Lewis's Views on Baptism
Micah Parrish
I recently recieved a message stating that Lewis "did not think
baptism amounted to much." What have you got to say about this?
Andew Rilstone
practices the baptism of infants. "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"
is dedicated to "Lucy", his god-daughter, which implies that he took the
solemn vows associated with becoming a god-father at an Anglican
Christening ceremony. He took the god-father role seriously; there are a
number of letters giving good Christian advice to another god-daughter
in "Letters to Children".
"I think of myself as having to be two people for you" he writes "(1)
The real, serious Christian godfather (2) The fair godfather. As regards
(2) I enclose a bit of the only kind of magic (a very dull kind) which I
can work..."
The "magic" is, of course, a cheque: he goes on to talk about
Confirmation and Holy Communion. ("I daresay you feel very unfit for
being confirmed...but then an angel would not really be fit and we must
all do the best we can.")
The importance he attaches to Church ceremonies and sacraments may be
seen from "Surprised by Joy", in which he says that he regards having
allowed himself (as a teenager) to be Confirmed into the Church of
England even though he did not at that time believe a word of it, as one
of the worst sins he ever committed.
It is true that he writes relatively little about either Baptism or
Communion in his apologetic works. In "Letters to Malcolm" he addresses
this directly:
"You ask me why I've written anything about the Holy Communion. For the
simple reason that I am not good enough at theology. I have nothing to
offer. Hiding any light I think I've got under a bushel is not my
besetting sin. I am much more prone to prattle on unreasonably. But
there is a point at which even I would keep silent. The trouble is that
people draw conclusions even from silence. Someone said in print the
other day that I seemed to "admit rather than welcome" the sacraments."
(Letter XIX)
The other reason that he does not address the subject, I assume, is the
one referred to in the introduction to "Mere Christianity": that he
wants to keep away from denominationally charged issues. In books
addressed to interested non-Christians, he doesn't want to get involved
in controversies about Total Immersion vs Sprinkling (Believers Baptism
vs Infant Baptism.)
The only direct reference I can think of off hand is in "Mere
Christianity" (section 2 chapter 5) where he says:
"There are three things which spread the Christ life to us: baptism,
belief and that mysterious action which different Christians call by
different names: Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord's Supper..."
It is interesting to me that your informant has criticised Lewis for his
low opinion of baptism; I have come across people who object to the
above passage because it admits baptism and Communion into the equation
at all, and thus violates good Protestant teaching about Faith Alone.
There is an anti-Lewis web-page written by intelligent hyper-Calvinists
who say that Lewis is really just a Sacrementalist, and therefore
(apparently) not a proper Christian at all.
Hope this is some help.
In article <634df5cf.0203...@posting.google.com>, Micah
Parrish <mpar...@email.com> writes
>Dear group,
>
>I recently recieved a message stating that Lewis "did not think
>baptism amounted to much." What have you got to say about this?
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
************************************************************************
'Tis the time's plague when madmen lead the blind
************************************************************************
pui ming Wong
: The only direct reference I can think of off hand is in "Mere
: "There are three things which spread the Christ life to us: baptism,
: belief and that mysterious action which different Christians call by
: different names: Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord's Supper..."
: It is interesting to me that your informant has criticised Lewis for his
: low opinion of baptism; I have come across people who object to the
: above passage because it admits baptism and Communion into the equation
: at all, and thus violates good Protestant teaching about Faith Alone.
Yes, this passage has always given me doubts as to in what context
Lewis was writing about.
When he said "which spread the Christ life to us", what was he
implying.
I suppose he was not saying that thru these "outward" actions are
Christians "saved" ?
Mark W. Lund
Thanks for taking the time to research and write this excellent
summary.
I just wanted to briefly comment that most divisions of Christianity
will have some differences between Mere Christianity and
their own beliefs. The more radical you get (absolutely no
works necessary) the worse this will be. My love of Lewis
is that he lets you take a step back and see the glorious
picture, even if a few passages make you uneasy.
I was surprised at how few made me uneasy, since I am
more than a little dogmatic. However, the last thing I would
do is criticize Lewis for them, since they fairly represent
most Christian thought.
Best regards
mark
Andew Rilstone wrote:
snip
Micah Parrish
Vance Ferrell. He is a Seventh-Day Adventist, but his views by no
means represent typical SDA thinking on the subject. I've pasted it
below for the record.
WHO WAS C. S. LEWIS?
Vance Ferrell
What did he teach? Why are his writings so popular? From time to time,
I receive requests to explain this man, his writings, and his
thinking. There is good reason to provide you with a brief sketch of
C. S. Lewis; for, over half a century, he has been remarkably
influential among Protestants. They want to read his theological
works and novels, and want their children to read his fairy stories.
Born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Clive Stapes Lewis (1898-1963) was
a British author who wrote more than 30 books. Since his death in
1963, sales of his books have risen to 2 million a year. Many
Protestants, especially Evangelicals, consider him the most
influential writer in their lives- yet in a number of ways he was
neither Protestant nor Evangelical.
This brief overview reveals that, although C. S. Lewis was an
extremely powerful writer, he was not really a Christian.
A lay member of the Church of England, Lewis taught English at Oxford
University for years and, in his spare time, wrote articles and books.
Lewis viewed the atonement as a type of Roman Catholic penitence
rather than having any element of Messianic substitution involved.
When speaking of the forgiveness of sins, he never referred to
justification or sanctification. They were not in his thinking.
He did not think that baptism amounted to much, and he believed there
were errors in the Bible. Lewis was careful not to let many know that
he believed in purgatory,-a pet theory of his, that many who died
unsaved might later be redeemed in the fires of purgatory.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a leading Evangelical of his time, declared that
C. S. Lewis was not a Christian at all. His closest friends were
Anglo-Catholics (pro-Catholic members of the Church of England) and
Roman Catholics. He may well have been a secret Catholic, although
there is no certainty of that. A member of the "high" Anglican Church,
Lewis regularly went to confession. He smoked a pipe all his life.
Yet Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, are especially enamored
with Lewis. They love his books- buy, read, re-read, and quote from
them all the time. Why is this?
C. S. Lewis had outstanding writing ability. He could turn a phrase in
such a way that it intrigued minds which came upon it. Shakespeare had
this ability also.
Yet that talent did not render the content of either writer as
heavenly truth. Indeed, an excellent writer can be highly used of the
devil to mislead souls and divert them from the true path leading to
eternal life.
Have you noticed that people are fascinated with clever phrases or
mysterious words? In some respects, they are still children. Yet, if
you would find the best writing style, you need only turn to the
Spirit of Prophecy. It is outstanding -because it was written for but
one purpose: to explain divine truth. The sentences are clear, the
words-are understood-, the concepts profound in meaning- yet
understandable to simple folk such as you and me. Thank God for the
Bible and Spirit of Prophecy!
The present writer believes that, if the Christians generally knew
about the Spirit of Prophecy, they never would have become enamored
with C. S. Lewis.
Lewis blended logic and imagination in mind-catching ways. He made
sentences into metaphorical illustrations, and illustrations into
teaching devices. Upon reading his writings, people search for hidden
meanings; and, if they think they have found something, they flatter
themselves that they have come upon a deep truth. Yet, considering the
source, how could Lewis produce any worthwhile truths for Christians?
C. S. Lewis, who deeply believed in the Tao (an oriental pagan
religious concept), also loved fantasy. So he wrote weird fairy tales
for children about a mythical planet, called Narnia. For adults, he
wrote science fiction (Out of the Silent Planet, etc.).
His Screwtape Letters (1942) made him famous.
Maleldil, Asian, and the unnamed divinity who confronts Orual -and a
host of other mythical characters are in Lewis' seven Narnia books.
Parents imagine they teach Christian principles while the books lead
their children into fantasy, which will later blossom into cravings
for liquor, wild music, and hard drugs.
Here is a single sampling of the thinking underlying the writings of
C. S. Lewis. It is totally unchristian:
"This. . Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional
Morality or the First Principles of Practical reason or the First
Platitudes is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It
is the sole source of all value judgments. . The effort to refute it
and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. .
What purport to be new systems or (as they now call them)
'ideologies,' all consist of fragments from the Tao itself,
arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen
to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it
alone such validity as they possess. . The rebellion of new
ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the
tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had
destroyed themselves."
The adulation, which the Protestant world has paid to C. S. Lewis,
-and continues to pay-is astounding. It reveals how spiritually
bankrupt modern Protestants and Evangelicals are, that they avidly
read and reread Lewis' books and purchase his fairy tales for their
children to devour.
The Spirit of Prophecy warned us that much of what is published in
these last days compares with the frogs of Egypt. Both cover the land
and desolate it.
Books can be immoral. They can also be useless. Consider what could
have been accomplished if our own publishing houses had, for the past
several decades, published powerful books which energized the soul,
helped our people deepen their experience with Christ, carefully
instructed them in our historic teachings and standards, and
motivated them to stand by our precious heritage and share it with
others.
Paul Wright
Micah Parrish <mpar...@email.com> wrote:
[quoting a letter from someone else]
> Maleldil, Asian, and the unnamed divinity who confronts Orual -and a
>host of other mythical characters are in Lewis' seven Narnia books.
>Parents imagine they teach Christian principles while the books lead
>their children into fantasy, which will later blossom into cravings
>for liquor, wild music, and hard drugs.
Not intending to criticise you here, but didn't the truly breathtaking
non-sequitur in that last sentence instantly reveal to you that the
author of the letter is a loony?
--
Paul Wright | http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
Boudicca
news:a6iprf$7v7$1...@verence.demon.co.uk...
Not to mention sadly inaccurate - neither Maleldil nor Orual are in the
Narnia books. I assume "Asian" is just a typo.
Oh dear, _when_ will Christians stop bickering about who is and who is not a
Christian and get on with following Christ?
Boudicca
Andew Rilstone
Oh deary, deary, deary, deary me.
>
>A lay member of the Church of England, Lewis taught English at Oxford
>University for years and, in his spare time, wrote articles and books.
>Lewis viewed the atonement as a type of Ro衫an Catholic penitence
>rather than having any el苟ment of Messianic substitution involved.
I don't know what this is referring to; genuinely. But then I don't know
if "Messianic Substitution" has a specific meaning in Seventh Day
Adventist Thinking. Lewis says this about the "penal" theory of the
Atonement (the idea that Jesus took the punishment that we deserved.)
"What possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person
instead? None at all that I could see if you are thinking of punishment
in the police-court. On the other hand, if you are thinking of debt
there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on
behalf of someone who has not. Of if you take "paying the penalty" not
in the sense of being punished but in the more general sense of
"standing the racket" or "footing the bill" then of course it is a
matter of common experience that when one person has got himself into a
hole the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend."
I don't know what aspect of "substitution" is thought to be lacking from
this kind of picture. Is it that Sevenths Day Adventists insist on the
the Penal Model as the only possible way of looking at the Atonement,
and that their real quarrel is with Lewis claim that the various
"theories" are only "models" to help us picture something which is at
bottom a Mystery. ("Let angel minds inquire no more.")
>When speaking of the forgiveness of sins, he never re苯erred to
>justification or sanctification. They were not in his thinking.
See essay on "Apologetics": Lewis saw himself as a translator,
explaining theological terms like "sanctification" in "ordinary
language."
>
>He did not think that baptism amounted to much,
See previous posts.
> and he believed there
>were errors in the Bible.
Errors of fact and reportage, yes, but this is a cheap shot unless put
in the context of Lewis's whole argument about how the Bible-as-a-whole
"carries" the Word of God.
>Lewis was careful not to let many know that
>he believed in purgatory,
"Lewis tried to keep his belief in purgatory a secret. But My Dear
Watson, criminals always make one foolish mistake. In "Letters to
Malcom", a best-selling paper back, (letter XX) he remarks: "But I
won't press, or guess, that side for the moment. I believe in Purgatory.
That was what gave me the clue..."
>-a pet theory of his, that many who died
>unsaved might later be redeemed in the fires of purgatory.
This is correct apart for the fact that
1: The idea of "fire" is part of a late idea of purgatory which Lewis
specifically repudiates in the same letter. The Purgatory which he
believes in had more in common with that of Dante, conceived as a great
mountain which the dead ascended to get closer and close to God.
2: Purgatory was not, either in Catholic doctrine or Lewis's thinking, a
place for the "un-saved" to get a second chance. It was a place where
the Christian dead could be "cleaned up" and perfected before entering
heaven.
Nice try, though.
>
>Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a leading Evangelical of his time, declared that
>C. S. Lewis was not a Chris負ian at all. His closest friends were
>Anglo-Catho衍ics (pro-Catholic members of the Church of En茆land)
well, people who largely accept Roman Catholic theology, but reject the
special authority of the pope.
> and
>Roman Catholics.
His closest friends, apart from Owen Barfield, Arthur Greeves and
Charles Williams. Tolkien was a Catholic, of course, but Lewis regarded
him as a "friend of the second order", in the First Division but not the
Premiership.
> He may well have been a secret Catholic,
Indeed, he may well have been the sort of secret Catholic who attended
Church of England services, wrote letters to ecclesiastical newspapers
deploring the idea of invocations to Saints, and explained in print why
he thought that Fundamentalists and Catholics were both equally wrong on
the interpretation of the Bible and Authority. But that could have all
been a front to put us off the scent.
Did I miss the bit in which the assertion "If Catholic then not
Christian" was proved, by the way, or is that so obvious as to not need
mentioning?
>although
>there is no certainty of that.
That's one way of putting it.
> A member of the "high" Anglican Church,
He described himself as "neither particularly high nor particularly
low", but that could have been another cunning piece of misdirection.
>Lewis regularly went to confession.
Yes, he did. Gosh.
> He smoked a pipe all his life.
Dammit, must have been a papist then.
< Several paragraphs of waffly word-salad cut out>
>
>
>C. S. Lewis, who deeply believed in the Tao (an oriental pagan
>religious concept),
Lewis used the term "Tao" to refer to "The idea of Moral Law which is
common to all religions, as opposed to those ideas specific and unique
to Christianity." It is doubtful that Lewis cared what "Tao" meant in a
specifically Taoist context.
> Maleldil, Asian, and the unnamed divinity who confronts Orual -and a
>host of other mythical characters are in Lewis' seven Narnia books.
>Parents imagine they teach Christian principles while the books lead
>their children into fantasy, which will later blossom into cravings
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
>for liquor, wild music, and hard drugs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I see, you are completely mad. I just wanted to make sure."
Doctor Who, "Tomb of the Cybermen."
>
>Here is a single sampling of the thinking un苓erlying the writings of
>C. S. Lewis. It is totally un苞hristian:
Again, I don't understand in what sense the quote supplied is thought to
be un-Christian. I fear that the mad-person has seen the word "Tao" and
assumed that Lewis is talking about Taoism, without actually following
his argument, or even reading the book.
>
>"This. . Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional
>Morality or the First Principles of Practical reason or the First
>Platitudes is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It
>is the sole source of all value judgments. . The effort to refute it
>and raise a new system of value in its place is self-苞ontradictory. .
>What purport to be new sys負ems or (as they now call them)
>'ideologies,' all consist of fragments from the Tao itself,
>arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen
>to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it
>alone such validity as they possess. . The re苑ellion of new
>ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the
>tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had
>destroyed themselves."
>
>The adulation, which the Protestant world has paid to C. S. Lewis,
>-and continues to pay-is as負ounding. It reveals how spiritually
>bankrupt mod苟rn Protestants and Evangelicals are, that they av虹dly
>read and reread Lewis' books and purchase his fairy tales for their
>children to devour.
"Devour"...
>
>The Spirit of Prophecy warned us that much of what is published in
>these last days compares with the frogs of Egypt. Both cover the land
>and desolate it.
I agree that Harper Collins is printing rather too many copies right
now, but I think this over states the case a bit.
>
>Books can be immoral.
"There is no such thing as a moral, or an immoral book. Books are well
written or badly written, and that is all."
Oscar.
Do you think we should institute a "Ballaams Ass" award for "Nutter of
the Month"
Peter B. Juul
> he thought that Fundamentalists and Catholics were both equally wrong on
> the interpretation of the Bible and Authority.
Could you give me a reference on that one - I'd like to read it, as I
often end up in discussions with fundamentalists and the words of Jack
might help clear things up.
> He described himself as "neither particularly high nor particularly
> low", but that could have been another cunning piece of misdirection.
You do know you're fighting an impossible fight, right? Conspiracy
Theorists can fit absolutely anything into their odd views.
I am somewhat amazed that the Moon Hoax Theorists claims with a
straight face that NASA spent billions making an extremely convincing
hoax and yet did not realize that there's no wind on the moon.
> > He smoked a pipe all his life.
>
> Dammit, must have been a papist then.
Okay, you _do_ know it.
> Do you think we should institute a "Ballaams Ass" award for "Nutter of
> the Month"
I think so.
Oh, by the way: I believe my computer is infected with an AI-virus
that deals with selecting quotes for my signature. The quote below
means "Arguments tend to be ruined by people who knows what they're
talking about."
Thank you for knowing, Andrew. Your postings are a delight to read.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Diskussioner ødelægges tit af folk,
The RockBear. ((^)) der ved hvad de taler om"
I speak only 0}._.{0 -K. Schumacher
for myself. O/ \O
Paul Wright
Andew Rilstone <and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Oh deary, deary, deary, deary me.
>
>>
>>A lay member of the Church of England, Lewis taught English at Oxford
>>University for years and, in his spare time, wrote articles and books.
>>Lewis viewed the atonement as a type of Ro衫an Catholic penitence
>>rather than having any el苟ment of Messianic substitution involved.
>
>I don't know what this is referring to; genuinely. But then I don't know
>if "Messianic Substitution" has a specific meaning in Seventh Day
>Adventist Thinking.
I did a quick Google search for the phrase and found that the only
reference Google finds is to the original article at
http://www.sdadefend.com/cs_lewis.htm
So it doesn't seem to be a special SDA term.
>Lewis says this about the "penal" theory of the
>Atonement (the idea that Jesus took the punishment that we deserved.)
>
>"What possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person
>instead? None at all that I could see if you are thinking of punishment
>in the police-court. On the other hand, if you are thinking of debt
>there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on
>behalf of someone who has not. Of if you take "paying the penalty" not
>in the sense of being punished but in the more general sense of
>"standing the racket" or "footing the bill" then of course it is a
>matter of common experience that when one person has got himself into a
>hole the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend."
>
>I don't know what aspect of "substitution" is thought to be lacking from
>this kind of picture. Is it that Sevenths Day Adventists insist on the
>the Penal Model as the only possible way of looking at the Atonement,
>and that their real quarrel is with Lewis claim that the various
>"theories" are only "models" to help us picture something which is at
>bottom a Mystery. ("Let angel minds inquire no more.")
They wouldn't be the only Christians to insist that Penal Substitution
is the only (or at least, the principal) explanation of the atonement.
It's a common conservative evangelical view. I recall J.I. Packer, in
"Knowing God", says something to the effect that while there are other
ways of stating it, penal substitution is what's going on under the
bonnet[1].
I used to go to a church which changed the words of songs and hymns to
put more mention of penal subtitution in them, just to hammer the point
home ("He fights for breath/He fights for me" becomes "He bears God's
wrath/He dies for me", and so on). I considered this Silly.
[1] or under the hood if you're an American.
Mark W. Lund
Thanks, I needed that. However, as far as I remember Ballaam's Ass
was the more intelligent of the two, shouldn't it be the Ballaam
Award?
mark
Andew Rilstone wrote:
> snip
>
pui ming Wong
: >When speaking of the forgiveness of sins, he never referred to
: >justification or sanctification. They were not in his thinking.
: See essay on "Apologetics": Lewis saw himself as a translator,
: explaining theological terms like "sanctification" in "ordinary
: language."
Which book can i find this essay called "apologetics" ?
I like to read it.
Ernest Tomlinson
> such a way that it intrigued minds which came upon it. Shakespeare had
> devil to mislead souls and divert them from the true path leading to
> eternal life.
> Have you noticed that people are fascinated with clever phrases or
> mysterious words? In some respects, they are still children. Yet, if
> you would find the best writing style, you need only turn to the
> one purpose: to explain divine truth. The sentences are clear, the
> *understandable to simple folk such as you and me* [emphasis mine].
[snip]
> Lewis blended logic and imagination in mind-catching ways. He made
> sentences into metaphorical illustrations, and illustrations into
> teaching devices. Upon reading his writings, people search for hidden
> meanings; and, if they think they have found something, they flatter
> themselves that they have come upon a deep truth.
I've taken the above quotes from this letter because they all
illustrate a trait which, I daresay, is shared by certain American
Christians in particular: an unpleasant streak of
anti-intellectualism. Mr. Ferrell speaks of Lewis's writing ability,
and compares him to Shakespeare, which seems like praise at first; but
then he starts hinting that such writing is not good at all, that it
bewitches people. (I especially like the swipe at "mysterious
words"--words which, presumably, forced Mr. Ferrell to consult a
dictionary.) Mr. Ferrell contrasts this shifty, "mind-catching"
writing with Biblical simplicity (at least, I assume he means the
Bible by his "Spirit of Prophecy".) The message is clear--clever
Lewis and others like him, with their logic, big words, and turns of
phrase, only lead the simple folk astray; only Scripture is to be
trusted. A similar streak can be seen in Mr. Ferrell's refusal to
admit that there's any validity whatever in Lewis's use of a "pagan"
concept like the Tao. I wonder what Mr. Ferrell thinks of Plato. Not
much, I would guess--just another one of those heathens who uses big
words, and a queer to boot.
His condemnation of Lewis's works of fantasy for being fantasy
reminded me sharply of how my mother, when I was thirteen or so,
destroyed my copies of _Lord of the Rings_ because they were fantasy
and therefore garbage. It's strange how my mother and Mr. Ferrell
arrived at much the same conclusion: fantasy in their view invites
diversion from what was really important (for Mr. Ferrell, Scripture;
for my mother, one's duty to become a hard-working, cultured person
who only read "good" books) and therefore its corrupting influence is
to be condemned and suppressed. Years later, after I'd flamed
spectacularly out of Caltech and returned home in shame, my mother
actually suggested that Tolkien was to blame for turning me from a
diligent student into a slacker. Having experienced that, the laugh
of which I might deliver myself upon reading "the books lead their
children into fantasy, which will later blossom into cravings for
liquor, wild music, and hard drugs" dies in my throat.
Cheers,
Ernest.
Ernest Tomlinson
> > [Lewis] smoked a pipe all his life.
>
> Dammit, must have been a papist then.
I guess the point here is that the Seventh-Day Adventists are dead set
against booze and baccy, like the Mormons. (I had to look that up, by
the way.)
Incidentally, whenever I've seen a picture of Lewis smoking, he's
smoking a thin cigar. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of him
with a pipe.
Cheers,
Ernest.
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
Hear, hear!
Solidarity
Kerry
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
/much snipped/
> Did I miss the bit in which the assertion "If Catholic then not
> Christian" was proved, by the way, or is that so obvious as to not need
> mentioning?
Ah, then it wasn't mearly my unobservantness. That's a releaf.
>
> >although
> >there is no certainty of that.
>
> That's one way of putting it.
>
> > A member of the "high" Anglican Church,
>
> He described himself as "neither particularly high nor particularly
> low", but that could have been another cunning piece of misdirection.
>
> >Lewis regularly went to confession.
>
> Yes, he did. Gosh.
>
> > He smoked a pipe all his life.
>
> Dammit, must have been a papist then.
No, I think it is the combination of Confession going and pipe smoking that
does it.
>
> < Several paragraphs of waffly word-salad cut out>
> >
>
> > Maleldil, Asian, and the unnamed divinity who confronts Orual -and a
> >host of other mythical characters are in Lewis' seven Narnia books.
> >Parents imagine they teach Christian principles while the books lead
> >their children into fantasy, which will later blossom into cravings
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^
> >for liquor, wild music, and hard drugs.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> "I see, you are completely mad. I just wanted to make sure."
> Doctor Who, "Tomb of the Cybermen."
> >
>
> >Here is a single sampling of the thinking un苓erlying the writings of
> >C. S. Lewis. It is totally un苞hristian:
>
> Again, I don't understand in what sense the quote supplied is thought to
> be un-Christian. I fear that the mad-person has seen the word "Tao" and
> assumed that Lewis is talking about Taoism, without actually following
> his argument, or even reading the book.
>
Come, Andrew. If a person can review a ook without reading it, there is no
reason why someone can't vilify, mischaracterize and spread what for
politeness' sake we shall call misimformation about a book or an author's
entire corpus without reading it. After all, this saves a great deal of time
all around.
>
> >The Spirit of Prophecy warned us that much of what is published in
> >these last days compares with the frogs of Egypt. Both cover the land
> >and desolate it.
>
> I agree that Harper Collins is printing rather too many copies right
> now, but I think this over states the case a bit.
>
> >
> >Books can be immoral.
>
> "There is no such thing as a moral, or an immoral book. Books are well
> written or badly written, and that is all."
> Oscar.
>
> Do you think we should institute a "Ballaams Ass" award for "Nutter of
> the Month"
DEFINITELY!
Solidarity
Kerry
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
did was inform me, at every possible opertunity, that Fantasy and SF are foolish
trash. She never tried to stop me reading whatever I wanted, foolish trash
though it might be.
Recently, I had a strange experience. My sister was supposed to read The
Handmaid's Tale for a class, but wasn't in very good shape and giving in to
necessity, went in search of Cliff Notes for it. In relating this (I don't like
Cliff Notes and she seemed to think that the story would amuse me) my mother
observed that The Handmaid's Tale is the only modern noval that there are Cliff
Notes for.
"No it's not," I said. "I've seen them for The Lord of the Rings."
"Oh, but that's not a modern noval."
"Sure it is. It was published in 1955."
"Tha't's not a modern noval. It's, it's... It's _literature!_"
Wonders never cease!
Solidarity
Kerry
Dan Drake
<ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ... my mother
> observed that The Handmaid's Tale is the only modern noval that there are Cliff
> Notes for.
>
> "No it's not," I said. "I've seen them for The Lord of the Rings."
>
> "Oh, but that's not a modern noval."
>
> "Sure it is. It was published in 1955."
>
> "Tha't's not a modern noval. It's, it's... It's _literature!_"
>
Amusing. Remarkable. But--
In the Cliff's Notes display in your neighborhood booksupermarket you'll
find LOTR right next to Lord of the Flies. Also not a modern novel??
Ernest Tomlinson
>In the Cliff's Notes display in your neighborhood booksupermarket you'll
>find LOTR right next to Lord of the Flies. Also not a modern novel??
Indeed. If one decides that the cutoff for a "modern novel" is after
World War II, that still leaves you with quite a few. I'm looking
through the list of Cliffs Notes titles and they've books on _Atlas
Shrugged_[*] (1957), a book on "Kurt Vonnegut's Major Works", _The
Teachings of Don Juan_ by Carlos Castaneda (1968), Amy Tan's _The Joy
Luck Club_ (1989), _Snow Falling on Cedars_ (1994), and doubtless many
other modern books. I admit to being a little dismayed at this trend,
though. I am of a backward-looking temperament, and Cliffs' inclusion
of modern titles in its "Lit Notes" catalogue impresses me much as
does the Criterion Collection's inclusion of recent titles like
_Se7en_ and _Armageddon_ in its catalogue of classic movies. (I've
got to say it: _Armageddon_?? What the **** were they thinking? The
studio must have paid them off.)
I wouldn't have been caught dead looking at a Cliffs Notes book until
I had a conversation a couple of years ago with my old 12th grade
English literature teacher. (A wonderful woman. I'm glad she
forgived me for being such an ass--I was the guy who wrote snide
essays about how I liked Satan from _Paradise Lost_ and about what an
ineffectual fool Hamlet was.) She was recommending a production of
_Cymbeline_ to me, and she asked me if I knew the play. I didn't, and
she made what seemed to me a startling suggestion: get the Cliffs
Notes, she said, and read the summary of the play to be found there.
That way, when I saw the play itself, I would not be distracted by the
effort of trying to figure out who the characters were and what their
relations to each other were, but I'd still be surprised and moved by
Shakespeare's language.
Cheers,
Ernest.
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
Naturally.. <sigh> Literature just isn't what it used to be. One Flew over the
Cuckoo's Nest is more nearly literature than Lord of the Flies. Come to that, there
are probably Cliff Notes for that too.
Hmmm. Must check for Lewis. It would be amusing to read Cliff Notes for the Narnia
books. On the other hand, a set for That Hidious Strength might actually be helpful.
That's sort of what I'm trying to create in my Lewis section in progress. I figured
that maybe other people might need to look up the same things I've needed to look up
reading the Space Trilogy, and maybe some things that I know would also be helpful to
point out to other readers. So far I'm making good progress on my annotated index of
people and places and a page of notes for each book. But, as I said in my pleading
message yesterday, I'm beginning to need help. Anyone willing to lend a hand would
be doing a great kindness!
Solidarity
Kerry
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
agree with you. Something isn't automatically a classic just because it's
over ten years old or because it made 48 zillion dollars at the box office.
The Lord of the Flies, in Dan's example, is a case it poit. I read it and
thought it a perfectly dreadful book and totally forgetable. There's no more
reason for children to be required to read that than, wel, our old friend
Harry potter. In fact, though the statement will doubtless bring down
Andrew's wrath on my head, there's more merrit to Harry in my humble opinion
than to The Golding Book, as one of my Engllish professors used to refer to
it.
Which gives me a nice segue. I always rather liked and felt sorry for
Milton's Satan. He's much more interesting, courageous, and alive than those
stuck up folks who live up in heaven. Remember what Shelley said, Milton was
of Satan's party without knowing it.
This is one of Lewis' complaints in Perelandra, that Milton's Satan and
Mephistopheles )from Faust, Christopher Marlow wrote the English version
that comes to mind) are entirely too suave, too elegant and tragic. Someone
mentioned this recently in another thread. Screwtape isn't elogant or urbane
or a tragic hero. He's a petty bureaucrat, and not the sort of fellow you'd
feel all that comfortable meeting under any circumsttances. The Devil isn't,
as he is all too ofen portrayed a noble rebell, he's a spiteful, bitter,
nasty, petty and highly selfish individual. So much so in fac t that his
celfabsorbsion blinds him. In Perelandra Lewis has him quote in Aremaic, "My
God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me." He clearly believes that this cry
of Our Lord on the Cross was an admission of despair and failure. On the
contrary, though the devil can quote Scripture, Lewis shows that he does not
understand it. For, these words are the beginning of Psalm 22. While this
Psalm is perhaps not as strong as some others, still like several (13 is a
personal favorite), it begins in apparent despair and ends in the confidence
of God's loving protection. Anyone who is familiar with the Psalm, and
indeed wit The Book of Psalms knows that. But Satan, Lewis' Sataan at least,
can only see the obvious surface meaning. And thus he gloats. He has no
real intelligence, no understanding. Having cut himself off from God who is
all knowledge, all wisdom, how can he have understanding? I think this is
one of Lewis' great contributions, to show the bankrpcy of Satan's position.
But, that doesn't make Milton's Satan any less noble, tragic, or engaging.
Solidarity
Kerry
Dan Drake
<ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Naturally.. <sigh> Literature just isn't what it used to be. One Flew over the
> Cuckoo's Nest is more nearly literature than Lord of the Flies. Come to that, there
> are probably Cliff Notes for that too.
>
Probably there are. Ken Kesey hated that. He wrote an essay years ago on
how stupid it was to assign people to read his books when there are so
many things they ought to read and won't bump into as part of the popular
culture. I don't think he cited Lewis's essay on reading old books, but
it was the same idea.
--
Dan Drake
Anythi...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
What did the Berkeley City Council actually say about the war.
angering all the patriots and causing boycotts?
http://www.dandrake.com/berkeley.html
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:52:43 UTC, Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Naturally.. <sigh> Literature just isn't what it used to be. One Flew over the
> > Cuckoo's Nest is more nearly literature than Lord of the Flies. Come to that, there
> > are probably Cliff Notes for that too.
> >
>
> Probably there are. Ken Kesey hated that. He wrote an essay years ago on
> how stupid it was to assign people to read his books when there are so
> many things they ought to read and won't bump into as part of the popular
> culture. I don't think he cited Lewis's essay on reading old books, but
> it was the same idea.
>
<giggle> I never got around, and probably wouldn't have ever gotten around to One Flew...
in real life, but had to read it for a college class; a cllass on the Literature and
Culture of the 60's. Did my final presentation on Rod McCuen, which, hmmm, I haven't
spelled correctly. You know, "Listen to the Warm." That was one of my better
presentations. My professor, wo had esentially dared me to make a quality presentation on
that topic was very pleased and it went over quite well with the kids. At that time, of
course, I was scrounging for credits and would probably have taken a classs on Whinnie the
Pooh if I could count it towards my major. But, in retrospect, it was a waste of time,
however much fun it was. The course on Modern Drama or some other standard course would
have stood me in far better stead. But, I had a crushh on the prof. Need I say more?
Solidarity
Kerry
http://www.woodbetweentheworlds.net
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
Tomlinson) wrote:
>His condemnation of Lewis's works of fantasy for being fantasy
>reminded me sharply of how my mother, when I was thirteen or so,
>destroyed my copies of _Lord of the Rings_ because they were fantasy
>and therefore garbage. It's strange how my mother and Mr. Ferrell
>arrived at much the same conclusion: fantasy in their view invites
>diversion from what was really important (for Mr. Ferrell, Scripture;
>for my mother, one's duty to become a hard-working, cultured person
>who only read "good" books) and therefore its corrupting influence is
>to be condemned and suppressed. Years later, after I'd flamed
>spectacularly out of Caltech and returned home in shame, my mother
>actually suggested that Tolkien was to blame for turning me from a
>diligent student into a slacker. Having experienced that, the laugh
>of which I might deliver myself upon reading "the books lead their
>children into fantasy, which will later blossom into cravings for
>liquor, wild music, and hard drugs" dies in my throat.
I had to chuckle at this. When I was a child I lived in a bit of fear
that my mother would find my Narnia books and rip them up. She was
violently opposed to Fantasy books when I was a kid and would
occassionally make me rip up books (one instance I remember her making
me read passages from a Stephen King book before ripping it up). She
went so far as to blame most of my spiritual trouble on having played
Dungeon's and Dragons a couple of times while I was in a summer camp,
and her disapproval with my enthusiasm for the Lord of the Rings movie
was quite apparent. My mother, like yours, was apt to blame certain
events in my life on other unrelated events in my life without
apparent reason. It was hard for me to make the recent post about the
schizoaffective disorder I have been diagnosed with, but perhaps it
will help you laugh as well as me when you find out that my mother
informed me "Well, if you *still* want to convert to Catholicism from
being Pentecostal, you're *still* sick."
She was not joking.
**************************************************************************
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell III)
Professional Dilettante
Impossibly Logocentric
Unfashionably Orthodox
Ernest Tomlinson
relative of mine suffers from schizophrenia; I've seen his struggles
first hand. I can't say that I know how it is, but I can guess,
dimly.
(You remind me that I've shown him scant charity in the past. It's
hard to see someone you know become a stranger like that, and
I reacted by trying to avoid his company as much as possible.)
slyfootNO...@bellsouth.net (Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)) wrote in message news:<3cab304b....@news.mco.bellsouth.net>...
> I had to chuckle at this. When I was a child I lived in a bit of fear
> that my mother would find my Narnia books and rip them up. She was
> violently opposed to Fantasy books when I was a kid and would
> occassionally make me rip up books (one instance I remember her making
> me read passages from a Stephen King book before ripping it up).
<sharp intake of breath> _That_ my mother never did. Even when
she trashed my Tolkien, she didn't rip them up or make me rip them
up; she just tossed them out into the garden where I found them
much later, mildewed and rotten. (It's strange, how sometimes we
do things in secret in a manner which practically demands
discovery. Like when I got a bad mark on a paper at school; I
wouldn't rip the paper up or toss it in the trash; instead I'd stuff
it
into a drawer or leave it in the pocket of my jacket, where my
mother would later find it.)
> She
> went so far as to blame most of my spiritual trouble on having played
> Dungeon's and Dragons...
<sigh> Not _that_ again. But I've never played D&D or any other
role playing games--they violate, in spades, my general rule that
a game shouldn't have more than about ten rules--so I don't quite
understand either the fascination with them or the opprobrium
they've inspired in others.
> It was hard for me to make the recent post about the
> schizoaffective disorder I have been diagnosed with, but perhaps it
> will help you laugh as well as me when you find out that my mother
> informed me "Well, if you *still* want to convert to Catholicism from
> being Pentecostal, you're *still* sick."
That's _awful_. I'm know that I'm being uncharitable towards
someone whom I do not know and have never met, but still...ugh.
You're a better man than I am if you can forgive your mother for
saying things like that.
I wish you well on your spiritual journey. I have to say, if things
were
a little different, I'd probably convert to Catholicism myself.
