Thread: 45% of American Roman Catholics do not know the RCC's teaching on the Real Presence Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025419

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
According to this article, 45% of American RCs are not aware of the church's teaching on the Real Presence. As an outsider, I find this surprising - the Real Presence is accepted by other Christians too, but along with Marian doctrines is seen as a defining characteristic of Catholicism by many. I was also under the impression that children taking their First Communion were taught about the Real Presence. At the same time, I have sometimes been surprised by some Catholics' lack of theological knowledge - one I know had never heard of Our Lady of Walsingham!

Is there a problem with lay theological education/knowledge amongst Roman Catholics, in the US and elsewhere?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I can't speak for today's Catholics (as I am no longer one), but I only know what and how we were taught when growing up in the Church -- by the nuns in Sunday school, that is.

We were taught that the communion elements only have the outward appearance of bread and wine, but that they are truly the Body and Blood of Christ.

We were also taught that saying "My Jesus, mercy" on every step while walking down a staircase would free a poor soul from Purgatory.

It is no wonder that some of us may have ended up slightly confused.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
At the same time, I have sometimes been surprised by some Catholics' lack of theological knowledge - one I know had never heard of Our Lady of Walsingham!

I consider myself to be above average informed about Catholic theology. The one and only reason that I've ever heard of Our Lady of Walsingham is because I frequent SoF. And my knowledge about her can be pretty much summed up as "there is a pilgrimage, this seems to be important in the UK, and both Anglicans and RCs are involved." I see no particular reason for getting more informed either, I have no spiritual interest in this; and I do not think that this reflects negatively on my grasp of Catholic theology or my own Catholic faith in the slightest. Belief in Marian apparitions and devotions to them are strictly optional in the RCC.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Is there a problem with lay theological education/knowledge amongst Roman Catholics, in the US and elsewhere?

Always. But I thought these number were delightful, a reason to celebrate! 46% of RCs both know and believe in a core RC doctrine? That's above my general expectations. And an additional 17% do not know that this is an official doctrine, but yet still believe it? That's brilliant! Yet the best is to come: only 4% know that this is a doctrine but reject it?! That's stellar! You just made my day, seriously. If you had made me guess, I would have put that last number at 25%, minimum.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Honestly, that seems incredible to me. From an outside perspective, the Real Presence seems like a distinctive part of Roman Catholicism, so why are so many Catholics unaware of it? Most Catholics will have gone through First Communion, and I thought children were educated on the Eucharist in preparation for it? Do people really forget what they were taught?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Honestly, that seems incredible to me. From an outside perspective, the Real Presence seems like a distinctive part of Roman Catholicism, so why are so many Catholics unaware of it? Most Catholics will have gone through First Communion, and I thought children were educated on the Eucharist in preparation for it? Do people really forget what they were taught?

Yea, but that rather depends upon who they were catechised by. The Real Presence of our Lord was deliberately down played by certain groups within the RC and if they're the one doing the catechising then that probably accounts for the lack of awareness.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
It is not in the least surprising.Most traditional Christian groups will have large numbers of 'hangers-on'I sometimes wonder why people who are outside of the Catholic Church assume that everyone who identifies as Catholic is a walking Catholic encyclopaedia.

Similarly anyone who is involved in education of children will be well aware that the fact that something which was talked about in the classroom will have been absorbed in the way which the teacher would like it to be.

Here in Scotland we have 22% of the population who claim to be ,at least nominally , a member of the National (Presbyterian)Church of Scotland with many more identifying themselves as 'Protestant'. Few of these people will understand the basic Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity and not too many will worry about this, assuming that they have even heard of the Trinity.Tomorrow is Pentecost or Whitsun,a name which is unknown to most Scots.It is a major Christian festival certainly for the Catholic church,but even for most of the Catholic population of Scotland it will be just a name that the priest uses.
It is to the credit of many of the traditional Christian communities that they manage in some way to retain some sort of allegiance from wide sections of the population.50 years ago the teachings of the Catholic church were very black and white and were indeed drummed in,as indeed was the way with other lessons.Since Vatican 2 the teachings of the Church are much more many shades of grey and are no longer 'drummed in' as indeed the case with most other lessons in school.
However a lack of knowledge does not mean that one refuses to identify with the community which is in some way part of one's family and culture.
On another thread there has been talk of the RC family idea.. A feature of the English speaking world is that most Catholics form communities which are somewhat apart from the wider community which increases that family loyalty which one doesn't so easily find in countries where the dominant religious expression is that of the RC church.People can more easily identify with the family than with individual doctrines which are philosophically beyond the understanding of many people.
I can't speak for Baptists,for example,but I imagine that many people who are Baptists have chosen this way and are aware of the teachings of the church in the way that many adherents of large traditional churches are not.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Sorry I didn't express myself properly about teaching in schools.I should have said that anyone who has been involved in teaching will be aware that not all learners will have absorbed the teaching of the lesson in the way that the teacher might have liked.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
According to this article, 45% of American RCs are not aware of the church's teaching on the Real Presence. As an outsider, I find this surprising - the Real Presence is accepted by other Christians too, but along with Marian doctrines is seen as a defining characteristic of Catholicism by many. I was also under the impression that children taking their First Communion were taught about the Real Presence. At the same time, I have sometimes been surprised by some Catholics' lack of theological knowledge - one I know had never heard of Our Lady of Walsingham!

Is there a problem with lay theological education/knowledge amongst Roman Catholics, in the US and elsewhere?

You shouldn't be surprised. Basic catechetical instruction has collapsed since Vatican II. As John Chrysostom said "The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path."
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...46% of RCs both know and believe in a core RC doctrine? That's above my general expectations. And an additional 17% do not know that this is an official doctrine, but yet still believe it?...

No, it's 63% say they believe it, when asked by a well-respected Roman Catholic research organization. Hmm...
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I saw another survey, though damned if I can find it again, that found that Catholics who actually go to church have a much, much better record of believing Catholic dogmas. Which shouldn't be terribly surprising.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...46% of RCs both know and believe in a core RC doctrine? That's above my general expectations. And an additional 17% do not know that this is an official doctrine, but yet still believe it?...

No, it's 63% say they believe it, when asked by a well-respected Roman Catholic research organization. Hmm...
[Confused]
46 + 17 = 63, as per IngoB's breakdown. And the figures are broadly consistent with an earlier poll by the Pew Survey.

From the 1964 Research Blog
quote:
...this study uses the same methods of CARA Catholic Polls, e.g., anonymity, self-administered response without an interviewer, which limit social desirability bias
What do you suspect may be wrong with these figures?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
According to recent polls, 75% of Russians consider themselves Orthodox, yet 40% say they don't believe in God, and only 10% darken the door of a church with any frequency. I suspect that most religious groups have their fair share of ignoranti, and the Catholics and Orthodox have them in abundance, due to the corporate nature of their understanding of the faith.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
No doubt, MT. As it's the Orthodox church which they never visit, they call themselves Orthodox. (We have the same problem).
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
There's also the cultural aspect: reacting to 70 years of enforced atheism, we're going to be Christians, goddam it, and the kind of Christians Russians have always been is Orthodox, ferchrissakes.

There are so-called Russian Orthodox who are having icons made of Stalin and Ivan the Terrible. I'm thinking they just. don't. get. it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As an outsider, I find this surprising - the Real Presence is accepted by other Christians too,

I think you'd find belief and/or the ability to articulate any Presence type of doctrine equally in decline in those Christian groups who teach such things.

The general issue is the lack of catechism - which makes some types of Presence doctrine more unstable in the face of modernity than others.

I'd be surprised if even 45% of the Reformed subscribe to Calvin's Spiritual Presence, or could even articulate it properly.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And my knowledge about [OLoW] can be pretty much summed up as "there is a pilgrimage, this seems to be important in the UK, and both Anglicans and RCs are involved." I see no particular reason for getting more informed either, I have no spiritual interest in this; and I do not think that this reflects negatively on my grasp of Catholic theology or my own Catholic faith in the slightest.

And, to the Orthodox.

One can't possibly keep track of all our Lady's titles. Perhaps that is why the stonking big bronze doors on the new cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, California, has a big long list of titles so the diocese doesn't forget one of them.

England is such a teeny tiny little place.

Which is why were you not have heard of, say, Our Lady of Guadeloupe, or of the Snows, or of Loreto, or of Lourdes, or of Carmel, or of Solitude, or the Black Madonna of Częstochowa, then I would be concerned.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
CL alleges:
As John Chrysostom said "The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path."

This doesn't sound very Orthodox to me. Could you favor us with a cite?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
CL alleges:
As John Chrysostom said "The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path."

This doesn't sound very Orthodox to me. Could you favor us with a cite?
There is no cite because Chrysostom never said it. It's one of those "everybody knows" urban legends, and may (or may not) be traceable to John Wesley. Here's Sandopoulos's take on it.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
[Confused]
46 + 17 = 63, as per IngoB's breakdown.

The figure of 63% is for those people who say they believe in the doctrine. I suspect it is higher than those who actually, privately, believe it. The blog post quoted by the OP fails to make the distinction. 63% just intuitively seems to be rather high for a doctrine such as transubstantiation.

quote:
And the figures are broadly consistent with an earlier poll by the Pew Survey.
The Pew Forum. The survey cited asks about religious knowledge, not about belief.

quote:
From the 1964 Research Blog
quote:
...this study uses the same methods of CARA Catholic Polls, e.g., anonymity, self-administered response without an interviewer, which limit social desirability bias
What do you suspect may be wrong with these figures?
I still suspect that people are saying what they think they ought to - I would have greater confidence in a survey from an independent body.

[ 18. May 2013, 17:22: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I'm sure it's very important in the Roman Catholic Church that as many Catholics as possible are thoroughly educated in the doctrinal forms of their faith. But I don't think there's anything particularly surprizing or worrying about those who may consider themselves still Catholic but not necessarily word-perfect on dogmatic apologia.

It's probably more important that Catholics feel free and able to receive Christ in the sacrament - however they intellecutalize it in their heads - than that they are able to give a textbook appreciation of doctrine.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
"Real Presence" seems to me to be often used for "non-memorialist". If this is the case it covers not just consubstantiation but also John Calvin's own stance.

Jengie
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 
Transubstantiation (or the Real Absence as I prefer to call it) has not been emphasized in RC catechesis for some time I gather. They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
I certainly learned about transubstantiation at my convent school during my Catholic upbringing, and indeed was given the impression that only Catholics had any sort of Real Presence doctrine. Only much later did I learn that other denominations believe in or have room for belief in a Real Presence but they just don't pin down the "how" of it as the RCC does with transubstantiation.

I must say I was very surprised when later I joined the Episcopalians to find many other ex-Catholics who had no idea of the doctrinal differences between the church they'd grown up in and the church they'd now chosen. They just liked the "feel" of the Episcopalian church better.

I couldn't understand this at all. But maybe some people just aren't that interested in doctrine. Or, it's a difference between being brought up Catholic in England, and growing up culturally Catholic in an Italian, or whatever, family in the USA....?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Having just read a book on Calvin's Eucharistic theology, I was quite surprised to find how strongly he emphasized Real Presence. While he started from the idea that the physical body of Jesus was in heaven, and therefore could not be locally present in the Eucharistic bread, he strongly emphasized that by the power of the Holy Ghost, taking and eating the bread was taking and eating the saving body of Jesus. This is much closer to St. Thomas Aquinas than arguments between Catholics and Reformed Christians today would seem to indicate!

It was Zwingli that was the pure memorialist.
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
.......... At the same time, I have sometimes been surprised by some Catholics' lack of theological knowledge...........................
Is there a problem with lay theological education/knowledge amongst Roman Catholics, in the US and elsewhere?

you mean things like the difference between "Real Presence" for which there are a number of historical (even within Catholicism) and contempory denominational definitions and "Transubstantiation" which is tightly defined in Catholic theology?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.

This is because he did. The sense of identity post Henry changed.
Humanity is roughly analogous; form a genetic standpoint, we are all African. From an identity standpoint, we are different.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.

This is because he did. The sense of identity post Henry changed.
Humanity is roughly analogous; form a genetic standpoint, we are all African. From an identity standpoint, we are different.

Initiating a shift of identity is not the same as founding a Church. If we aren't founded by Jesus, Anglicanism might as well close up shop.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Tendentiously posted by Indifferently:
They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.

Are you reflexively waving your party banner; or, have you some evidence for this?
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I must say I was very surprised when later I joined the Episcopalians to find many other ex-Catholics who had no idea of the doctrinal differences between the church they'd grown up in and the church they'd now chosen. They just liked the "feel" of the Episcopalian church better.

I couldn't understand this at all. But maybe some people just aren't that interested in doctrine. Or, it's a difference between being brought up Catholic in England, and growing up culturally Catholic in an Italian, or whatever, family in the USA....?

Then again, the Episcopal Church leaves a lot of room - there's not much that a faithful Catholic would believe that you couldn't also believe in the Episcopal Church; the only one I can think of would be the way the RCC conceives of the papacy. Even so, I've met people in the Episcopal Church who identify as Roman Catholic but for some reason or other participate fully in the life of an Episcopal parish (often they're married to a Presbyterian or something, or they're gay, etc.). As far as TEC is concerned, knock yourself out - we encourage freedom of conscience. We uphold the creeds, but expect that people will be at different places re: what they can or can't assent to.

Some of this is actually true of the Catholic Church as well. In both churches, you belong first, and grow in your belief as you learn to trust Christ and to trust the teachings of the Church. That's my impression, anyway. So I'm kinda with Ingo on this one - although I would actually like to see higher numbers, myself.

I wonder, though (the article didn't explain this) - would any of the people surveyed hear any difference between "Real Presence" and "transubstantiation"? And would there be Catholics who believe in Real Presence but not buy, or just not care about, transubstantiation as the "how"?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
They still thoroughly teach the children that Henry VIII "founded" the Church of England though.

This is because he did. The sense of identity post Henry changed.
Humanity is roughly analogous; form a genetic standpoint, we are all African. From an identity standpoint, we are different.

Initiating a shift of identity is not the same as founding a Church. If we aren't founded by Jesus, Anglicanism might as well close up shop.
All Christianity would be founded by Jesus. The offshoots, the variations, have a point of divergence. CofE's is Henry.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I certainly learned about transubstantiation at my convent school during my Catholic upbringing, and indeed was given the impression that only Catholics had any sort of Real Presence doctrine. Only much later did I learn that other denominations believe in or have room for belief in a Real Presence but they just don't pin down the "how" of it as the RCC does with transubstantiation.

I must say I was very surprised when later I joined the Episcopalians to find many other ex-Catholics who had no idea of the doctrinal differences between the church they'd grown up in and the church they'd now chosen. They just liked the "feel" of the Episcopalian church better.

I couldn't understand this at all. But maybe some people just aren't that interested in doctrine. Or, it's a difference between being brought up Catholic in England, and growing up culturally Catholic in an Italian, or whatever, family in the USA....?

I think it's a personality thing, some people just aren't that interested in the doctrine of the thing they believe in - how weird, I don't understand it either [Biased] I've encountered it in many different denominations.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
In my case, maybe I prefer not to understand some things too well. I believe that something is happpening during Holy Supper, but maybe I prefer to keep it a Mystery.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Oh I am the same, I just mean that I wouldn't be part of an organisation without knowing what that organisation believed. The same with religion.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I find that attitude pretty perplexing. It's like a man looking in his lover's eyes and proclaiming "My darling, I love you, but I prefer to not know you very well. I want to keep you a mystery!"
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Zach82: I find that attitude pretty perplexing. It's like a man looking in his lover's eyes and proclaiming "My darling, I love you, but I prefer to not know you very well. I want to keep you a mystery!"
It's more like "My darling, I love you, but I prefer not to have a too detailed scientific explanation of our love. I want to keep it partly a mystery!"
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
There are some things about a person you'll never really know, which will always remain something of a mystery. If that's not okay with you, you probably aren't called to long-term relationships.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Obviously the Christian Faith and relationships will have mystery- my point being that no one who really loves someone says "I really don't want to know you." Just because something is a mystery doesn't mean there is nothing to know, and to love someone, or the Christian faith, is to delight in knowing.

[ 20. May 2013, 01:17: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Obviously the Christian Faith and relationships will have mystery- my point being that no one who really loves someone says "I really don't want to know you." Just because something is a mystery doesn't mean there is nothing to know, and to love someone, or the Christian faith, is to delight in knowing.

I delight in the person. Not in propositions about them.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Of course I want to know a lot about someone I have a relationship with. But I wouldn't want to catch her in a set of prescriptions, laws and formulas. There should always remain a bit of a Mystery about her. That's what makes her interesting.

To me, the same thing is true about the Holy Supper.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Obviously the Christian Faith and relationships will have mystery- my point being that no one who really loves someone says "I really don't want to know you." Just because something is a mystery doesn't mean there is nothing to know, and to love someone, or the Christian faith, is to delight in knowing.

I delight in the person. Not in propositions about them.
I hate to make this personal, but this seems obviously false when I ponder my relationships. I love the movies my fiancee likes to watch and the color of her hair. I love lots of propositions about my fiancee, and it's because I love her that they are important to me. It's the people I don't love that I have little interest in.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I want to keep a bit of mystery about X ≠ I don't want to know anything about X.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I want to keep a bit of mystery about X ≠ I don't want to know anything about X.

By all means clarify the difference. Your post there sure makes it sound like you prefer not to know.

[ 20. May 2013, 01:52: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.

Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.

I'm not aware that anybody has ever attempted to explain how transubstantiation works. (If we do not count "God does it" as explanation...)

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.

Well, I'm happy that you are happy. However, if you do not care "whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else", then you do not really know what "bread and wine are God" means. Such knowledge may not affect the practice of your faith, but then again it might.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.

Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.

Might I presume that this follows from the "Anglican party line?" In which case, just because Anglicanism sets the minimum standard of belief to count as an Anglican there doesn't mean we have to stop there. When you say you don't particularly care, it makes it seem that you think it theoretically possible to go further, but you refuse out of sheer apathy.

This touches on the attitude I find so perplexing. How can you possibly not care? I strive to work past the minimum standard of belief for Anglicans, to get closer and closer to the ultimate mystery at the center of this miracle, precisely because I am struck with awe at the mighty work of God in the life of a sinner. I think this work is so marvelous that I want to know as much as possible about it.

[ 20. May 2013, 03:11: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.

Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.

Might I presume that this follows from the "Anglican party line?" In which case, just because Anglicanism sets the minimum standard of belief to count as an Anglican there doesn't mean we have to stop there. When you say you don't particularly care, it makes it seem that you think it theoretically possible to go further, but you refuse out of sheer apathy.

This touches on the attitude I find so perplexing. How can you possibly not care? I strive to work past the minimum standard of belief for Anglicans, to get closer and closer to the ultimate mystery at the center of this miracle, precisely because I am struck with awe at the mighty work of God in the life of a sinner. I think this work is so marvelous that I want to know as much as possible about it.

Horses for courses, I guess. I know plenty of Anglicans who choose to go further and I know I don't have to leave it there, but I just choose to. I have no interest in working it out when it wouldn't make a difference to my faith or change how I take Communion. I enjoy the mystery of not knowing.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IngoB, I have no objection to transubstantiation but I have an objection to trying to explain *how* transubstantiation works.

I'm not aware that anybody has ever attempted to explain how transubstantiation works. (If we do not count "God does it" as explanation...)

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Personally speaking I believe in the Real Presence and that's as far as I'm willing to go - whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else, I don't know and I don't particularly care. The bread and wine are God, and I am happy to leave it there.

Well, I'm happy that you are happy. However, if you do not care "whether it's consubstantiation or transubstantiation or something else", then you do not really know what "bread and wine are God" means. Such knowledge may not affect the practice of your faith, but then again it might.

Well, for me, it is just that - the bread and wine are God to me. Whether that is literally true or not does not matter to me. It's just like the creation story - whether or not Adam and Eve were actual people doesn't matter to me, knowing that God created His people is enough.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
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 ?
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
"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 ]
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...Jehovah is the only God...

Who is this Jehovah of whom you speak?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
'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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
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]

But it was such a good stick, I couldn't resist using it again! [Angel]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I understand that Zach82 is Orthodox?

[Killing me]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Oops I'm sorry, I should have visited his profile before asking. But don't Episcopal services leave room for emotion and reason also?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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. [Frown]
I feel for you, and I apologize again.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
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. [Frown]

Your Presiding Bishop's latest faux pas doesn't help your cause.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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. [Frown]

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 ]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
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. [Frown]

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 ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
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.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0