X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:04:28 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Real Presence, Trans. versus Con.

john ocallaghan <jocallag@ARTIN.HELIOS.ND.EDU> writes:
>There has been a good deal of talk lately about different statements
>of the mode of divine presence in the Eucharist.  Many have said to
>quibble over such a distinction of transubstantiation versus
>consubstantiation is silly.  After all we all agree on the real presence
>of Christ in the Eucharist.  These other things like "transubstantiation"
>and "consubstantiation" are just meaningless to us, and it is meaningless
>for the Church to teach such meaningless things, and cause division by
>such meaningless.  These terms are part and parcel of outmoded philosophicla
>terminology, that has been rendered meaningless by modern science.  And
>After all we can all agree on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
>I was wondering if there is anyone out there who holds these things, or some
>of them, or none of them that could answer some questions for me:
>Since we all agree that Christ is really present in the Eucharist:

>        1)Why do we all agree on that?

It's the type of Christians we are.

>        2) Could you explain for me what it is we all agree on, that is
>                to say, could you explain for me, without using the
>                term "real" or any of its variants, why we affirm that
>                'Christ is really present in the Eucharist'?


We believed Christ when He said, "This is my body, this is my blood"

>        3) If you have gotten this far.  In what sense is the term
>                'real' being used in such a statement?
>                a) Real as a mathematician, qua mathematician, uses the
>                        term?
>                b) Real as a physicist, qua physicist, uses the term?
>                c) Real as a psychiatrist uses the term?
>                d) Real as the woman on the street, qua woman on the
>                        street, uses the term?  (Think about this one:
>                        if you took someone of the street and showed them
>                        a host you took from your pocket would they say
>                        Christ is really present?)
>                e) As various philosophical schools have used the term,
>                        i.e. Platonic, Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic,
>                        Augustinian, Thomistic, Scotistic, Ockhamist,
>                        Cartesian, Humean, Kantian, Hegelian, Idealist,
>                        Empiricist, Positivist, Logical Positivist, ]
>                        Analytic, Continental, Structuralist,
 Deconstructionist,
>                        Neo-Kantian, Neo-Hegelian, Neo-Thomist,
 Neo-Aristotelian
>                        Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Existentialist, Nihilist?
>                        That is, since most of these schools use the term
>                        "real" within their philosophical systems, but mean
>                        quite different things by it, which one are we all
>                        using when we all agree that Christ is really present?
>                f) If none of the above, could you supply for me the meaningful
>                        sense in which we are using it, that is none of the
>                        above?

John, it is all of the above, each individual has their own impression of
what Christ's presence means to them, each is between them and Christ and
He wouldn't have it any other way.

>        4)Finally, given that the best translations we have today of the
>                old language written down back then say that Christ said
>                "this is my body", "this is my blood", and not "I am really
>                present", why do we agree at all?

I guess I'd have to agree with the posting from Jim on that partial quote
of Bishop Spong's book. As soon as we try to put down in words what we
ourselves feel of our relationship between ourselves and Christ, we're
bound to do the relationship some injustice (in description). Some people
may agree totally with our descriptions, some may not, but whether we
let these differences act as a wedge is not only up to us individually,
but also collectively as a church. - J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU