news@gatech.edu (Network News) (11/24/89)
In an earlier article, OFM (Our Fearless/Fair Moderator) remarked that
transubstantiation is a result of an overly literal reading of Christ's words.
I didn't copy the message, but I think that's the gist of what he said. At any
rate, I was somewhat surprised, since the Protestant interpretation of
Scriptures has always struck me as tending towards the extremely literal. The
Protestant view that the Eucharist only "represents" the Body of Christ seems
to me to be a far too interpretive stance. I might not be putting this well:
What I mean is, Protestants have interpreted the Scripture to mean that the
Eucharist only represents the Body of Christ, whereas Catholics tend to just
read the words directly and not worry about interpreting it (i.e., This is my
body, which is given up for you; instead of, This bread represents my body,
which is given up for you.) Now, Catholic theologians have written great
treatises on the nature of transubstantiation, but it seems to me that all
those great expositions are merely one of many ways in which theologians have
tried to interpret the real presence of God, in any form, anywhere in the
universe. If God is everywhere, is God the ether, or is God in the ether? The
ether having since been disproven, we seek elsewhere. Among those scientists
who don't believe there is a God, most of them (who've given it any serious
thought) are agnostic based on the scientific method; in other words, to be an
atheist requires an act of faith most of them are not willing to make.
The question, for me, boils down to a simple one: Is God real or isn't He?
If I am coming down too hard on Protestants, I beg forgiveness, for it may be
that I simply don't understand their position, though I'm attempting to do so.
I'd appreciate any enlightenment. Protestants tend to place great emphasis, as
do Catholics, on the great power of God; however, Protestants tend to give it
merely lip service. God can do anything but only anything within the narrow
range that they decide God is capable of doing/ought to do. In other words,
God can do anything, but he doesn't/can't change water into wine, wine into the
blood of Christ, or bread into the Body of Christ. Incidentally, I've read
that Body of Christ is extremely poor translation of the Greek. "Body" should
be translated, from what I've read, the whole person; as I mentioned above, the
birth, life, teachings, suffering, death, resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth;
more than just the physical flesh, in other words. It's almost a pity, I
think, that "Body of Christ" has become so much a part of our language; I think
it would be more apropos if the priest said, "This is the whole Person of Jesus
Christ" or "This is the Person of God." Without being superstitious,
Protestants tend to believe in the power of God in the abstract, whereas
Catholics tend to believe in the power of God in the concrete, and cite
numerous examples of miracles to prove the point. Catholics and Protestants
are often alike, however, in that both are much more willing to believe in
miracles as long as they happened over 100 years ago. Protestants are more
willing to believe in miracles as long as the event is interpreted by them to
have been the direct intervention of God; if God directly intervenes in human
affairs through a saint, well, that falls outside the narrow range of the
"Power of God." It's okay if God uses angels; it isn't okay if God uses
saints.
On the other hand, it could be that this is more a reflection of my own
personal beliefs as opposed to the beliefs of most people, Catholic,
Protestant, or otherwise. If I've offended anyone by my window, I'd like to
apologize right away. I'm looking through the Protestant window from the
outside looking in. I'm very interested in hearing/seeing the Protestant
viewpoint from the inside looking out.
I've read, by the way, that Martin Luther disliked the Letter of James since
it refers to works and grace in terms of salvation. I heard he refused to
translate it, but I'm not sure about that. Martin Luther was a good Roman
Catholic priest/monk until the day he died. On his deathbed, he said he
sincerely regretted having been the cause of the separatist movement, having
only wanted reform within the holy Catholic Church. He's probably one of the
most misunderstood figures in history. He was a great thinker. I can pay a
higher compliment to no one than to say he thought about what he believed. If
nothing else, he was an Athenian, not a Visigoth. He left the world a better
place; would that all of us left such a legacy.
I'm being verbose again; many sincere apologies.
Sincerely, These are my soul opinions, heartfelt and
passionately expressed; they are my own
SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER opinions -- oy vey! They are mine.
[The traditional Protestant view on Scripture tends to be literal in
some senses. That is, we don't go in for allegorical interpretations.
However we still understand that the writers use metaphors and images.
I don't think there's any systematic difference between modern
Protestant and Catholic interpreters as to how "literal" they are,
though I agree that in the past there may have been some. It is hard
to come up with precise rules for deciding when something is meant
literally and when it's a metaphor. That is something
natural-language work has found a bit complex to deal with. Without
giving a complete algorithm for language understanding, we may never
be able to be really objective about it. Certainly a typical cue for
metaphor is that the literal meaning is impossible. But when dealing
with Christ that becomes complex. I don't think you'll find a
difference in appreciation of the power of God between Protestants and
Catholics. I believe God could change bread into Christ's body if he
wanted to. But either I have to believe that Christ intended his
language to be understood in the usual way, or how can I judge his
meaning at all? "I am the door for the sheep" or "you are the rock"
could, I suppose, be taken literally, since God could no doubt find a
way to make them literally true... At any rate, the issue with
Protestants is not that we think God is unable to do
transsubstantiation if he wants to, but that we think the most natural
reading of the words of institution is the metaphorical reading. By
the way, many (most?) Protestants do think Christ is present in
communion. They simply don't believe his presence involves a change
in the elements. If you think of transsubstantiation as saying that
God is present in the elements the same way he is present anywhere,
then I doubt that Protestants would disagree with you. But I'm pretty
sure the Catholic doctrine means to say something more specific. In
fact you could push things a bit further than you do and still be
consistent with ideas many Protestants would accept. I think many of
us believe that Christ is present in communion in a more specific
sense than he is present everywhere and all the time. We simply don't
see his presence as involving a metaphysical change in the elements.
--clh]conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (11/25/89)
Somedays, I can't resist putting my two cents in...please take the following lightly. In article <Nov.23.23.14.00.1989.27545@athos.rutgers.edu> nanovx!news@gatech.edu (Network News) writes: > Martin Luther was a good Roman >Catholic priest/monk until the day he died. On his deathbed, he said he >sincerely regretted having been the cause of the separatist movement, having >only wanted reform within the holy Catholic Church. He's probably one of the >most misunderstood figures in history. He was a great thinker. I can pay a >higher compliment to no one than to say he thought about what he believed. If >nothing else, he was an Athenian, not a Visigoth. He left the world a better >place; would that all of us left such a legacy. There is no denying the tremendous role of Martin Luther--he was, without a doubt, one of the greatest theologians of the 16th century. But he evolved during his long career. He started out as a reformer from within--he ended his life in defiant opposition to Rome, the Papacy, and all that it stood for. (As for remaining a good monk, you should perpaps ask his wife about that :-) ) Catholic thinking about Martin Luther has changed greatly since the Reformation. Erasmus said of him: "Luther thinks he is in the Bosom of Christ, where in fact he is in the anus of Satan". (Quoted from memory-- corrections appreciated.) But while most Catholics no longer hold such an extreme view, rumors of his canonization are greatly exaggerated :-). Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
jhpb@lancia.garage.att.com (11/29/89)
In an earlier article, OFM (Our Fearless/Fair Moderator) remarked that
transubstantiation is a result of an overly literal reading of Christ's words.
I didn't copy the message, but I think that's the gist of what he said. At any
rate, I was somewhat surprised, since the Protestant interpretation of
Scriptures has always struck me as tending towards the extremely literal. The
Protestant view that the Eucharist only "represents" the Body of Christ seems
to me to be a far too interpretive stance. I might not be putting this well:
I think there may be a slight misconception underlying this. Catholic
doctrine is not derived totally from a reading of Sacred Scripture.
Transubstantiation wasn't adopted as the Catholic explanation of the
Real Presence solely as a result of reading Scripture.
Catholic theology has two sources, Scripture and Tradition.
The Tradition part is there because the Church is infallible and guided
by the Holy Ghost. She always preserves the truths of Divine Revelation,
even though these truths may be more implicit that explicit at a given
time in history.
Transubstantiation is an "Aha!" in the history of the Church. It's the
result of the Church's reflections on the Real Presence. In earlier
periods in history, the Church's beliefs on the subject of the Real
Presence were somewhat simpler; there were no doctrinal definitions from
a general council.
A period was reached when the Church began to ask itself: exactly how,
in detail, might the Real Presence be explained, philosophically.
The process is rather like a human being trying to explain all his
deepest inner thoughts and feelings about things, the things that really
make you you. If someone asked you to explain it all, it would take
some time to put it all in concrete. There would be a searching for
words, an examination of things that have never really been critically
examined.
The Church has a mindset, a way of thinking about things, that is not
always easy to state in precise and clear terms. Sometimes it takes a
few centuries to figure out exactly what the Church does think about
things.
The adoption of transubstantiation was the result of such a process.
Various theories were examined by theoligians, and the answer to most of
them was: "that's not it", "nope, not that either", "no, that's not
quite right." There was always something that didn't quite fit.
Eventually, transubstantiation was expounded, when the philosophy of
Aristotle was re-discovered in Europe. And the Church started to think,
"hey, this fits in pretty well with my idea of the Sacrament." And
eventually, there was the "AHA! *That's* it! That sums up my
historical thinking on the matter *exactly*!"
Looking at her history, the way she had always thought of the Blessed
Sacrament, talked about it, and treated it, the Catholic Church came to
the realization around the 11th century that transubstantiation best
expressed her beliefs.
It wasn't the result of abstract reasoning based on Scripture texts.
Joe Buehlerbjstaff@zds-ux.UUCP (Brad Staff) (11/29/89)
In article <Nov.23.23.14.00.1989.27545@athos.rutgers.edu>, nanovx!news@gatech.edu (Network News) writes: [ material deleted ] > Incidentally, I've read >that Body of Christ is extremely poor translation of the Greek. "Body" should >be translated, from what I've read, the whole person; as I mentioned above, the >birth, life, teachings, suffering, death, resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth; >more than just the physical flesh, in other words. It's almost a pity, I >think, that "Body of Christ" has become so much a part of our language; I think >it would be more apropos if the priest said, "This is the whole Person of Jesus >Christ" or "This is the Person of God." [ more material deleted ] I had to check this out. I was able to find four places in the NT where the Lord's Supper is described: Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24. I then went to my Greek/English/NIV interlineal NT and looked at the original language. In each case the word translated "body" was the Greek "soma" (sigma omega mu alpha). From my understanding of Greek (which is less than stellar :-)), English "body" is a very good translation of Greek "soma". Sorry. Brad Staff Zenith Data Systems Systems Software Engineering St. Joseph, MI 49127 616-982-5791 ...!uunet!zds-ux!bjstaff
conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (11/30/89)
In article <Nov.28.23.25.54.1989.24924@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@lancia.garage.att.com writes: > >I think there may be a slight misconception underlying this. Catholic >doctrine is not derived totally from a reading of Sacred Scripture. >Transubstantiation wasn't adopted as the Catholic explanation of the >Real Presence solely as a result of reading Scripture. > >Catholic theology has two sources, Scripture and Tradition. > I think it is better to say that Catholic theology has _one_ source of revelation: God the Father, creator of all things. To separate the sources of revelation into two discrete pieces--Scripture and Tradition-- is a polemical position adopted in the wake of the Reformation. It doesn't do real justice to either revelation or the Church as the guardian of revelation. Though I've only read selections, I believe that _Sources of Revelation_ from Vatican II adopts this stand. Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
cms@dragon.uucp (12/04/89)
On the transubstantiation debate, David Wagner presented a very interesting
Lutheran Church interpretation, to wit: The body and blood and bread and wine
are all present in the Eucharist. As Jesus is fully God and fully Man, it
seems reasonable to presume that the Eucharist is fully bread and fully body,
fully blood and fully wine. Hmm, I may be turning into a Lutheran (gasp).
Sincerely, Lest in moving your wings you should go back while
believing to advance, grace must be obtained by prayer --
SPAWN OF A grace from that one [Mary] who can help you; and may you
JEWISH follow me with your affection, so that your heart will
CARPENTER not be discordant from my words. -- Dante (Paradisio)cms@dragon.uucp (12/04/89)
Christ is really present in the Eucharist; Christ is the Eucharist. I'm of
the opinion that the Eucharist isn't truly the Body of Christ until the moment
it is consumed. I'm probably shying from RCC doctrine here, however, the whole
purpose of the celebration is union with God; unless it is consumed, how can
the Body of Christ, all the people of God of whom Christ is head, be the Body
of Christ? This is why, when there is any Blood of Christ left in the Cup, I
consume it; all the Body of Christ must be eaten; nothing can be left. For
this reason, veneration of the Host is probably theologically in error, but
only in a technical sense. Perhaps it's veneration of what we're about to
become in union with God. That's okay.
On the lighter side....
A young seminarian was taking his Orals. An elderly Father presented him with
a hypothetical: "You're celebrating Mass. You've finished the consecration.
Your hands are raised in prayer. Suddenly, a little mouse scurries across the
Altar, grabs the Host in its mouth, and scurries away. What do you do?" The
young seminarian thought about this for quite a while. Finally, he said:
"Well....I'd burn down the Church and throw the ashes in the sacrarium."
Sincerely, These are my soul opinions, heartfelt and
passionately expressed. These are my own
SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER opinions; oy vey! They are mine.cms@dragon.uucp (12/04/89)
[This continues the discussion of the meaning of "soma" (body) in the
Greek NT. THe original claim was "this is my body" means "this is my
whole person", i.e. that soma had a wider set of meaning than the
English body. Most responses suggest that "body" is in fact a
reasonable translation. --clh]
You sent me to my sources. In my RSV Interlinear, the word does indeed
translate literally "body." My Greek-English lexicon has this to say:
"Soma, n: the physical body of persons, animals, or plants, either dead or
alive -- 'body.' (The use of soma in connection with plants is quite rare in
extrabiblical Greek and perhaps only occurs in 1 Cor 15.37 because of the
analogy between plants and persons in treating the theme of the resurrection
body.) [Examples deleted] In a number of languages a clear distinction must
be made between the body of a living persona and a dead body (or corpse).
Other languages distinguish betweeen the bodies of persons and the bodies of
animals, and frequently the term for a body of a plant is distinct from those
referring to persons or animals. Often a term for body consists of a phrase,
for example, 'flesh and bones,' and in a number of languages a reference to the
body is made primarily by referring to the person himself. For example, in Mt
26.12 ('has poured this ointment on my body') the appropriate equivalent may be
'has poured this ointment on me.' In certain instances 'body' may be rendered
as something which is experienced. For example, in 1 Cor 6.20 'glorify God
through your body' may be rendered as 'glorify God through what you do' or
...do in your body.'
Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words puts it this way:
"Soma is 'the body as a whole, the instrument of life,' whether of man living,
e.g., Matt. 6:22, or dead, Matt. 27:52; or in resurrection, 1 Cor 15:44; or of
beasts, Heb. 13:11, of grain, 1 Cor. 15:37-38; of the heavenly hosts, 1 Cor.
15:40. In Rev. 18:13 it is translated "slaves." In its figurative uses the
essential idea is preserved.
"Sometimes the word stands, by synecdoche, for 'the complete man,' Matt. 5:29;
6:22; Rom 12:1; Jas. 3:6, Rev. 18:13. Sometimes the person is identified with
his or her "body," Acts 9:37; 13:36, and this is so even of the Lord Jesus,
John 19:40 with 42. The "body" is not the man, for he himself can exist apart
from his "body," 2 Cor. 12:2-3. The "body" is an essential part of the man and
therefore the redeemed are not perfected till the resurrection, Heb. 11:40; no
man in his final state will be without his "body," John 5:28-29; Rev. 20:13.
"The word is also used for physical nature, as distinct from pneuma, 'the
spiritual nature,' e.g., 1 Cor. 5:3, and from psuche, 'the soul,' e.g,
1Thess.5:23. Soma, 'body,' and pneuma, 'spirit,' may be separated; pneuma and
psuche, 'soul,' can only be distinguished' (Cremer).
"It is also used metaphorically, of the mystic body of Christ, with reference
to the whole church, e.g., Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:18, 22, 24; also of a local
church, 1 Cor. 12:27."
The word for corpse, incidentally, is "ptoma," litterally, that which is
fallen; a corpse.
I hope this will shed some light on the Eucharist discussion.
Sincerely, These are my own opinions, oy vey! they are mine.
SPAWN OF A Very few people believe in Heaven in quite the same
JEWISH way they believe in Australia.
CARPENTER -- C.S. Lewiscrowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Daniel Crowe) (12/04/89)
>In article <Nov.23.23.14.00.1989.27545@athos.rutgers.edu>, nanovx!news@gatech.edu (Network News) writes: >>I've read that Body of Christ is extremely poor translation of the Greek. >>"Body" should be translated, from what I've read, the whole person; In article <Nov.29.00.39.34.1989.26031@athos.rutgers.edu> bjstaff@zds-ux.UUCP (Brad Staff) writes: >I had to check this out. I was able to find four places in the NT where the >Lord's Supper is described: Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, and >1 Corinthians 11:24. I then went to my Greek/English/NIV interlineal NT >and looked at the original language. In each case the word translated "body" >was the Greek "soma" (sigma omega mu alpha). From my understanding of Greek >(which is less than stellar :-)), English "body" is a very good translation of >Greek "soma". Sorry. I am not certain as to the correct translation of soma, though I tend to agree with Brad. I discovered the following interesting fact during my word study, however: The word "soma" is derived from "sozo" (pronounced "sode'-zo") which means "to save". "Sozo" appears 110 times in the NT. The words translated from "sozo" are capitalized in the examples that follow: "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he WILL SAVE his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21, NIV) "She said to herself, 'If I only touch his cloak, I WILL BE HEALED'" (Matthew 9:21, NIV) "For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I SHALL BE WHOLE" (Matthew 9:21, KJV) I will refrain from deriving any implications as to the significance of the relationship between "soma" and "sozo" since I am but a novice at Greek. Perhaps a Greek scholar might be able to shed some light on this subject (if there is any light to be shed). Your brother in Christ, -- Daniel (God is my judge) | "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to physics graduate student | speak and slow to become angry, for man's City College of New York | anger does not bring about the righteous crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu | life that God desires." (James 1:19-20,NIV)