markc@hpsmtc1.hp.com (Mark Corscadden) (09/18/89)
I need help from someone in this newsgroup. I've become involved in an argument concerning a characterization of Christians that I believe is wrong and objectionable. The "opposition" has claimed that Christian people accept this characterization of themselves and are comfortable with it, but I believe this to be *false*. I need someone who is a practicing Christian with a sophisticated understanding of Christian theology, who would be willing to comment in writing on whether or not they accept this characterization of themselves (see below). Any material would have to be objective and factual in order to be helpful. The characterization was stated in the following words: > Christianity instills "a desire to bite off a piece of human flesh > and drink it down with a gulp of blood". I want to apologize to any readers who finds this to be as offensive as I did, and I can understand completely if many people here feel that it is unworthy of any further comment. However I've been dismayed to see this characterization defended in the strongest words by a number of people, and I think the degree of support for this image of Christian people makes *rebutting* it a worthy thing to do. I'm sorry to have brought this to soc.religion.christian, but I feel strongly about what has been happening. People who would be ashamed to support anti-Semitism seem to feel there is nothing wrong with supporting a position that *I* believe to be no different from anti-Semitism, except for the choice of victim. Thank you in advance for any help you would be kind enough to give me. Mark Corscadden markc@hpda.hp.com (408) 447-5399 [I've certainly never heard an attack like this. Are you sure such a thing is really being said, and that you are not the victim of disinformation? I.e. that someone isn't falsely attributing these statements to some group in order to discredit them. If such a thing were actually said, it would be not just anti-Christian, but specifically anti-Catholic. I presume no one believes that Christians practice cannibalism. If they do, then we have a factual error of a rather simple sort. However I'm going to assume that the statement is referring to Communion. For non-Catholics Christ's presence in Communion is in a mode which I will call "spiritual". That is, the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but Christ is really there in some sense. (The last three words hide a multitude of details. Different groups have different ideas of his exact mode of presence. I don't think it makes sense to include a monograph on eucharistic theology here.) I understand that many Catholic seminaries are also teaching "spiritual presence" these days. However the traditional Catholic doctrine is that the bread and wine truly change into Christ's body and blood, in a sense sufficiently literal that bread and wine are no longer present. Only their appearance is still present. So in Catholic theology it does make sense to say that Christians eat Christ's body, and that Christianity should instill the desire to do so. Of course there's an insulting tone to the statement that would be offensive even if it were completely accurate. (which it is not. The image of "biting off a piece" doesn't make much sense, and under normal circumstances Catholics other than the priest do not drink the wine.) It is possible for a statement to be factually true and yet still be a lie... --clh]
daemon@garage.att.com (Joseph H. Buehler) (09/23/89)
There are two things to keep in mind in the Catholic doctrine on Holy Communion as far as the silly objection mentioned is concerned. One is that both species (bread and wine) contain our Lord entirely, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Communion under either species is the reception of the entire Christ. The other thing to keep in mind is that when the accidents are modified so that they are no longer those of bread or wine, the Real Presence ends. Our Lord is only substantially present for about 15 minutes after Holy Communion. After that, there's nothing but whatever acid turns bread into. (This is presumably why water and wine get poured over the priest's fingers after Communion, during the ablutions. They dissolve any particles that may be on his fingers.) The effects of Communion are spiritual, not material. Holy Communion makes your soul fat. Sacraments are signs that effect the grace that they signify. Baptism uses water because it cleanses a soul from the original sin. Holy Communion uses bread and wine because they symbolize the strength and nourishment that the Sacrament imparts to the *soul*. Not the body!
conan@jell-o.berkeley.edu (09/25/89)
In article <Sep.23.04.13.34.1989.17066@athos.rutgers.edu> daemon@garage.att.com (Joseph H. Buehler) writes: >The other thing to keep in mind is that when the accidents are modified >so that they are no longer those of bread or wine, the Real Presence >ends. Our Lord is only substantially present for about 15 minutes after ^^^^^^^^^^ >Holy Communion. After that, there's nothing but whatever acid turns >bread into. (This is presumably why water and wine get poured over the >priest's fingers after Communion, during the ablutions. They dissolve >any particles that may be on his fingers.) I think a technical correction is in order here. If this is the case, why are consecrated hosts reserved and adored as the body of Christ? This sounds more like a description of Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation than of Catholic Transubstantiation. Yours In Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO [I think he's referring to hosts that are eaten. I'm reasonably sure that Joe accepts the practice of the reserved sacrament. --clh]
jko@hila.hut.fi (Jukka Korpela) (09/29/89)
I'm neither a Christian nor a theologician, but I love to correct misinformation: You said that for non-Catholic Christians Christ's presence in the Communion is "spiritual". It seems to me that, for cultural reasons, you identify "non-Catholic" with "Calvinist" (in the broad sense). In particular, both the Orthodox church and the Lutheran churches explicitly teach that bread and wine in the Communion are Christ's body and blood. (They differ in the question whether this holds true "extra usum", i.e. outside their use in the Communion.) Admittedly many Lutherans are totally unaware of this.
jhpb@lancia.att.com (09/29/89)
David Cruz-Uribe writes:
I think a technical correction is in order here. If this is the case,
why are consecrated hosts reserved and adored as the body of Christ? This
sounds more like a description of Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation than
of Catholic Transubstantiation.
And our moderator comments:
[I think he's referring to hosts that are eaten. I'm reasonably sure
that Joe accepts the practice of the reserved sacrament. --clh]
Moderator is correct. I was referring to Hosts that have been consumed.
The general teaching of Catholic theologians is that the Real Presence
ceases when the accidents are altered enough so that you no longer have
the appearance of bread or wine. Other than that, the Presence is
permanent and unchangeable.
Transubstantiation (by definition) does not alter any of the observable
properties of a host; eventually the accidents will do what is normal
for the accidents of bread -- spoil. So Hosts are not left in a
tabernacle indefinitely.
St. Thomas covers this in the Summa Theologica in the articles on the
Eucharist.
Joe