
The priority is not in distinguishing the real deal Eucharist- the priority is looking to where God has promised a Eucharist, because the Eucharist is ultimately a work of God and not man. It's not legalism- it's human feeling and reason at the mercy of God rather than God at the mercy of human feeling and reason.
[ 22. May 2013, 00:42: 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
quote:
Zach82: the priority is looking to where God has promised a Eucharist
So, where did He? The word 'Eucharist' isn't in the Bible. We have a story of Jesus doing something before He was taken away, and (asking?/commanding?) us to do de same thing, while not making very clear what 'the same thing' exactly is, nor what the consequences of Eucharist will be.
You may believe that God promised a Eucharist through your Tradition, but I don't recognize that Tradition as a valid argument (although I do respect it). From my point of view, you stumble along just like we do.
quote:
Zach82: God at the mercy of human feeling and reason.
Yes, feeling and reason are important for me during Holy Supper, during other parts of the service, and in my life. I have no problem in admitting that. But how does that leave God at their mercy?
I already said in this thread that God has the final word about what She wants to do or not during Holy Supper, and about whether it is Holy Supper or not. How is this putting Her at my mercy?
--------------------
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
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
I hope the analogy is clear. So I would say that you can be (or indeed become) a Catholic in good standing while having a fairly "fuzzy" idea about the real presence. But you cannot tell the RCC that her doctrinal definitions are insufficient and be a Catholic in good standing. Or more precisely, if you want to put forth such critique as good Catholic then you better be a really good theologian who is thoroughly qualified to operate at that level. Whereas it would be pastorally clumsy (to say the least) for the RCC to force you to declare verbatim allegiance to some precise definition of transubstantiation, when you are doing perfectly fine with your worship of the real presence as you understand it. It's a kind of "live and let live" thing, and in practice there rarely is much necessity to step on each other's toes.
Ok I think this and the "pi" analogy makes sense, thank you, though I must admit that as soon as you start talking about any sort of mathematical proposition, my eyes glaze over!
So I gather from this that a Catholic can say "I get that the church defines the presence of Christ in the Eucharist via transubstantiation, whereas I do believe in a Real Presence but am not so sure that further definition helps me, so I call it Real Presence and leave it at that," and remain in good standing. Church will "live and let live." Good to know.
(Sorry this bit is in bold, I can't work out how to un-bold it despite reading about UBB code etc--so have put it in italics--trying to show it's my reply now, and not a quote. I will get there eventually!)
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
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.
So do I. Well, if we were talking about this in more detail then I would have to qualify that with comments about how the Incarnation (and indeed even the veneration of saints) are rather crucial to this "direct touch" business. But in this context here, my point is that truth and beauty (in the sense of "ratiocination" vs. "direct touch") unite in God. In a somewhat similar way that justice and mercy unite in God. There is a real conflict there, but I believe that this conflict is in us, not in God. So we have to find a compromise, a balance, in our approach. And just as with justice and mercy, I feel that many people make the mistake of going totally one-sided, largely abandoning one for the other in a mistaken attempt to avoid the conflict. I think we have to suffer this conflict if we want to draw near to God, as we try to maintain a healthy balance of mindful faith.
This search for balance--yes, I like the way you have put this here. I suppose our problem, as people of our time, is that "ratiocination" seems hard to us when it involves unprovable concepts like God, Jesus as divine, Jesus in the Eucharist, etc.
Since the acceptance of these concepts is beyond reason--I mean, we can say, I have seen no proof that God doesn't exist, that Jesus did not rise, etc. We can say, it is not impossible that there is an all-powerful God and that the whole Christian story is true. Reason tells me it is possible, in theory. But to accept and believe these things--that's not a question of reason, but of faith.
Ratiocination can only get us so far, and then we can have recourse only to "direct touch" or a LOT of faith, or whatever. Not sure how much balance there is, in the end.
Though the heritage of religious experience that has come down to us through the ages also helps. Others felt this direct touch; the more people that have felt it, the more reason says, Ok, maybe there is something there...
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Stonespring, I really like what you say above about the power the Eucharist has for you, the way the presence of Christ within it gives us something to point to--God is here--as the pagans could do with their statues or temples.
Lots of food for thought here.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Zach82: the priority is looking to where God has promised a Eucharist
So, where did He? The word 'Eucharist' isn't in the Bible.
I haven't checked a concordance, but I'm pretty sure that 'giving thanks' occurs in the Bible many times. Which is what Eucharist means. And if the supreme example of giving thanks isn't by joining in that offering of Christ to the Father, which is what the Lord's Supper/ Mass/ Eucharist is all about, then what is it?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Angloid: I haven't checked a concordance, but I'm pretty sure that 'giving thanks' occurs in the Bible many times. Which is what Eucharist means. And if the supreme example of giving thanks isn't by joining in that offering of Christ to the Father, which is what the Lord's Supper/ Mass/ Eucharist is all about, then what is it?
Of course. I try to give thanks to God lots of times (although admittedly not always often enough). I also do it quite explicitly during Holy Supper.
I think it's great to ritualize giving thanks, and I agree that Holy Supper/Eucharist brings a physical aspect to Jesus' sacrifice that helps us to partake at least a little bit in it.
I do all of these things, and I use emotion and reason in doing so. I really don't see what would be the problem with this. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." In fact, Jesus practically commanded us to use our emotion and reason during Holy Supper. What is "Do this in Remembrance of me" if not a plea to use them?
I really don't see why using emotion and reason to try to get a little bit closer to God would entail subjecting Him to our emotion and reason. Subject Him to do what?
I understand that Zach82 is Orthodox? In all the Orthodox services I had the privilege to visit, my impression is that there was lots of room for emotion and reason.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I understand that Zach82 is Orthodox?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Oops I'm sorry, I should have visited his profile before asking. But don't Episcopal services leave room for emotion and reason also?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Oops I'm sorry, I should have visited his profile before asking. But don't Episcopal services leave room for emotion and reason also?
So does the theology I've pedaled here- quite explicitly. What it won't do is make anything but the Scriptures the arbiter of the Christian Faith.
It's quite the occasion of despair that the mere attempt to speak coherently about Christian doctrine merits not-infrequent comments that I am a Roman Catholic or Orthodox. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: What it won't do is make anything but the Scriptures the arbiter of the Christian Faith.
I'm not into Sola Scriptura, so obviously I get my inspiration from the Bible and from other sources. (I wouldn't use the legalistic term 'arbiter' myself.)
quote:
Zach82: It's quite the occasion of despair that the mere attempt to speak coherently about Christian doctrine merits not-infrequent comments that I am a Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
I feel for you, and I apologize again.
--------------------
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
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's quite the occasion of despair that the mere attempt to speak coherently about Christian doctrine merits not-infrequent comments that I am a Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
Your Presiding Bishop's latest faux pas doesn't help your cause.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's quite the occasion of despair that the mere attempt to speak coherently about Christian doctrine merits not-infrequent comments that I am a Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
Your Presiding Bishop's latest faux pas doesn't help your cause.
CL, have you ever just sat down and wondered why you have to go out of your way to say vicious things about the Episcopal Church, which for all intents and purposes it a small, insignificant sect, so often? What do 2 million people in a country on the other side of the planet from you have to do with anything in your life? Did an Episcopal bishop run over your dog in his car or something?
[ 22. May 2013, 17:34: 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
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's quite the occasion of despair that the mere attempt to speak coherently about Christian doctrine merits not-infrequent comments that I am a Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
Your Presiding Bishop's latest faux pas doesn't help your cause.
CL, have you ever just sat down and wondered why you have to go out of your way to say vicious things about the Episcopal Church, which for all intents and purposes it a small, insignificant sect, so often? What do million people in a country on the other side of the planet from you have to do with anything in your life? Did an Episcopal bishop run over your dog in his car or something?
Well , when people happen to think of the Episcopal , besides the traditional image of the Church of old money, they think wacky liberal religion and trendy fads or Jefferts Schori or Spong
It isn't fair to the ordinary Episcopalian in the pews. Rather like Bennites in the Labour didn't represent traditional Labour voters
[ 23. May 2013, 01:04: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's quite the occasion of despair that the mere attempt to speak coherently about Christian doctrine merits not-infrequent comments that I am a Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
Buck m'boy. During my time at my modest little Roman Catholic Schoolhouse, I was frequently accused of holding the most orthodox views among all the GLRCs in my classes.
Double that during my adventures in the wilds of CPE.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
