Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
This is all very interesting, if a bit short on brotherly and sisterly love, but what has it got to do with saints-designate John Paul II and John XXIII?

Incidentally, if you are pope and canonised, are you known as Sts John Paul and John, or Sts Karol Wojtyła and Angelo Roncalli?

Is there a generation difference about how one sees John Paul II? For a lot of people my age, even non-Catholics like me, he epitomises resistance to the totalitarian dead hand of Marxist-Leninism, a totemic figure in the political redemption of Eastern Europe. A certain amount of traditional rigidity is merely an unfortunate but probably necessary bi-product of that. Many people younger than me seem to have forgotten or not to have appreciated quite how dreadful cold war Mitteleuropa was, how big and unbelievable a tectonic shift it was when the plates moved. Against that, assessing a pope by reference to his views on one or two DH topics seems a bit trivial. It's as though the cold war has become something romantic, 'spies in the rain'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Personally, I don't understand "I think the Eucharist is important and it feeds me, but I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it." Call it my rotten, Protestant core.

---

I'm sincerely hoping that's not a paraphrase of what I said. If it is, it's a misrepresentation. Please don't do that.

---

Newp, it was IngoB that was talking about invincibly wrong Protestant cores. The sentiment that the internet failed to transmit was "wry" not "accusatory."

The "I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it" was based on your statement "don't spend the whole time trying to intellectually understand it. In fact, I spend a lot of time not doing that."

For the life of me, I can't see the difference. Thinking about something intellectually is precisely the task of discerning what it is and what it does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Not if it is an exercise in intellectualizing We should be worshiping Christ in the Eucharist not writing essays on how Nietzsche would see it [Biased]

---

Worshiping Our Lord in the Eucharist and thinking about the Eucharist are not mutually exclusive. For me anyway.

---

I was hoping you would have the good grace to accept that from my point of view, you have misrepresented me. But apparently not.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Only those Rome-aping Anglicans who ape only up to 1955, or whenever it is.

---

*checks watch* Good Lord, did something happen after 1955?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
This is all very interesting, if a bit short on brotherly and sisterly love, but what has it got to do with saints-designate John Paul II and John XXIII?

Incidentally, if you are pope and canonised, are you known as Sts John Paul and John, or Sts Karol Wojtyła and Angelo Roncalli?

Is there a generation difference about how one sees John Paul II? For a lot of people my age, even non-Catholics like me, he epitomises resistance to the totalitarian dead hand of Marxist-Leninism, a totemic figure in the political redemption of Eastern Europe. A certain amount of traditional rigidity is merely an unfortunate but probably necessary bi-product of that. Many people younger than me seem to have forgotten or not to have appreciated quite how dreadful cold war Mitteleuropa was, how big and unbelievable a tectonic shift it was when the plates moved. Against that, assessing a pope by reference to his views on one or two DH topics seems a bit trivial. It's as though the cold war has become something romantic, 'spies in the rain'.

---

I think that, while his opposition to totalitarianism in Europe was laudable, his condoning of injustice in Latin America (largely because the rulers were right wing and the opposition left wing) was far less so. To me, and to many others, he appeared to be blinkered into thinking that anything opposed to socialism was automatically good, and anything related to socialism was automatically bad. That may not be an accurate picture of his views, but that's how it appeared.

As to your middle paragraph, surely St. Peter is the model here? He's not St. Simon, is he?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
This is all very interesting, if a bit short on brotherly and sisterly love, but what has it got to do with saints-designate John Paul II and John XXIII?

Incidentally, if you are pope and canonised, are you known as Sts John Paul and John, or Sts Karol Wojtyła and Angelo Roncalli?
*snip*

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That's quite a fine line that I wouldnt trust any but the greatest saints not to keep mutually exclusive

---

Why? You've really only repeated the assertion- we can't seek to know and to worship at the same time. I want to know what the Eucharist is precisely because I'm awed by an act of God in my life and in the Church. I want to reach out to it with my mind as well as with my heart and hands.

Maybe you could start by clearly explaining what your problem with being "intellectual" is. For me thinking intellectually means little more than thinking of defintions and arguments in a coherent manner.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That's quite a fine line that I wouldnt trust any but the greatest saints not to keep mutually exclusive

---

Why? You've really only repeated the assertion- we can't seek to know and to worship at the same time. I want to know what the Eucharist is precisely because I'm awed by an act of God in my life and in the Church. I want to reach out to it with my mind as well as with my heart and hands.

Maybe you could start by clearly explaining what your problem with being "intellectual" is. For me thinking intellectually means little more than thinking of defintions and arguments in a coherent manner.

---

The kind of theorizing that academic lectures are the stuff of
As far as the saints , I meant an intellectual of the caliber of Aquinas and perhaps , of Nicholas Cabasilas, who were able to reflect on the Eucharist with the help of Grace
I don't think you , or most of us, are of the quality and balance of an Aquinas to reflect on these matters

---

I still don't feel you've really said what is different about the intellectual mode, because "academic" has many of the same connotations as "intellectual," and why it is so ruinous to piety. What is it, precisely, about the intellectual/academic mode of thinking that we non-saints must avoid?

I can, and have, attended academic lectures on the Eucharist and have written papers about it, but I still managed to tremble in awe at the conclusion of Corpus Christi, when the congregation was blessed with the host. I was so overcome that I covered my face and felt unworthy to look at it. Moments before that I was joyfully singing "At the Lamb's High Feast We Sing" as the Host was paraded up and down Brimmer Street, even though I don't have a personality given to frequent expressions of joy. Are you saying I'm a saint for being able to do both?

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice