Those loving and understanding Catholics!

Dissident Heart · Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:25 pm Post subject: Re: Whatever

Quote:
So you're down with the whole McDonalds idea then?

I'm down with feeding folks who are hungry. I am not down with the Corporate Machinery that makes McDonalds possible.

Quote:
You don't believe in transubstantiation and probably have different ideas about the nature of sacraments and grace.

The fight to define the correct way to understand the doctrine of transubstantiation has bloodied Europe near as much as naming Jews 'christ-killers'. If this is a battle you find essential, I'll leave it to you and opt out for a Gospel that no where mentions the term.

As for what it means to me, I think I've made very clear, and I have described a radical transformation that takes place with Table Fellowship Eucharist...the flesh and blood gathering of broken people become life bestowing Christ-filled revolutionaries.

Tortured ideas of self-worth, communal value, political impotence, religious taboo are revaluated into a spirit infused identification with the God of love- and this creates justice seeking peace makers making a way for the Reign of God.

Eucharist is the time to remember this, reconnect to this, share this, and find the power to continue this.

Quote:
So I don't think you really understand the importance of the issue for catholics.

I understand it very well, and I don't agree with it. And I know many Catholics who agree with what I am saying and reject the theological-needle-in haystack-searching that seeks to define the Eucharist through 'transubstantiation' terms. Thus, not all Catholics adopt the interprepration you refer to.

Quote:
But if Jesus didn't really care about re-enactment, why did he bother with the passover in the first place? Why did he replicate the meal once shared by the Jews?

I think Jesus did really care about re-enactment. And I think Ive described what it meant to Jesus for his friends and loved ones to re-enact this Last Supper. I describe a re-enactment that involves the dangerous gathering of those on the losing end of Imperial domination...and feeding them, reminding them of a God that has deafeated Pharaoh, remembering an ancient promise to Abraham that God would not forget this group of occupied People.

What you describe, as important as it may be to some Catholics, isnt really re-enactment...but ecclesiastic magic.

And, "Whatever" usually means, to me, a dismissal and disdain, a flippant rejection. Is that how I am to take this exchange?

Niall001 · Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: Symbolism of the Eucharist

Well, I'm off on holiday for the next while so I won't be in a position to debate. I'll try to get back to this. In the mean time (with the little time I have) I'd ask ask Dissident to think of Aristotle, Augustine and the like rather than resorting to cliched semantic slander.

P.P.S. I used 'whatever' as a subject because I was in something of a hurry.

Let me take this oppertunity to wish all Booktalk members the best in case I don't make it back

P.S. Dissident, do you believe in the Trinity, since you decided to mention ideas that aren't mentioned in the bible.

And like Mr. P said, lets try and keep this civil. It would be unfortunate if this line of debate descended into anything undesirable. Especially when you consider the context.

Edited by: Niall001 at: 8/27/04 7:55 pm

Dissident Heart · Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: Symbolism of the Eucharist

Quote:
rather than resorting to cliched semantic slander

Niall, take your Holiday.

When you return, please clarify where I've engaged in cliched semantic slander.

I would have paired Aristotle with Aquinas and Plato with Augustine...and then perhaps wondered what the two Greeks had to do with a discussion regarding the Eucharist. But you felt compelled to introduce these voices from antiquity...maybe you can also clarify your plans in this case as well.

I dont think your use of 'whatever' was a result of pressing time...I think it was used for the flippant dismissal that I mentioned- and is only confirmed with this most recent post of yours.

As for working to avoid any undesirable trajectory of debate...I think you should consider the number of lives devastated as a result of people demanding that certain ideas regarding the Eucharist be universally accepted.

Your question "Do you believe in the Trinity" is one well worth exploring, but for another thread.

Be well.

Niall001 · Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:17 pm Post subject: Quick hello

I have a few minutes of credit left so I thought I´d pop in.

Dissident, perhaps I´m wrong but I think using loaded a words like ´magic´in a discussion regarding communion is a mistake because the term is loaded.

The greeks were mentioned because of their philosophical views are rather relevant to communion. Ideas regarding substance and accidental properties are rather important. It´s just what came to mind when you started referring to ´magic´.

As far the number of lies hurt by as a result of people demanding that certain ideas regarding the Eucharist be universally accepted, well I´ll just say that it would be foolish to think that people attempting to impose their views on others was somehow exclusively linked to a catholic view of communion.

Regarding whatever, feel free to believe what you want. It doesn´t really make a difference. But I would say that if you read a few of my posts, you´ll find that by subject titles don´t tend to be well thought out or even relevant most of the time. I don´t tend to use subterfuge. I´m the kind of person who´ll tell you that you´re an asshole if I believe it.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Quick hello

Quote:
perhaps I´m wrong but I think using loaded a words like ´magic´in a discussion regarding communion is a mistake because the term is loaded.

The entire discussion regarding communion is loaded- especially as it refers to who defines it and administers it in 'sacred' ways...specificially if differences in opinion can lead to denying a first communion or waging religious war. My use of the term magic is appropriate because I think your understanding of the Eucharist, even if it adheres to the dominant Catholic paradigm, is replacing the real spiritual power of Table Fellowship with the swallowing of wafers that promise eternal life...a type of magical hocus pocus.

Quote:
Ideas regarding substance and accidental properties are rather important.

I agree...and Table Fellowship confronts those accidental properties of class, caste, race, gender, priest, parishoner, even religion with the Child of God substance all humans share.

Thus, for me, the transubstantiation is not a wafer of bread into the body of Christ...but a fragmented person into communion with God. What was an accidental property of oppression becomes a substantial identity with Christ.

Quote:
it would be foolish to think that people attempting to impose their views on others was somehow exclusively linked to a catholic view of communion.

And it would be foolish to think discussing communion can avoid this ugly history of domination and bloodshed. True, Catholics did not invent war over ideas, but they have lent their body and talents to waging such wars, and a great deal of these wars deal specifically with the struggle to define what exactly happens with that wafer of bread and sip of wine.

Tiarella · Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:10 am Post subject: Re: Symbolism of the Eucharist

Backtracking a bit here

Niall

Quote:
But if Jesus didn't really care about re-enactment, why did he bother with the passover in the first place? Why did he replicate the meal once shared by the Jews?

This sentence leaped out at me - I see it did for Dissident, too.

What do you mean? Jesus was a Jew. Of course he celebrated Passover. He wasn't 'replicating a meal' in imitation of Jews, he was celebrating his religion. I'm not following your argument, here.

Paul, not Jesus, founded the Catholic church. One can read the Gospels and conclude that Jesus was trying to reform Judaism, not establish a new religion - but one can't read Paul's letters without realizing that he was determined to start a new religion. Certainly he based the new church on some of Jesus' teachings. He put his own imprint on it, too - need I mention the difference between Jesus' attitude towards women, and Paul's?

Moving towards a lighter tone - if Jesus had been the one running around to all the nascent churches, instead of Paul, then we'd have had women priests and popes from the earliest days, and rice wafers would be perfectly acceptable for communion.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT