----- Original Message ----- From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 10:23 PM Subject: Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
> I snipped some stuff. I just want to address some of what was in the > post. > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:27 PM > > Subject: Archbishop Chaput of Denver > > > > >As Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist is not just a symbol or a > > >sacred meal or an important ritual expressing our community. Rather it is, > > >quite literally, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It's His living > > >presence in our midst. This is what distinguishes the Catholic faith from > > >nearly every Protestant denomination. In fact, it's one of the central > > >Catholic beliefs that the Protestant Reformation eventually "protested." > > > > That's not as obvious as you make out. I've discussed this at length, both > > at the seminary where I was taking classes and with Presbyterian clergy. > > The real difficulty the Protestant church has is with the use of > > Aristotelian philosophy in the description. I asked several times, and was > > told that this formulation is now considered just one of many imperfect > > descriptions of the Eucharist....with the limits of human language > > requiring that any description fall far short of the wonder of the reality. > > > > Here's the difference between the Catholic and Presbyterian views: > > > > Catholic: Communion has the real, non-physical presence of Jesus > > > > Presbyterian: Communion has the real spiritual presence of Jesus. > > > > I really don't think the difference is enough for us to conclude that we > > can turn other's away from Jesus' communion. > > [I'm ignoring the last sentence, but leaving it in.] > > Transubstantiation. > > My understanding, and I'm sure one of you will correct me if I'm wrong, > is that Catholics believe in transubstantiation. (Lutherans, too. At > least, that was the position of Luther....) Many Protestant > denominations do not. Including Presbyterians. At least, that's my > understanding. (I'm a little removed from the Presbyterian heritage my > father grew up with.) The present positions of the denominations is not as clear as it once might have appeared...if it was ever that clear in actuality. Unfortunately for me, only a rather long explanation will have any clarity at all...so here goes. Lets consider a range of statements on the Eucharist. The strongest is that bread and wine are changes into the body and blood of Christ is such a spectacular fashion, that even non-Christian observers cannot help but observe and accept that is what's happening. The weakest that I will consider is that it is merely a symbol. No one actually holds the strongest view. It is clear why people don't..its not what is seen. Some Christians do hold the weakest view: it is symbolic only. I can see that there is a significant difference between this view and the view of the Catholic church. Other Christians, including Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, hold a view that is in between these two. The classic Catholic view of transubstantiation is a view very well grounded in Aristotelian philosophy. While a real discussion of Aristotle would require a L6 post, I can briefly discuss the relevant parts. I hope its enough to give a feel. For Aristotle, everything has both accidental and substantial properties. Take for example, a book. Its weight, color, dimensions are all accidental properties. They can be changed without changing the item from a book to something else. But, if one were to change the substantial property of a book by removing the words, then it becomes something else; say a paperweight. The accidental properties of bread and wine are their color, taste, texture, etc. With transubstantiation, none of these are changed..so there are no changes to the appearance. Its the substance that has changed; so in reality it is now the body and blood of Christ. Luther wasn't thrilled with Aristotelian philosophy; although Plato was fine for him. He liked Augustine, but not Aquinas. (Aquinas was based in Aristotle, and Augustine in Plato). So, he came up with a variation that was not dependant on Aristotle. In looking back on this, one needs to remember that Plato and Aristotle were the great figures of philosophy at that time. Augustine and Aquinas were the great doctors of the Church. Because our worldview is so different, this type of view may seem a bit quaint. But, one should remember, we look at things far differently than the people from 1000 BCE to 1600 CE. Since we do look at things far differently, the Catholic church has reviewed transubstantiation, and has decided that Aristotle is not essential to any basic understanding. Other formulations for a real presence are now acceptable. In light of this, the differences in the views that seemed so clear 500 or so years ago are not that clear any more. There are various descriptions of the real presence of Christ, and an awareness of the inadequacy of human words to express this. Given this, the lines between the various views of the real presence are very blurred. > > If you go through confession and absolution, in your heart, that's what > counts for Communion, isn't it? So, are your sins between you and God > or between you and God and other parties? It is mixed; as others have said. In Christianity, the involvement of the community in confessing sins goes back a long ways. The fact that it is in a gospel indicates that it goes back to the first century. With the reformation, the community has been downplayed. Recently, the idea of just God and me has gained some foothold. One sees a number of non-connectional churches springing up. But, the connectional churches do have some understanding of the involvement of community in reconciliation. > > Finally, I should correct you on my viewpoint. I am a follower of the > > Erasmus path in the reformation, not that of Luther and Calvin. I delight > > in bringing up the Catholic understanding in Reformed settings; talking > > about Luther throwing books out of the bible, for example. :-) > > I have some familiarity with Luther. > > I have some familiarity with Calvin. > > I'm not really familiar with Erasmus. Nutshell description? URL to > something I could read in a reasonable period of time? Book > recommendation which I might get to sometime in the next 10 years? I'll give you what was/is important to me. Erasmus was a humanist scholar who took the middle ground in the reformation. He was offered a red hat (cardinal) and declined it to remain more objective. He pushed scholarship over later tradition in the translation of scripture. He had a strong sense that the church needed to stay together, instead of splitting into, literally, warring factions. He convinced a pope that there was something fundamentally wrong with the financing of the church, but the pope didn't have the courage to take the risk inherent in totally undoing the financial structure of the church. He was regaled by both sides because he was more interested in unity than pointing fingers. >From this came a tradition of thought that produced the Enlightenment. I see myself in the tradition of supporting unity within the church; as well as holding enlightenment thought as my basic philosophy. (If I'm anything I'm a Kantiant; and Kant was the greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment.) Hope this was enough. Dan _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
