barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (11/10/89)
I have some observations on doctrine of transubstantiation(catholic eucharist). This is not being posted in the spirit of judgement on those who believe otherwise. I understand a sacrament as some action our Lord commands us to do, or basically implied by His words in obedience to Him. As a charasmatic protestant with no church ties(i have one fish tie:-) just kidding, i read the nt communion of our Lord to be a memmorial and not a continous sacrifice, but i can find backing for this in Hebrews and Romans, if read as a child. The priest is empowered(catholic doctrine) to call down Jesus into the wafer, toenails and all at his consecration(if his intent is correct), right? Now the church(catholic) would say that he can do this everytime and God guarantees it, because He ordained it. God(Jesus) also ordained us to heal the sick (another sacrament) and such. Now, how can the priest presume that Jesus is in the wafer everytime with a guarantee, yet he cannot heal the sick everytime with a guarantee. Remember now, this is the same priest who says he has the power to make the wafer into Jesus. I believe that in the wafer we cannot see Jesus there, but "must take it on faith", but with another sacrament, heal the sick, this cannot be pulled off with the same "take it on faith" assurance precisely because we can see a healing. Could God in His wisdom be showing us (priests, and laity) that no human can guarantee "anything" in the name of God(Jesus), and proves it by "not" healing people at every prayer of a priest or congregation no matter "how" sincere. This to me should humble alot of priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, believers, or what have you, and send up red flags everywhere when someone claims they can control God, or they have some secret power that others do not have, it's a mystery thing. Barry olson
raf@prc.unisys.com (Ralph A. Foy) (11/14/89)
As a quasi-Catholic, I thought I would share some of my understandings on this topic. BIG DISCLAIMER: I do not profess to hava any expertise, and am typing from the top of my head as what I think generally accepted Catholic doctrine states, unless I say otherwise. If anything seems particularly bizzare, don't blame Catholicism immediately--it may just be my ignorace, which can only be blamed on me.. Oh, I can't spell too good eithre. > I understand a sacrament as some action our Lord commands us to do, > or basically implied by His words in obedience to Him. We understand a sacrament to be an act which we recognize Christ's presence in a real, but special way. In a sense every moment should be sacramental, insofar as Christ is always with us; however we recognize seven sacramental rituals which are "formal" celebrations in which the community celebrates as a Church Sacrament. They are: 1. Baptism 2. Confirmation 3. Matrimony 4. Holy Orders 5. Reconciliation 6. Annointing of the Sick 7. Christian Burial > As a charasmatic protestant with no church ties(i have one fish tie:-) > just kidding, i read the nt communion of our Lord to be a memmorial > and not a continous sacrifice, but i can find backing for this in > Hebrews and Romans, if read as a child. Don't have a Bible at my desk (mea culpa), but I think one key scripture in Catholic understanding is the Road to Emmaus story; since the two men were not at the Last Supper, the breaking of the bread just a memorial wouldn't make sense since they weren't there to remember. But there in the breaking of the bread the reality of Christ's presence was found. > The priest is empowered(catholic doctrine) to call down Jesus into the > wafer, toenails and all at his consecration(if his intent is correct), > right? Well, putting a little sarcasm aside for the moment... just to clarify, the issue of intent is there not as a necessary and sufficient clause ("well, Father was thinking about the ballgame while he mumbled the words of institiution, so it doesnt count"--no), but rather a kind of escape clause if something goes wrong... cases when the sacristan accidentally uses a cruet of vinegar instead of wine, even one I heard of where grape juice was used (no-no in Catholic church). Since the intent was there, God isn't limited by the legal technicalities (officially it is "valid, but illicit"--violates the rules, but still valid). > Now the church(catholic) would say that he can do this everytime > and God guarantees it, because He ordained it. > God(Jesus) also ordained us to heal the sick (another sacrament) and > such. > Now, how can the priest presume that Jesus is in the wafer everytime > with a guarantee, yet he cannot heal the sick everytime with a > guarantee. The Sacrament of the Annointing of the Sick is not faith healing. Think of it this way--when we reach out to comfort the sick, we reach out to Christ (whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me). When a person comforts me, he or she helps bring to comfort of Christ (where two or three are gathered in my name, I am in your midst). The Sacrament of Annoint seeks primarily spiritual healing, comfort and peace; yes it prays for physical healing, but asks mostly that we find comfort in the midst of our suffering in Christ. > Remember now, this is the same priest who says he has the > power to make the wafer into Jesus. I believe that in the wafer we > cannot see Jesus there, but "must take it on faith", but with another > sacrament, heal the sick, this cannot be pulled off with the same > "take it on faith" assurance precisely because we can see a healing. see above > Could God in His wisdom be showing us (priests, and laity) that no > human can guarantee "anything" in the name of God(Jesus), and proves > it by "not" healing people at every prayer of a priest or congregation > no matter "how" sincere. This to me should humble alot of priests, > bishops, cardinals, popes, believers, or what have you, and send up > red flags everywhere when someone claims they can control God, or they > have some secret power that others do not have, it's a mystery thing. No one guarantees anything. Christ is made present. The love of God is celebrated. The Spirit is invited to fill our hearts and minds. These rituals are not magic shows, just special celebrations where the community prays. As I said before, we should see every moment as a sacrament, but on those special occasions, birth (and re-birth), maturity, matrimony, illness, death, reconciliation, and consecration to pesbyteral ministry, the Catholic Community gathers together to celebrate God's presence. > Barry olson ralph Foy ----------
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (11/14/89)
In article <Nov.10.02.57.33.1989.12444@athos.rutgers.edu> barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) writes: >I understand a sacrament as some action our Lord commands us to do, >or basically implied by His words in obedience to Him. So far, so good. >The priest is empowered(catholic doctrine) to call down Jesus into the >wafer, toenails and all at his consecration(if his intent is correct), >right? Now the church(catholic) would say that he can do this everytime >and God guarantees it, because He ordained it. Well, the priest doesn't "call down Jesus". The bread and wine are transsubstantiated into Christ's body and blood through the power of the Holy Spirit. Incidentally, Barry's questions could also be asked of Anglicans and Lutherans (OK, no toenails for them--I guess that's where consubstantiation comes in :-).) By the way, Chuck, this gives me an opportunity to clarify my earlier comment: I'm also uneasy with the implication that the "priest" is somehow sacrificing Christ. That's not really correct. Just as Christ, both victim and priest, sacrificed himself on Calvary, the Catholic Church believes that Christ is both victim and priest in the unbloody reenactment of the same sacrifice of Calvary, which is the Mass. The priest offers this unbloody sacrifice in the Eucharist, but only by virtue of his acting through a sacramental identification with Christ, the High Priest. The sacrifice is effected by Christ himself. I hope that gives you a feel for why I didn't like that statement. Anyway, Barry's emphasis is all wrong. This is not a magic act guaranteed by God. To this, Chuck said in a private comment: > I posted this because I thought it raised a real issue, the answer to > which I don't know, namely that of the "automatic" nature of the > sacraments. As I understand it, the Catholic concept of the communion > implies that when the correct liturgical action is performed, Christ > is present, independent of the faith of the priest or people. Of > course that fact won't do anybody any good without faith... (Indeed a > passage in one of Paul's letters implies that it might even do harm.) > This really does look like "magic" to many of us. It seems to me that > this impression of "magic" is common enough that it's worth responding to. OK. I think that your question reflects an unnecessarily mechanistic view of the Eucharist (actually any of the sacraments) which leads one inevitably to ask about absurdly unrealistic situations like this one. Most of the formulations which would lead you into this corner come from the refutation of heresies which would have you believe the opposite. Trent proclaimed that the conferring of grace in a sacrament depends on neither the merit of the minister nor that of the recipient, except in a negative way (through some obstacle.) This was an attempt to make clear that the grace of the sacraments comes from God acting through Christ in his Church, and not through some human force. This, and other proclamations seem to have been effective at dispelling the heresies, but at the expense of some confusion and excessive legalism on the part of all Christians. Let me refer back to the discussions of the sacraments which have appeared before here and in talk.religion.misc. The "faith" of the minister, writ small, is not necessary for a valid Eucharist. For example, he may be subject to the same doubts and crises of faith that we all have. He may be in a state of serious sin. (Please refer to our moderator's illuminating precis on the differences between Protestant and Catholic concepts of sin. In the Catholic view, a priest may be in a _state of sin_ because after sinning he might not yet have received absolution in the sacrament of penance. I've since learned that this Catholic concept of zig-zagging between being justified and not doesn't make too much sense to many Protestants.) These failings in themselves are not impediments to the valid celebration of the Eucharist. However, the minister must voluntarily intend in his actions what the Church intends--namely, he must intend to exercise his function in the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass as the Church understand it, and all that entails. I would interpret your hypothetical example as excluding this common intention. A true apostate would not share the same intention as the Church's, and hence the sacrament would not be valid--in the case of a Eucharist celebrated by such a fallen minister, we can safely say that the transformation of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood would not occur. All sacraments have a sign (the ritual), a reality (the immediate effect of grace), and a lasting effect. If a recipient does not have the proper disposition (i.e., the Tridentine impediment), then the fruitful reception of the sacrament (grace) does not occur. Note that the Church uses the word "disposition", not "faith"--this seems to be a _roomier_ word, encompassing a larger sense and a smaller sense than the word "faith". (Other Church documents point out that the act of celebrating a sacrament (the sign) may in itself prepare one to have the proper disposition.) Thus, a sacrament is not a magic act. A person without faith in the sacrament does not benefit from the graces imparted by the sacrament, since they are implicitly rejected. Now, all sacraments have a lasting effect. The lasting effect of the Eucharist is the ultimate conversion of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. As you see now, in Catholic doctrine, this requires the proper intention of the priest--the "sign" alone is not enough. However, Christ's presence is not dependent on the proper disposition of the congregation. (Remember, too, that the Eucharist can be reserved for later distribution to the sick or infirm.) Does this, in itself, constitute magic? In my view, no more than any act of the Divine. >God(Jesus) also ordained us to heal the sick (another sacrament) and >such. Now, how can the priest presume that Jesus is in the wafer everytime >with a guarantee, yet he cannot heal the sick everytime with a >guarantee. Remember now, this is the same priest who says he has the >power to make the wafer into Jesus. The sacrament called "Anointing of the Sick" (formerly known as Extreme Unction) doesn't necessarily address physical healing, but spiritual healing: the grace of the Holy Spirit imparted by the sacrament endows the recipients with fortitude to avoid temptation, to bear their illness more easily, and to assuage their anxiety about death. Along with that, the sacrament remits sin. According to the Church, if it is in the interest of a recipient's salvation, then even physical healing may follow, but you can see that this is not the main focus of the sacrament. The sacrament is as efficacious as Barry implies, just not in the way he envisions. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
firth@sei.cmu.edu (11/15/89)
In article <Nov.13.11.58.19.1989.5012@athos.rutgers.edu> raf@prc.unisys.com (Ralph A. Foy) writes: > we >recognize seven sacramental rituals which are "formal" celebrations in >which the community celebrates as a Church Sacrament. They are: > > 1. Baptism 2. Confirmation 3. Matrimony > 4. Holy Orders 5. Reconciliation 6. Annointing of the Sick > 7. Christian Burial My prayer book lists these as the Seven Sacraments: Baptism The Supper of the Lord (ie the Mass or Eucharist) Confirmation Penance Orders (ie the Ordering of Priests and Deacons) Matrimony Extreme Unction The Anglican church recognises only the first two as sacraments, as being ordained of Christ himself. [Thanks also to likes@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Kevin T. Likes), who also pointed out the obvious slip in the original list. Some of the differences between the two lists above are due to changes in terminology in the Catholic Church: extreme unction is now referred to as annointing of the sick, and penance is now referred to as reconciliation. However they certainly have not replaced the Mass with Christian burial... --clh]