Sometimes I think I'd be happiest with a pre-Vatican II Catholic
church, one which still used Latin in its liturgy, because I studied
Latin in college, and even translated a bit of the Book of Job from
the Vulgate. I respect the ancient tradition of the Catholic Church,
especially its intellectual tradition. So many men throughout history
whom I respect are part of the Catholic tradition, from St. Augustine
and Jerome to Tolkien, Chesterton, and even Roger Ebert. But there
are certain Catholic doctrines which I can't accept, or don't want to
accept, at the present time--papal infallibility is the most important
of these, and the Catholic stance on homosexuality--so I've turned
instead to the Anglican tradition--Episcopalian as it is here in
America.
God be with you, Sam. Good luck.
Ernest Tomlinson.
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> perhaps it
> will help you laugh as well as me when you find out that my mother
> informed me "Well, if you *still* want to convert to Catholicism from
> being Pentecostal, you're *still* sick."
YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, as a Catholic, I can only hope you are able to overcome her prejudice.
For that matter, the prejudice would be shocking no matter what you wanted to
convert to. But, ahem, Catholicism is where it all began. I do NOT believe
that not being Catholic automatically means you're damned (and, BTW the Church
doesn't believe that either) but I suspect being Catholic gives you a bit of a
leg up. Hang in there!
Solidarity
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
Have you read Cardinal Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua? I think you'd find it interesting. The edition I read, which I can't put
my hands on just now unfortunately, contains the Kingsley(sp?) pamphlet and all the relevant correspondence as well to put
Newman's response in context. It's a trifle dry, but very interesting.
The Pope is infallible when and only when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. When you think of it, this is not unusual,
since he _is_ the Church in a manner of speaking and the teaching of the Church must be authoritative or it means nothing.
I too deplore the teaching on homosexuality along with that on contraception. I think a lot of Catholics do. I don't know what
to tell you. Some very strict (conservative?) Catholics hold that one must accept and indeed believe without question absolutely
everything the Church teaches, or one is not a true Catholic. Others (liberals?) hold that one must follow one's own conscience.
If, for instance, one finds that one could not adequately care for one's husband/wife and currently existing children if more
children came, then it is a matter of conscience and common sense to use contraceptives. But the Church seems to be growing more
conservative. At the same time, I sympathize with your interest in the pre-Vatigan II Church. I like Mass in English, but not in
common, unattractive English. You're right that the Anglicans pretty much just translated everything and then left it alone.
That is most attractive. The stumbling block for me is Transubstantiation. That is, I believe in it most profoundly. Catholics
accept it and most Protestants do not. Very High Church Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics may, but it is too important to me for me to
switch to a more liberal church.
BTW, not to get back on topic or anything, but I don't recall Lewis' views on Transubstantiation. Can anyone call them to mind?
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
<ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Well, as a Catholic, I can only hope you are able to overcome her prejudice.
>For that matter, the prejudice would be shocking no matter what you wanted to
>convert to. But, ahem, Catholicism is where it all began. I do NOT believe
>that not being Catholic automatically means you're damned (and, BTW the Church
>doesn't believe that either) but I suspect being Catholic gives you a bit of a
>leg up. Hang in there!
I had a very rushed RCIA and was allowed to have my First Confession
on Holy Thursday and my First Communion on Easter. First Communion
was quite beautiful and moving to me, and since I am deaf and legally
blind I wish I had added the Sacrament of the Eucharist to my reasons
for wanting to convert. Now I can have communion every Sunday, or
every day if I like... imagine that! And since that and worship are
the primary things that I 'get out of church' I wish I had added that
to the original list of reasons I posted here not long ago.
I recently picked up Scott Hahn's book called _The Lamb's Supper_
which is quite an intriguing book by a Catholic who shows how various
parts of the Mass, and especially the Eucharist, can be shown to be a
key to understanding Revelations. It is *not* your typical pop
eschatalogical work, believe me. In fact, I would recommend this book
to anyone who is even remotely interested in being a Catholic (or a
new convert) because it is so eye-opening.
Cheers
AJA
I think you would get a good, scriptural argument about that statement
from a great many Christians. :)) And, didn't it all begin with
Christ?
As I recall Lewis did not hold with transubstantiation in the
Eucharist, but I can't find the quote just now. He counted himself,
however, among conservative Anglicans and was critical of
"Christianity and water".
All the best,
Ann
Ernest Tomlinson
> As I recall Lewis did not hold with transubstantiation in the
> Eucharist, but I can't find the quote just now. He counted himself,
> however, among conservative Anglicans and was critical of
> "Christianity and water".
By curious coincidence, I just now read a passage from _Letters to
Malcolm_ pertaining to Holy Communion. The nearest Lewis gets to
rejection of the idea of transubstantiation is this:
"I do not know and can't imagine what the disciples understood Our
Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He
handed them the bread and wine, saying _they_ were His body and
blood. I can find within the forms of my human understanding no
connection between eating a man--and it is as Man that the Lord has
flesh--and entering into any spiritual oneness or community or
_koinonia_ [my attempt to transliterate Greek] with him."
Lewis ends his discussion by saying, "The command, after all, was,
'Take, eat,' not, 'Take, understand.'" And that, I hope, I heed the
matter. Since starting to attend St. Mark's I have taken Communion
(not without grappling with the question of whether it was right
for a such a doubtful person as myself to do it; q.v. Paul in 1
Corinthians XI:27-29) without dithering much over the mechanism
of the ritual.
For what it's worth, Wicca has an equivalent ritual, "Cakes and Ale",
in which bread and wine (or fruit juice) are consecrated to their
God and Goddess and consumed. As near as I could tell, it's
about giving thanks to the God and Goddess for their gifts (often
this is given an erotic spin--the grain and the drink are the
fruits of their sexual coupling.) That "Cakes and Ale" derived
from imitation or parody of Holy Communion seems likely to me
(although many pagans will claim the reverse, that the Eucharist is
a borrowing from some pagan practice. Some will also snicker about
the supposed "cannibalism" in the Eucharist.)
I cannot resist closing by quoting Tom Lehrer's "Vatican Rag" on the
matter: "If it is try playing it safer / Drink the wine and chew
the wafer / Two, four, six, eight / Time to transubstantiate!"
Cheers,
Ernest.
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
wrote:
>Which book can i find this essay called "apologetics" ?
>I like to read it.
"Christian Apologetics" appears in the book _God In The Dock_.
Hope that helps.
Sam
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
Tomlinson) wrote:
>By curious coincidence, I just now read a passage from _Letters to
>Malcolm_ pertaining to Holy Communion. The nearest Lewis gets to
>rejection of the idea of transubstantiation is this:
>
>"I do not know and can't imagine what the disciples understood Our
>Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He
>handed them the bread and wine, saying _they_ were His body and
>blood. I can find within the forms of my human understanding no
>connection between eating a man--and it is as Man that the Lord has
>flesh--and entering into any spiritual oneness or community or
>_koinonia_ [my attempt to transliterate Greek] with him."
>
>Lewis ends his discussion by saying, "The command, after all, was,
>'Take, eat,' not, 'Take, understand.'" And that, I hope, I heed the
>matter. Since starting to attend St. Mark's I have taken Communion
>(not without grappling with the question of whether it was right
>for a such a doubtful person as myself to do it; q.v. Paul in 1
>Corinthians XI:27-29) without dithering much over the mechanism
>of the ritual.
I wish that Lewis had brought up the very relevant passages in
scripture from John 6, particularly where Christ tells people that "I
am the bread of life" and "I am the living bread that came down from
heaven; if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever; and the
bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world" and "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his
blood, ye have no life in you."
Sciptures like these in _Malcolm's_ would have given more context to
this short passage he gave about communion. Also I wonder whether
Lewis ever encountered in sermons the mysterious Melchizadek, who was
a priest-king in the OT that offered bread and wine as a sacrifice.
Christ was seen as a high priest 'On the order of Mechizedek' in the
New Testament, who reveals the mystery of 'eating his flesh, and
drinking his blood' at the Last Supper by presenting the bread and
wine and saying "This IS my body, this IS my blood..."
I once remarked that it seems almost as if Catholics overemphasize
"This is my body, this is my blood" and that Protestants overemphasize
"As often as ye do this, do it in remembrance of me." Perhaps this is
an oversimplification, because as a Protestant I took the communion
very seriously; it's just that as a Catholic I am beginning to have an
almost mystical reverence for it, and naturally she teaches
transubstantiation rather than Luther's 'consubstantiation'.
This central part of Christian worship is so vitally important that I
wish Lewis had written MORE on it. This thread is a spin-off from the
baptism thread, but I would appreciate finding out how much Lewis
really had to say about Communion. Until I find out otherwise, I will
not take the above passage from _Malcolm_ as a 'rejection of
transubstantiation' but merely his admission that it was altogether
too deep a mystery for him.
<SNIP Wiccan 'communion'>
Years ago I once quipped "Blessed Beef and Merry Meatloaf" to a Wiccan
online, which cracked her up. I take the credit or blame for
inventing the phrase <g>. If you see it in an article by 'Safari Man'
on the web, that's me.
Sam
AJA
>By curious coincidence, I just now read a passage from _Letters to
>Malcolm_ pertaining to Holy Communion. The nearest Lewis gets to
>rejection of the idea of transubstantiation is this:
>
>"I do not know and can't imagine what the disciples understood Our
>Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He
>handed them the bread and wine, saying _they_ were His body and
>blood. I can find within the forms of my human understanding no
>connection between eating a man--and it is as Man that the Lord has
>flesh--and entering into any spiritual oneness or community or
>_koinonia_ [my attempt to transliterate Greek] with him."
>
>Lewis ends his discussion by saying, "The command, after all, was,
>'Take, eat,' not, 'Take, understand.'" And that, I hope, I heed the
>matter. Since starting to attend St. Mark's I have taken Communion
>(not without grappling with the question of whether it was right
>for a such a doubtful person as myself to do it; q.v. Paul in 1
>Corinthians XI:27-29) without dithering much over the mechanism
>of the ritual.
Thanks for finding this quote, Ernest. It is exactly the one I was
looking for. Today in Holy Communion my Methodist minister raised the
pita bread and grape juice and said, "Jesus said, this is my body
which was broken from you. This is my blood which was shed for you
and for many..." We understand that consuming the bread and juice is
a remembrance of the flesh which was sacrificed for us. But we also
understand that by sharing Communion we are putting on Christ. I would
submit to you that what happens to the Protestant is no less real in
sharing the holy meal than what happens to the Catholic.
And yes, I agree that dithering (love that word!) about the mechanism
isn't what changes the heart. Like Lewis said, taking the red coal
out of the fire to examine it makes it a dead coal.
>. Some will also snicker about
>the supposed "cannibalism" in the Eucharist.)
Catholics have thoroughly explained by why
Eucharist/transubstantiation isn't cannibalism. See The Catholic
Encyclopedia which is online and in which one can find almost every
reference to Catholic dogma. It occurs to me to wonder what _if_ one
took Christ in to the extent that Christ was present in the very cells
of our bodies. Ah well. Mysteries.
Lewis is wise to not make so very much of just how one views the
mechanics of Holy Communion. It's not as though anyone living
understands completely the mystery of the bread and the wine. It seems
that it could be as simple as Jesus' words: Follow me, and Feed my
lambs. And as difficult as that also. (The Gospel of John)
I like in this chapter XIX of _Letters to Malcolm_ that Lewis has us
thinking about the strange alchemy of God's creation: at once magic
and spiritual, and pure factual reality- whatever that is.
All the best,
Ann
"I walk in wonders beyond myself." --C. S. Lewis
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
Congratulations and many blessings! Easter is a lovely time to be received into
the Church.
I have thought about reading The Lamb's Supper. Your recommendation has recalled
it to my mind, and I'll probably buy it.
Origon Catholic Press has what they call a large print daily Missel (which they
send out as a small quarterly, soft-cover book, cost $13.25 per year), though it's
not my idea of large print. If your vision isn't too bad, you may be able to use
it. They are at: http://www.ocp.org Their site isn't laid out in a
blind-friendly way; the main page, the only page I checked out, is in columns!
However, for information you can e-mail them. The address is: lit...@ocp.org.
They have an extensive catalog, also not the largest of large print, but with
magnification you'll no doubt be able to manage. The "Today's Missel" is the only
thing I get from them, so I can't vouch for their other publications..
You might also consider Xavior Society for the Blind. They produce worship-related
materials in large print and Braille. For some time I received the Propers of the
Sunday Mass in what they call Jumbo Print, about 24 point, which is ideal for me.
They also have a lending library. Hm, that is, I know about the cassette library.
They must have a large print and Braille library as well. These are devotional
books and mainstream publications, novels and such, of interest to Catholics. I
once got an interesting series from them on the study of the Gospels. I can't find
them on the web. Their snail mail address is:
154 East 23rd St
New York, NY 10010
Also, you might be interested in getting in touch with an acquaintance of mine,
John Boyer, who is also a deaf-blind Catholic. His e-mail address is:
dire...@chpi.org He runs a company called Computers to Help People Inc. He also
has a personal website, or really a ministry website. His company URL is:
http://www.chpi.org and his ministry URL is http://www.godtouches.org
My own other disability is physical; that is, I'm crippled. So, I don't know
anything about resources for deaf Catholics. But, John went to a program, it must
have been in Madison where he lives. I'm sure he can tell you about similar
programs in other parts of the country.
Hope this is helpful.
Solidarity
Kerry
http://www.woodbetweentheworlds.net
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> > But, ahem, Catholicism is where it all began.
>
> I think you would get a good, scriptural argument about that statement
> from a great many Christians. :)) And, didn't it all begin with
> Christ?
>
For the first fifteen hundred years or so, there was one and only one
Christian church, that which came to be known as Catholic, that is,
Universal. My knowledge of early Church history is sketchy, but I'm under
the impression that the term Catholic is an early one. From the Greek
IIRC.
>
> As I recall Lewis did not hold with transubstantiation in the
> Eucharist, but I can't find the quote just now. He counted himself,
> however, among conservative Anglicans and was critical of
> "Christianity and water".
>
Sorry? Christianity and water? Don't follow you here.
Solidarity
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
into very odd meanings.
How hard is it to understand? Jesus is the Fruit of the womb of her who,
alone after Adam and Eve, was created without the taint of original sin. In
order to be saved, we must eat of this fruit, the Bread from Heaven as Sam
rightly says. The New Testament is all of a piece with the Old Testament.
The Manna from Heaven that fed the wandering Israelites is a foreshaddowing of
Our Lord, for example. Indeed, we must take and eat, thereby literally as
well as spiritually incorporating (consider the root meaning of this word) Our
dear Lord, The Word, the Lamb of God into our being and essence. To be crude
about it, we are what we eat. We, the Body of Christ (His Church), are such
in many senses and for many reasons. But one way and one reason is that each
person who recieves the Blessed Sacrement lliterally takes His flesh as
nurishment and becomes one with it, or it becomes one with him, however you
choose to think of it. But, the oneness is the same whichever way round you
think of it.
In my own mind, heart, experience, whatever you want to call it,
Transubstantiation is not something requiring belief. It is. That's all.
So, I cannot understand people who havd difficulties with the concept. It's
as if someone said he had difficulty believing in wind or trees.
Transubstantiation is simply part of God's universe, as Jesus the man who
lived and taught in the Holy Land some two thousand years ago was part of the
universe.
Solidarity
Kerry
http://www.woodbetweentheworlds.net
Ernest Tomlinson
> For the first fifteen hundred years or so, there was one and only one
> Christian church, that which came to be known as Catholic, that is,
> Universal.
What about the Eastern church?
> Sorry? Christianity and water? Don't follow you here.
In _Mere Christianity_ and possibly elsewhere, Lewis inveighs against
"Christianity-and-water", or Christianity with its more troublesome
doctrines (e.g. sin, hell, &c.) washed out--which is what he thought
was happening in some "liberal" churches.
Cheers,
Ernest.
AJA
<ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>For the first fifteen hundred years or so, there was one and only one
>Christian church, that which came to be known as Catholic, that is,
>Universal. My knowledge of early Church history is sketchy, but I'm under
>the impression that the term Catholic is an early one. From the Greek
>IIRC.
It's that large 'C' that gives pause. And then, you have the
adjective Roman added and not serving Communion to the non Roman types
and voila the tinge of chosen Christians versus unchosen Christians
and all of that.
>
>Sorry? Christianity and water? Don't follow you here.
A watered down Christianity, as opposed to blood red wine
Christianity. I'm with him there. But it's interesting that he also
makes points in _Letters to Malcolm_ against too much 'festooning' or
gussying up of Christianity's message.
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> Kerry Elizabeth Thompson <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > For the first fifteen hundred years or so, there was one and only one
> > Christian church, that which came to be known as Catholic, that is,
> > Universal.
>
> What about the Eastern church?
>
I'm not a historian and, frankly, can't remember the info you're asking for. IIRC the Great Scism that
separated the Eastern or Orthodox from the Western or Roman Church occurred round about 1000 A.D. I can't
even remember the grounds of the scism. It was, however, different in kind from the Protestant Reformation.
The Orthodox remain Catholic. They accept Transubstantiation IIRC and all their sacrements and Roman
sacrements are mutually recognized to the best of my knowledge.
This was, however, the first division of the Church Universal, and you are quite right to call me on my
inadvertant oversight.
> > Sorry? Christianity and water? Don't follow you here.
>
> In _Mere Christianity_ and possibly elsewhere, Lewis inveighs against
> "Christianity-and-water", or Christianity with its more troublesome
> doctrines (e.g. sin, hell, &c.) washed out--which is what he thought
> was happening in some "liberal" churches.
Ah, thanks. I'm getting very confused and forgetful lately. Must read Mere Christianity again.
Solidarity
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
Thanks for all the info. I sent an email to John Boyer today!
Sam
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 01:59:06 GMT, Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >For the first fifteen hundred years or so, there was one and only one
> >Christian church, that which came to be known as Catholic, that is,
> >Universal. My knowledge of early Church history is sketchy, but I'm under
> >the impression that the term Catholic is an early one. From the Greek
> >IIRC.
>
> It's that large 'C' that gives pause.
Upper case or lower case, the word "catholic" means universal. The Church
hasn't changed. She remains what she has always been. It is no diminution of
her that malcontents and power-hungry louts chose to break away from her. Any
large and, yes, powerful institution develops abuses and problems of all kinds
over time. This is because such an istitution is made up of human beings, with
weaknesses and faults. True Reformers, and there have been many - St Francis
of Asisi and St Theresa of Avila come to mind - work within the institution,
drawing it back to its mission etc. The Protestant "reformers" were either
low-level, badly educated jerks, like Luther, who were pissed that the Church
didn't listen to their ideas and because of those ideas advance themselves, or
else they were kings, like Henry VIII who were pissed that they couldn't push
the Pope around.
I have Protestant friends of various denominations who I know to be sincere,
committed Christians. I have no quarrel with such people. But, the Protestant
"reformers" were not sincere, committed Christians. If they had been, they
would have reformed the Church. Instead, they set themselves in opposition to
her. In other words, they were heretics who have led millions astray with
their errors. Do you understand me, Ann? They were mistaken. And all those
sincere committed Christians who have followed them, including you with your
peta bread and grape juice are mistaken! Sincere, kind, good people,but wrong.
And the surest sign of your error is your hatred and fear of the capitle C
Catholic Church. I don't hate Protestants. I don't go around saying that
Protestants are devil worshipers who eat babies and all the other vial hateful
rot you Protestants spew out about Catholics. I certainly don't thhink you
will all to a man be damned for your folly and willful blindness. I love my
fellow men. But I'm sick of anti-Catholic invective. It is as unbecoming as
any other form of bigotry, and as demeaning to the one who utters it. I would
remind you that Our Lord observed, "It is not what a man puts in his mouth that
defiles him, but what comes out of it."
> And then, you have the
> adjective Roman added
You object to the adjective "Roman." What adjective would you prefer? This
institution, this universal church has its headquarters in Rome. The Greek
Orthodox Church is centered in Greece. The Russian Orthodox Church is centered
in Russia. Hell, the Anglican Church is centered in England. Why is "Roman"
offensive or fearsome?
> and not serving Communion to the non Roman types
The Roman Catholic Church will "serve" Communion to anyone who is spiritually
prepared to receive it, i.e. in the state of Grace. Unfortunately, many of our
Protestant brothers and sisters are not so prepared. As a result, they may not
receive.
>
> and voila the tinge of chosen Christians versus unchosen Christians
> and all of that.
>
It is you who have chosen to separate yourselves from the true faith. No one
excluded you or drove you away.
> >
> >Sorry? Christianity and water? Don't follow you here.
>
> A watered down Christianity, as opposed to blood red wine
> Christianity. I'm with him there.
Oh? Don't you mean grape juice Christianity?
> But it's interesting that he also
> makes points in _Letters to Malcolm_ against too much 'festooning' or
> gussying up of Christianity's message.
>
This is interesting and disturbing. I've not yet read Letters to Malcolm, and
must do so. I don't know as it's possible to overemphasize Christianity's
message. Overemphasis may not be what you're getting at here, though. How do
you mean "gussying up?" Surely, it's all very simple. Jesus, a man and at the
same time the Son of God, died on the Cross to free all mankind and also each
individual person from the slavery of sin. I don't really know how that can be
tarted up. Saints and angels, I suppose, and especially Our Lady. Well, I
won't arguue this one, since Protestants are congenitally incapable of
understanding the simplest explanations on this subject. As to the Mass
itself, it's pretty straigforward, as you would know if you had ever bothered
to atend one or view attentively a televised one. Familiarity sometimes breeds
contempt, but ignorence nearly always breeds fear, hatred, and bigotry. I've
read about the founding of Methodism, and about the "Reformation." Maybe you
should read about the history of Christianity.
Solidarity
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> Thanks for all the info. I sent an email to John Boyer today!
>
> Sam
>
I'm so glad it was helpful!
Solidarity
Kerry
David R L Porter
I hate to see two people of whom I have come to be very fond through
this newgroup drawn into such a clash as you are heading for with Ann. I
hope you won't mind my questioning the wisdom of your most recent post
on several grounds.
First (I speak as a protestant whose book on the early life of Mother
Teresa has been published in ten countries and eight languages and who
has recently written an appreciation of that famous convert to Rome,
Gerard Manley Hopkins), I'm unhappy at seeing my tradition summarised by
two very different individuals both of whom are summarily described as
"pissed" -- or for that matter having Luther, a flawed man admittedly,
described as a badly educated jerk -- I do wonder what you would suggest
a reasonable education would have been :))
'Louts and malcontents' hurt, too.
Then I think it's worth saying that the aggressively polemic tone of
your post is flatly against the tradition of this newsgroup. We
encompass a wide range of opinions here, and most of us hold to them
strongly and in some cases passionately, but castigating Ann as being in
error and having fear and hatred of Catholics is the kind of baggage we
usually leave at the door of this forum.
I was disturbed by your post as an argument, as it seemed to have so
many points at which one would want to take issue. Does any Luther
scholar of any reputation suggest that Luther didn't attempt to reform
the church? What body of people seriously argues that the reformers were
not 'sincere, committed Christians'? Etc, etc.
You've given us some great posts and I'm really glad you're part of this
newsgroup, Kerry, but I would love it if you'd send Ann a virtual hug
and move on from this. That crack about 'peta bread and grape juice'
might warrant an apology too, maybe.
--
Best wishes,
David
david....@zetnet.co.uk
Visit us at www.porterfolio.com
Ernest Tomlinson
Elizabeth Thompson" <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[about the Eastern church]
> I'm not a historian and, frankly, can't remember the info you're asking for.
Well, I wasn't really asking for info, I was just pointing out that the
Roman church wasn't the _only_ Christian church in existence until the
Protestant schism.
And I'm sure there were other, smaller sects here and there, but I don't
know the history.
> IIRC the Great Scism that
> separated the Eastern or Orthodox from the Western or Roman Church occurred
> round about 1000 A.D.
As I learned it, the "Great Schism" refers to the period where there were
two lines of popes, one in Rome and one in Avignon in France, in 1378 -
1415. There was no difference of doctrine, that I remember; the King of
France at the time simply decided that he didn't like the current pope
(don't remember who it was) and supported the election of an anti-pope of
his own, thus leading to a situation where "by one standard or another all
of Christendom was damned soundly and completely during this time" (to quote
H. G. Wells's _Outline of History_. Will I get kicked off the group for
liking Wells?) Apparently, before the Schism, some pope had resided at
Avignon instead of Rome, and the King of France was able to exert
considerable influence over him; when a succeeding pope moved back to Rome,
the King of France was put out and that's when the Schism occurred.
I don't know when the schism that separated the Roman church from the
Eastern occurred. I do know that it was before the Fourth Crusade (1203, I
think?), which ended with the storming of Constantinople and the
installation of an emperor who promised to restore the Roman church's
authority over the Eastern church.
And of course I have no idea what the doctrinal differences are that led to
the Eastern/Western split. I know very little history (yet more than most
public-school students of my generation, I daresay. God, U. S. public
schools stink.)
Cheers,
Ernest.
Ernest Tomlinson
Elizabeth Thompson" <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My knowledge of early Church history is sketchy, but I'm under
> the impression that the term Catholic is an early one. From the Greek
> IIRC.
I would guess its etymology is from Gk. _kata_ + _holos_ = _katholos_,
which would mean something like "from the whole". I defer to any real Greek
scholars on the group.
Cheers,
Ernest.
Ernest Tomlinson
You're probably going to get a lot of impassioned response over this post of
yours...let me just say that I sympathize with you, even though I think our
views are at odds.
On 4/8/02 5:04 PM, in article 3CB2308B...@earthlink.net, "Kerry
Elizabeth Thompson" <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Upper case or lower case, the word "catholic" means universal.
Yes. People ought not never to forget that (although I doubt that one
person in a hundred, in the U. S., knows what "catholic" means.)
> The Church
> hasn't changed. She remains what she has always been.
But that's not true. The Roman Church _has_ changed. Look, for example, to
the Church's changing attitude towards the theory of evolution. (Aside: I
am an evolutionist in the sense that I believe that the theory of natural
selection is an accurate model of the origin of species; yet I do not
believe that this theory is inconsistent with the notion of God as Creator.)
Or do you think that this sort of thing does not constitute a real change in
the Church from "what she has always been"? One of the reasons I hold the
Catholic Church in great respect is that, when she does change her mind (as
I believe she has done, with respect to evolution and other things), she
does so only after great thought. The intelligence exhibited in a document
such as the _Humani Generis_ encyclical is I believe characteristic of the
Catholic Church.
> The Protestant "reformers" were either
> low-level, badly educated jerks, like Luther, who were pissed that the Church
> didn't listen to their ideas and because of those ideas advance themselves, or
> else they were kings, like Henry VIII who were pissed that they couldn't push
> the Pope around.
Hmmmm. This gives me pause, because in my path towards Christianity, even
though I respect the Catholic Church very much, I disagree with certain of
her doctrines, and so I chose an Anglican (well, Episcopalian) church. But
it does bother me that I'm considering giving my heart and soul over to a
church which only got started because the King of England wanted to dump his
wife.
> I have Protestant friends of various denominations who I know to be sincere,
> committed Christians. I have no quarrel with such people. But, the
> Protestant
> "reformers" were not sincere, committed Christians. If they had been, they
> would have reformed the Church. Instead, they set themselves in opposition to
> her. In other words, they were heretics who have led millions astray with
> their errors. Do you understand me, Ann? They were mistaken.
> And all those
> sincere committed Christians who have followed them, including you with your
> peta bread and grape juice are mistaken!
Hey, hey, hey! Bread is bread, right? What difference does it make whether
it's pita bread, or some specially manufactured little communion wafer? (I
should say, however, that when I first took Communion at St. Mark's, I was
surprised when they produced pita bread instead of communion wafers; it just
didn't seem right to me.)
> And the surest sign of your error is your hatred and fear of the capitle C
> Catholic Church. I don't hate Protestants. I don't go around saying that
> Protestants are devil worshipers who eat babies and all the other vial hateful
> rot you Protestants spew out about Catholics.
Now you're going too far. When did Ann, or anyone else here, spew "vial
[sic] hateful rot...about Catholics?" All Ann said was that she had a
problem with capital-C "Catholic"--her opinion, and certainly not vile or
hateful.
> The Roman Catholic Church will "serve" Communion to anyone who is spiritually
> prepared to receive it, i.e. in the state of Grace. Unfortunately, many of
> our
> Protestant brothers and sisters are not so prepared. As a result, they may
> not
> receive.
I daresay that many of our Catholic brothers and sisters are not prepared,
either. Their state of preparedness is not for us to judge.
> This is interesting and disturbing. I've not yet read Letters to Malcolm, and
> must do so. I don't know as it's possible to overemphasize Christianity's
> message.
It's not a question of overemphasis. What Lewis meant by "festooning", in
_Letters to Malcolm_, was attaching one's special interpretations to
Christian texts--he devotes one of the "Letters" to explaining his
"festoons" of the Lord's Prayer. Lewis certainly isn't denying the
importance of trying to make one's own sense of such things as the Lord's
Prayer--what he _doesn't_ want to do is convey the impression that his
interpretations, his "festoons", are the correct ones. (Although I daresay
that by putting them in a book, he's speaking _in loco parentis_ if you
will--giving special weight to his particular interpretations.)
> I've
> read about the founding of Methodism, and about the "Reformation." Maybe you
> should read about the history of Christianity.
Kerry, you yourself admitted elsewhere that you weren't strong on the
history. Are you in a position to admonish another on his or her
familiarity with the history of Christianity?
Cheers,
Ernest.
Keith Schooley
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote
>But, the Protestant
> "reformers" were not sincere, committed Christians. If they had been, they
> would have reformed the Church. Instead, they set themselves in opposition to
> her.
They tried. They were excommunicated. What's one to do?
Grace and Peace,
Keith
"Everyone thinks of changing the world and nobody thinks of changing
himself." Leo Tolstoy
<Cloaking device back on>
Terry Sturtevant
> <Cloaking device off>
>
> Kerry Elizabeth Thompson <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >But, the Protestant
> > "reformers" were not sincere, committed Christians. If they had been, they
> > would have reformed the Church. Instead, they set themselves in opposition to
> > her.
>
> They tried. They were excommunicated. What's one to do?
Or were burned at the stake. Or drawn and quartered. Or .........
If people wanted to be able to actually _speak_ about their beliefs,
let alone practice them, there was a time when the only way possible
was from outside the official church, (and often in secret).
The Inquisiton was as real as the Holocaust, unfortunately.
AJA
How are you?!
>They tried. They were excommunicated. What's one to do?
Glad you said this and bore the yoke. :)
So glad to have you back. Can Burton be far behind?
Grace and Peace back to you!
AJA
don't bear ill will and am sorry to have caused any. What is sad is
any implication something that started out as a discussion may have
against much healing of schisms. And they think that they'll get the
Palestinians and Jews to talk? Pax, at least on my part.
All the best,
Ann
"I walk in wonders beyond myself." --C. S. Lewis
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:04:02 GMT, Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
<ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
?
Ann
>
>Kerry
>http://www.woodbetweentheworlds.net
P. S. I've attended hundreds of Catholic Masses and was welcomed as a
Methodist at most.
David R L Porter
chastened by the graciousness and light touch with which others have
contributed to it. My apologies to Kerry and the rest of you for a
posting that reads awfully pompous in the cold light of day.
I must learn to sit on my hands and go to bed at the proper time ... I
was over-anxious to defend Ann.
Defend Ann? Why, I'd sooner defend a lion ... :)))
AJA
>Defend Ann? Why, I'd sooner defend a lion ... :)))
Dearest David,
Your kind words were most appreciated. It is so very daunting to meet
anger alone. Thanks so much.
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy. It was brought to an end largely throug
the efforts of Catherine of Sienna(sp?)
The division between Western an dEastern is also called a scism. It was related
somehow or other to the Iconiclastic controversy.
Don't be too hard on me. I'm reaching back some twenty-five years for this,
considerably more than you are I gather. I wish, though that somebody who
actually knows what they're talking about would step in here. Where's Tom Moran
when we need him? Or Dan, or somebody?
Solidarity
Kerry
AJA
<ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The division between Western an dEastern is also called a scism. It was related
>somehow or other to the Iconiclastic controversy.
For administrative purposes the church set up five patriarchates:
Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople. The Roman
Patriarchate pulled away from the other four in 1054, and maintained
at that time that it was the only 'legal' patriarchate. Roman
Catholics from that time forward have cut themselves off from
communion with any but Roman Catholics.
I would say, of course, that while history is interesting and perhaps
even instructive, the task for us today (not being able to put the
genie back in the bottle) is to decide where we go from here. As
Christians do we stand united in essentials, as Lewis suggested, or do
we continue to do endless battle, Christian against Christian? Any
two-bit psychologist, if not one's own reason isn't sufficient, tells
you if something hasn't worked for nigh on to a thousand years, it
should be abandoned- namely pitting Christian against Christian.
A close and prayerful reading of CSL letters to Father Calabria is
called for, IMHO.
Ernest Tomlinson
Elizabeth Thompson" <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Hmmm. Your right about the terminology. The avignon period is sometimes
> called
> the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy. It was brought to an end largely
> throug
> the efforts of Catherine of Sienna(sp?)
Yes, now I remember that name, "the Babylonian Captivity". All I remember
about the end of the Schism was that it was healed at the "Council of
Constance", the same Council that condemned Wycliffe and Jan Hus.
> I wish, though that somebody who
> actually knows what they're talking about would step in here. Where's Tom
> Moran
> when we need him? Or Dan, or somebody?
All this reminds me that my knowledge of European history is full of holes--
no, that's not right, there's more hole than knowledge. History was
extremely badly taught where I went to school, and most of what I know I
picked up during my own unsystematic readings. Maybe it's high time for me
to learn something of the history of the Church? Can anyone suggest a good,
scholarly overview?
Cheers,
Ernest.
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> Dear Kerry,
>
> You're probably going to get a lot of impassioned response over this post of
> yours...let me just say that I sympathize with you, even though I think our
> views are at odds.
>
Thanks, Ernest. I appreciate it. And, maybe not that much at odds (see below.)
>
> On 4/8/02 5:04 PM, in article 3CB2308B...@earthlink.net, "Kerry
> Elizabeth Thompson" <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Upper case or lower case, the word "catholic" means universal.
>
> Yes. People ought never to forget that (although I doubt that one
> person in a hundred, in the U. S., knows what "catholic" means.)
>
Back to the deplorable state of education. I wonder if it's as bad elsewhere as in
the U.S.?
Actually (not to make excuces for myself), just before going on the ng I'd been
talking with a friend of mine, raised Catholic, educated in a convent school and a
Catholic college. She is not a native English speaker; so, on that account I try
to make allowances. But, the extent of her ignorance about Christianity in general
and Catholicism in particular is breath-taking. Come to think of it, she's not all
that well educated all round; which is pretty shocking since she's thirty-four.
Beyond that, she and I went to the same college (I graduated a year before her),
where I received an excellent education. But then, I was in the Liberal Arts, an
English major, while she majored in Business. Also, of course, she was an ESL
student, which made everything much harder for her than had she been studying in her
native language. I think, though, that things like Education and Business etc are
far more narrow than the Liberal Arts. As an English major, I read about History,
Sociology, Economics, various sciences, Religion, Art, etc, etc. Then, I minored in
History - not Church History, unfortunately) and Music. So, though my education was
perhaps not terribly deep, it was broad. Patty majored in Business, which seemed to
mme to be very difficult - Accountig, and Statistics, and all that sort of thing.
She did well, but I wonder how much of the core courses got through to her. Two
semesters of Western Civ, for example, is a core requirement. And, she must have
had to study European History in high school. And yet, she doesn't even have the
veneer of recognizing names, being able to place events, however vaguely, in time,
etc. And, she's the future. She's a juvenile probation officer. She's well liked
and highly thought of. But, though she's been in this country nearly fifteen years,
totally immersed in English, priding herself on how quickly and thoroughly she
learned English, she can't write a four sentence e-mail without multiple errors in
grammar, usage, and of course typing. I shudder to think what her reports must look
like.
She had been expounding her personal views on the Eucharist, the Real Presence, and
Transubstantiation; vews which seemed to me lacking in both logic and internal
coherence. I couldn't follow her explanation. And not only did she explain all
this to me, but she insisted that _her_ views were perfectly orthodox and she didn't
understand why I wouldn't accept them as being valid Catholic beliefs. I don't know
what if any Christian sect or denomination would accept her beliefs as valid and
orthodox, but the Catholic Church certainly wouldn't. And, she's absolutely
convinced that she's right. She won't even try to learn, to read, to listen. She
makes fun of me for my piety, such poor thing as it is. She won't even say the
Rosary with me. Gives me the definite impression that it's all right for me, but
_she's_ far too sophisticated for such nonsense. She refuses to believe anything I
tell her about belief or practice... Come to that, she refuses to believe what I
tell her on any subject. She's condescending and dismissive, And it makes me angry,
not only because of the insult, but also because I worry about her spiritual
wellfare. She doesn't understand her faith and at the same time is unwilling to
learn about it. Surely, that's a dangerous situation for a soul. She's a good
person; and, if she were a pagan, that woud be enough. But, she's not a pagan. She
believes herself to be a Christian, and yet has little idea if any what Christianity
intails. I've thought of giving her Meere Christianity,but even if her English were
good enough, which I doubt, I don't think she'd understand it.
So, you see, I was angry and frustrated about Patty, with whom I argued or tried to
argue in a low key, gently persuasive way and who basically told me that I'm a
stupid jerk but whom I didn't hav the guts to tell off all that strongly. And then
I read Ann's post, and it all came out;all the anger and resentment. It was
cowardly to lash out at her for something that was in no way her fault. She just
happened to be in the wrong place. I'm sorry.
> > The Church
> > hasn't changed. She remains what she has always been.
>
> But that's not true. The Roman Church _has_ changed. Look, for example, to
> the Church's changing attitude towards the theory of evolution. (Aside: I
> am an evolutionist in the sense that I believe that the theory of natural
> selection is an accurate model of the origin of species; yet I do not
> believe that this theory is inconsistent with the notion of God as Creator.)
>
I agree with you completely here.
> Or do you think that this sort of thing does not constitute a real change in
> the Church from "what she has always been"? One of the reasons I hold the
> Catholic Church in great respect is that, when she does change her mind (as
> I believe she has done, with respect to evolution and other things), she
> does so only after great thought. The intelligence exhibited in a document
> such as the _Humani Generis_ encyclical is I believe characteristic of the
> Catholic Church.
This is a good question, and a difficult one. Is it change, or is it growth and
development? Is there a difference between the two? I think there is, if a fine
one. An analogy I've heard that seems to me a good one is that of the acorn and the
oak. The essence, the being of the oak is in the acorn and one might say that the
full expression of the acorn's being is the oak. The oak grows from the acorn, is
to all appearences utterly different from it, and yet is the fullest expression of
it.
Similarly, take a person. One remains a distinct individual throughout infancy,
childhood, and adulthood. Yet, one grows and develops. Changes? John remains John
when he loses his baby teeth, when years later he loses his hair, even when he
realizes that some of his early ideas were inaccurate or flat out wrong. The
Church, too, grows and develops over time, sometimes realizing that early ideas were
inaccurate or prejudiced, etc. A static institution would not accurately represent
or adequately teach and care for the dynamic units, individual humans, who make up
the Body of Christ.
>
> > The Protestant "reformers" were either
> > low-level, badly educated jerks, like Luther, who were pissed that the Church
> > didn't listen to their ideas and because of those ideas advance themselves, or
> > else they were kings, like Henry VIII who were pissed that they couldn't push
> > the Pope around.
>
> Hmmmm. This gives me pause, because in my path towards Christianity, even
> though I respect the Catholic Church very much, I disagree with certain of
> her doctrines, and so I chose an Anglican (well, Episcopalian) church. But
> it does bother me that I'm considering giving my heart and soul over to a
> church which only got started because the King of England wanted to dump his
> wife.
>
King's and other powerful folks often tried , and sometimes managed, to bully or
intimidate, or just out manouver the Pope. It's just England's bad luck that Henry
and the pope of the time were equally stubborn. Yes, for all the reasons for
breaking with Rome, that does seem the least, ahem, mature and reasonable.
>
> > I have Protestant friends of various denominations who I know to be sincere,
> > committed Christians. I have no quarrel with such people. But, the
> > Protestant
> > "reformers" were not sincere, committed Christians. If they had been, they
> > would have reformed the Church. Instead, they set themselves in opposition to
> > her. In other words, they were heretics who have led millions astray with
> > their errors. Do you understand me, Ann? They were mistaken.
>
> > And all those
> > sincere committed Christians who have followed them, including you with your
> > peta bread and grape juice are mistaken!
>
> Hey, hey, hey! Bread is bread, right? What difference does it make whether
> it's pita bread, or some specially manufactured little communion wafer? (I
> should say, however, that when I first took Communion at St. Mark's, I was
> surprised when they produced pita bread instead of communion wafers; it just
> didn't seem right to me.)
>
You see? You feel it too. Pita bread is very well in itself, but it isn't quite
the thing when it comes to Communion. Though that reminds me of another of Patty's
complaints. She says that if it were "real" bread, she might be able to concede
that Our Lord is present in it. But, she can't cope with those silly little things
they give you. (She can't seem to remember the words "Host" or "wafer.") It's the
reverse of what you're saying. For some reason, she can't accept the Host as bread
and thus as The Bread of Life, the Body of Our Lord. Maybe if she went to a service
that used bread - IIRC the Greek Orthodox... Her husband is GO. Maybe I should
suggest that they attend those services for a while. She might begin to get the
idea. Thanks for making me think of this.
>
> > And the surest sign of your error is your hatred and fear of the capitle C
> > Catholic Church. I don't hate Protestants. I don't go around saying that
> > Protestants are devil worshipers who eat babies and all the other vial hateful
> > rot you Protestants spew out about Catholics.
>
> Now you're going too far. When did Ann, or anyone else here, spew "vial
> [sic] hateful rot...about Catholics?" All Ann said was that she had a
> problem with capital-C "Catholic"--her opinion, and certainly not vile or
> hateful.
>
You're right. She didn't and I'm sure she wouldn't. Nobody here would. Guess I
was thinking of some pretty horrible things I've accidentally found on the Web and
some things that have been linked to here as examples of ludicrus filth. Also, I
got carried away with my "argument." Again, I'm sorry.
>
> > The Roman Catholic Church will "serve" Communion to anyone who is spiritually
> > prepared to receive it, i.e. in the state of Grace. Unfortunately, many of
> > our
> > Protestant brothers and sisters are not so prepared. As a result, they may
> > not
> > receive.
>
> I daresay that many of our Catholic brothers and sisters are not prepared,
> either. Their state of preparedness is not for us to judge.
>
Touche.
>
> > This is interesting and disturbing. I've not yet read Letters to Malcolm, and
> > must do so. I don't know as it's possible to overemphasize Christianity's
> > message.
>
> It's not a question of overemphasis. What Lewis meant by "festooning", in
> _Letters to Malcolm_, was attaching one's special interpretations to
> Christian texts--he devotes one of the "Letters" to explaining his
> "festoons" of the Lord's Prayer. Lewis certainly isn't denying the
> importance of trying to make one's own sense of such things as the Lord's
> Prayer--what he _doesn't_ want to do is convey the impression that his
> interpretations, his "festoons", are the correct ones. (Although I daresay
> that by putting them in a book, he's speaking _in loco parentis_ if you
> will--giving special weight to his particular interpretations.)
>
This gets complicated. On the one hand, it seems to me perfectly natural to presume
that one's own interpretation of a text is the "correct" one. And, it's a short
step from there to the assertion that one is not interpretting at all. Anyone
remember Michael Martinez? At the same time, humans being what we are, there is a
need for authority, guidance, a "correct" interpretation. And then, after all,
there are those who would say that there is a correct interpretation of Scripture,
of Tradition, etc, etc, and that the Roman Catholic Church has that interpretation.
The festooning takes place when poor slobs like you and me, and Lewis, try to
interpret them for ourselves. I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, surely
it is good for individuals to come each to her/his own understanding of God's Word.
On the other hand, a touchstone is helpful.
>
> > I've
> > read about the founding of Methodism, and about the "Reformation." Maybe you
> > should read about the history of Christianity.
>
Wince!
>
> Kerry, you yourself admitted elsewhere that you weren't strong on the
> history. Are you in a position to admonish another on his or her
> familiarity with the history of Christianity?
Touche.
Solidarity
Kerry
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
Thanks, Keith.
Solidarity
Kerry
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> keithan...@pa.net (Keith Schooley) wrote in message news:<bb194c0b.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> > <Cloaking device off>
> >
> > Kerry Elizabeth Thompson <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > >But, the Protestant
> > > "reformers" were not sincere, committed Christians. If they had been, they
> > > would have reformed the Church. Instead, they set themselves in opposition to
> > > her.
> >
> > They tried. They were excommunicated. What's one to do?
>
> Or were burned at the stake. Or drawn and quartered. Or .........
>
> If people wanted to be able to actually _speak_ about their beliefs,
> let alone practice them, there was a time when the only way possible
> was from outside the official church, (and often in secret).
>
> The Inquisiton was as real as the Holocaust, unfortunately.
>
Unfortunately so. The Church is not immune to bigotry. She has done her share of slaughtering innocents, and
sometimes for most earthly reasons. The Albijencians(sp?) come to mind. They were harmless "crack pots" or would
have been except that they interfeered with the economic balance. If they hadn't gotten onto the radar screen
because of that , probably nobody would have bothered them, even though they were heretics. As it was, a Crusade
was declared against them and they were butchered.
I'm not blind to the Church's faults. They trouble me deeply. But what can be expected of an institution made up of
humans? I wish the Church were perfect. If she were, she would probably be undivided now. But, she's not. I'm
sorry for that, but I can't change it. Flawed as she is, she remains the institution that Our Lord established.
> >
> > Grace and Peace,
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > "Everyone thinks of changing the world and nobody thinks of changing
> > himself." Leo Tolstoy
> >
> > <Cloaking device back on>
Ummm... I don't mean to seem flippent or insensitive in light of the hurt I did Ann; but, I can't help noticing that
Tery seems to be the second lirker to surface so far.
Solidarity
Kerry
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> Peace, Kerry. Best to let a rant speak for itself, I find. I truly
> don't bear ill will and am sorry to have caused any. What is sad is
> any implication something that started out as a discussion may have
> against much healing of schisms. And they think that they'll get the
> Palestinians and Jews to talk? Pax, at least on my part.
>
> All the best,
> Ann
> "I walk in wonders beyond myself." --C. S. Lewis
>
> P. S. I've attended hundreds of Catholic Masses and was welcomed as a
> Methodist at most.
You are a true Christian, Ann. Peace, my friend.
Solidarity
Kerry
David R L Porter
church and try to reform it (apart from the obvious points that have
already been made) is one I've found helpful. I think I read it first in
Atkinson's biography.
He argues that historians have sometimes tended to attack Indulgences as
being simply as an irrational attempt to fleece the people, a
theological aberration turned to useful financial advantage. Reform of
the church in that view might mean no more than straightforward
housekeeping and disciplining of the unruly, and that Luther's duty,
having been given the insight that people like Junker Tetzel were
abusers, was clearly to stay and help in that task.
But (although abuses were certainly to be found in Luther's time, and
prompted some of his great confrontations) Indulgences are completely
consonant with the theology of the period. The notion of an inherited
store of grace that could be applied to sinners through mediation of
third parties fits seamlessly in, and there's nothing irrational or
bizarre about it. A church holding to that theology *ought* to offer
Indulgences, as part of its mediation of the grace of God.
The problem arises for Luther, I think, entirely because of the seamless
nature of Roman Catholic pre-reformation theology, the via antiqua. It
all holds together and makes perfect sense. But once you step outside it
and begin to question individual parts of it, the whole thing begins to
be vulnerable. Yes, he came to believe that Indulgences were wrong --
but having come to that point, he was thereby committed to believing
that it was all wrong.
(And Protestant theology is not so different -- you can't remove the
doctrine of God's gratuitous grace, for example, without bringing the
house down ...)
Once Luther had begun to preach salvation by faith alone, he was at odds
not just with the Idea of Indulgences, but with the whole structure of
Roman Catholic theology. Staying in the church to reform it would not be
a matter of addressing local abuses and bringing people more strictly to
book, but of challenging the entire theological basis of the church. In
which situation he had no choice but to go -- or to be thrown out.
LeB...@mcc.ac.uk
Elizabeth Thompson" <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My knowledge of early Church history is sketchy, but I'm under
> the impression that the term Catholic is an early one. From the Greek
> IIRC.
Ernest Tomlinson <phila...@softhome.net> writes:
>I would guess its etymology is from Gk. _kata_ + _holos_ = _katholos_,
>which would mean something like "from the whole". I defer to any real Greek
>scholars on the group.
I think the word first occurs (in its Christian usage) early in the
3rd century (if not, it's late 2nd century or so). It's used
earlier in classical Greek, of course. The _kata_ in katholos is not
really the preposition but a prefix expressing distribution, as in
_kath' hekaston_, to each one. So katholos means 'throughout the
whole' or 'universal' or even 'general'; in Aristotole, a statement
that 'all broad-leaved plants are deciduous' is described as
'katholos' because it refers to _all_ such plants. The term occurs
in Ireneaus and, I think, Justin Martyr as well as in most early
formulations of the creed; I think it is always used in connection
with _ekklesia_, and thus (I think) is almost certainly intended to
distinguish the universal church from any particular local gathering
or community.
-- Owen
LeB...@mcc.ac.uk
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
I'm confused, not having seen this post while on the ng last night.
Not being entirely the polemical bigot I recently presented myself as, I agree
wholeheartedly that it's high time Christians formed, or re-formed, a united whole.
Eccumenism and inter-denominational dialogue and cooperation are valuable and need to
be pursued as much as inter-faith dialogue.
Ah nuts. It sounds pretty lame. Sorry about that. Guess the firebrand is burning a
bit low at the moment. Anyway, Ann is quite right.
Solidarity
Kerry
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> I weighed in much too heavily last night on this thread
No, you didn't. I deserved everything you gave me and more. I'm
thoroughly ashamed and chastened. I'll try very hard to be vivilized from
now on.
Solidarity
Kerry
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
cafeteeria Catholic myself and someone interested in other spiritualities, I
tend to forget that, strictly speaking, it's all or nothing.
Solidarity
Kerry
David R L Porter wrote:
Joy
> alone after Adam and Eve, was created without the taint of original sin.
I'm pretty new here so I apologise if this has already been discussed,
but being raised an Anglican, nobody fully explained to me why
Catholics consider Mary the mother of Jesus to be without original
sin, or its Biblical basis. (Or maybe it's just because I've never
gone out of my way to find out... but anyhow, I'd like to know more
about this, and people here seem to be nice and helpful...)
> In order to be saved, we must eat of this fruit, the Bread from Heaven
> as Sam rightly says.
I thought we had to believe in Christ in order to be saved. Is
Communion a condition for salvation in Catholicism?
Pardon my naďveté. :)
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
Well, Our Lord says, "except you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood," which
seems pretty straightforward. One could take that metaphorically, of course,
and I suppose in a way one must do so, since He also enjoins us, "as you have
done this to the least of my brothers." We are suppose to act as Our Lord
acted, to make his life our life. But, being rather literal minded, I've
always taken the instruction to eat and drink literally. And Protestants do
too, don't they, uh, you? Isn't Communion an essential part of Christianity as
you conceive it?
As to Our Lady and the Immaculate Conception: The way I've heard it explained
is quite simple and logical. Since the Fall, Man is tainted with Original
Sin. In order to become human, the Second Person needed a human mother. Such
a mother had, logically, to be free from Originall Sin. So, God the Father in
his mercy and love, granted to one chosen postlapsarian woman the grace of
being created with a soul unmarred by sin, a soul immaculate. It's no stranger
or more difficult to believe than that the Second Person of the Trinity would
Incarnate.
Solidarity
Kery
Joy
> And Protestants do
> too, don't they, uh, you? Isn't Communion an essential part of
> Christianity as you conceive it?
That doesn't exactly answer my question... I wasn't asking about the
importance of Communion itself, but asking about your statement in
your previous post that said "in order to be saved", which seemed to
imply that the physical act of eating the bread and wine/flesh and
blood was a *condition* for salvation... Like if a person sincerely
believed in Christ but was, say, killed before receiving Communion,
they still wouldn't be saved.
> As to Our Lady and the Immaculate Conception: The way I've heard it
> explained is quite simple and logical. Since the Fall, Man is tainted
> with Original Sin. In order to become human, the Second Person needed
> a human mother. Such a mother had, logically, to be free from Originall
> Sin. So, God the Father in his mercy and love, granted to one chosen
> postlapsarian woman the grace of being created with a soul unmarred by sin,
> a soul immaculate. It's no stranger or more difficult to believe than
> that the Second Person of the Trinity would Incarnate.
So it is an assumption? Is there any Biblical foundation for it,
though? (I'm not trying to be difficult, I honestly don't know!) :)
Oops, maybe I'm showing myself to be a true blue Protestant by asking
for a Biblical reference for everything... maybe even an
"evangelical"? (shock! horror!) :)
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> Kerry Elizabeth Thompson <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > And Protestants do
> > too, don't they, uh, you? Isn't Communion an essential part of
> > Christianity as you conceive it?
>
> That doesn't exactly answer my question... I wasn't asking about the
> importance of Communion itself, but asking about your statement in
> your previous post that said "in order to be saved", which seemed to
> imply that the physical act of eating the bread and wine/flesh and
> blood was a *condition* for salvation...
But, it is. Our Lord said that it is. Consider the following passage from John
6:
24: When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his
disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for
Jesus.
25: And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto
him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26: Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek
me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves,
and were filled.
27: Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth
unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath
God the Father sealed.
28: Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works
of God?
29: Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye
believe on him whom he hath sent.
30: They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may
see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31: Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them
bread from heaven to eat.
32: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave
you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread
from heaven.
33: For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth
life unto the world.
34: Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me
shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36: But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me
I will in no wise cast out.
38: For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him
that sent me.
39: And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath
given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the
Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at
the last day.
41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which
came down from heaven.
42: And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and
mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43: Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among
yourselves.
44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw
him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every
man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto
me.
46: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath
seen the Father.
47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting
life.
48: I am that bread of life.
49: Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50: This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat
thereof, and not die.
51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of
this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world.
52: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man
give us his flesh to eat?
53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will
raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in
him.
57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that
eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did
eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59: These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60: Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is
an hard saying; who can hear it?
61: When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said
unto them, Doth this offend you?
62: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was
before?
63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that
I
speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64: But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the
beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65: And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
except it were given unto him of my Father.
66: From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with
him.
67: Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68: Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
the words of eternal life.
69: And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living
God.
70: Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is
a devil?
71: He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should
betray him, being one of the twelve.
> Like if a person sincerely
> believed in Christ but was, say, killed before receiving Communion,
> they still wouldn't be saved.
>
I'm not, to my regret, trained as a lay minister or catechist. (I wanted to take
such training, but my health declined and going back to school became
impractical.) Indeed, I probably don't know as much as an ordinary laywooman
ought to; so, it's hard for me to answer your question. IMU that there is such a
thing as Communion of the heart. In other words, if someone dies suddenly and
had not been able to get to Mass and take Communion, of course he is not damned
because of that accident. A sincere desire to recieve can also serve as a
substitute, if perhaps not quite a sufficient substitute. Thus, for instance, a
shutin such as myself may watch Mass on television and make an act of spiritual
Communion, and considering the circumstances, I can be considered as gaining the
same graces and benefits as those who physically recieve the Blessed Sacrament.
But, yes, according to Our Lord's own saying, receiving or having a deep, sincere
desire to recieve His Body and Blood is the condition of Salvation. I didn't
make that up. It's right there in your Bible.
> > As to Our Lady and the Immaculate Conception: The way I've heard it
> > explained is quite simple and logical. Since the Fall, Man is tainted
> > with Original Sin. In order to become human, the Second Person needed
> > a human mother. Such a mother had, logically, to be free from Originall
> > Sin. So, God the Father in his mercy and love, granted to one chosen
> > postlapsarian woman the grace of being created with a soul unmarred by sin,
> > a soul immaculate. It's no stranger or more difficult to believe than
> > that the Second Person of the Trinity would Incarnate.
>
> So it is an assumption?
It is, AFAIK an assumption, an assumption grounded in reason or logic and in
Tradition. Albertus Magnus in the Thirteenth Century was a proponent of the idea
and, great thinker though he was, he couldn't have pulled it out of thin air. I
don't know the provinence of the idea, though IIRC it does not appear per se in
the Bible. The Bible is one column, one leg on which Faith rests. Tradition is
the other. If you reject the idea that there is a Deposit of Faith, only part of
which is represented by the Bible, then I suppose you can't on principle accept
the idea of the Immaculate Conception.
> Is there any Biblical foundation for it,
> though? (I'm not trying to be difficult, I honestly don't know!) :)
Well, honestly and without meaning to seem flippent, the best way to discover
whether there is Biblical basis for something is to study the Bible.
> Oops, maybe I'm showing myself to be a true blue Protestant by asking
> for a Biblical reference for everything... maybe even an
> "evangelical"? (shock! horror!) :)
<grin> Heaven forbid!
Solidarity
Kerry
Joy
Conception...
>
> > Is there any Biblical foundation for it,
> > though? (I'm not trying to be difficult, I honestly don't know!) :)
>
> Well, honestly and without meaning to seem flippent, the best way to discover
> whether there is Biblical basis for something is to study the Bible.
Yep-- what I meant was that I *had* studied the Bible and to the best
of my knowledge hadn't found anything... I was just being thinking
that I'd missed something... :)
> > Oops, maybe I'm showing myself to be a true blue Protestant by asking
> > for a Biblical reference for everything... maybe even an
> > "evangelical"? (shock! horror!) :)
>
> <grin> Heaven forbid!
LOL!
AJA
Why do we think to confine Communion to a church ritual?
If we are truly grateful to Christ Jesus for his sacrifice, and intend
to take Christ in every cell of our bodies, shouldn't we give thanks
each time we eat and drink anything? Reading the upper room passages,
it doesn't seem to me that serving Communion is the purview of our
churches alone, or that we can merely leave Communion there.
Is it a living theology to be lived constantly, instead of being
ritualized only on certain Sundays?
Of course the larger question is, how is one to live? Is this is a
sacramental life, or just a period of time to be gotten through?
Keith Schooley
> Joy wrote:
>
> > your statement in
> > your previous post that said "in order to be saved", which seemed to
> > imply that the physical act of eating the bread and wine/flesh and
> > blood was a *condition* for salvation...
>
> But, it is. Our Lord said that it is. Consider the following passage from John
> 6:
Kerry, I *really* don't want to get into an interdenominational battle
on the Eucharist, but simply quoting the relevant passage from John 6
doesn't resolve the question. If your interpretation is correct, there
is the huge anachronism evident in the fact that Jesus' original
audience couldn't possibly have understood what he meant and couldn't
possibly have done what he was commanding them to do for some period
of time afterward.
Secondly, we have the fact that Jesus also "is" the light of the world
(John 8:12; 9:5), without believing that His body was composed of
photons, or that enjoying sunlight is actually absorbing His being. He
also "is" the rock from which Moses received water for the Israelites
(1 Cor. 10:4), "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6), "the
true vine" (John 15:1-8), the "Lamb of God" (John 1:36), etc. It is
indisputable that most of these references are metaphors. They
illustrate a spiritual truth, without being physical realities in and
of themselves.
I think that it is at least arguable that the truth involved in Jesus'
statements in John 6, as well as the meaning of actual communion
itself, is that one must spiritually "take in" Jesus through faith (as
you yourself argue when dealing with the "communion of the heart" that
would take place in someone who would like to take the Eucharist but
is unable to). Just as baptism illustrates identifying with Christ in
His death and resurrection (Rom. 6), so communion illustrates our
participation in receiving His body and blood as the atonement for our
sins.
Incidentally, the passage that Ernest (I think) originally quoted from
_Letters to Malcolm_ contains one more relevant line that he did not
quote: "And I find substance" (in Aristotle's sense), when stripped of
its own accidents and endowed with the accidents of some other
substance, an object I cannot think. My effort to do so produces mere
nursery-thinking--a picture of something like very rarified
plasticine." Lewis's point is that the doctrine of transsubstantiation
necessarily involves the idea that the bread and wine *really* turn
into Jesus' body and blood ("substance"), while retaining the look,
feel, taste, etc., of bread and wine ("accidents"). Lewis's point is
to ask, What is it that changes into body and blood, if anything
measurable or detectable does not in fact change?
My point is not to convince you, or anyone who believes in
transsubstantiation. My point is simply to say that quoting John 6
does not foreclose the question.
Grace and Peace,
Keith
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
You've hit on the central and most important questions here. According to
Our Lord's words throughout the Gospels, the whole of a Christian's life
is to be a prayer, a praise, a thanksgiving, and a serving. Yes, it is to
be a sacramental time, a sacrament. But, Lord, that's a tall order! For
myself, I find it comforting and helpful to have the ritual from which to
draw strength.
Solidarity
Kerry
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
>I have this idea from a friend and have practiced it myself.
>Why do we think to confine Communion to a church ritual?
>If we are truly grateful to Christ Jesus for his sacrifice, and intend
>to take Christ in every cell of our bodies, shouldn't we give thanks
>each time we eat and drink anything? Reading the upper room passages,
>it doesn't seem to me that serving Communion is the purview of our
>churches alone, or that we can merely leave Communion there.
> Is it a living theology to be lived constantly, instead of being
>ritualized only on certain Sundays?
One of the blessings of Catholicism, I should point out quickly, is
that it is not ritualized 'only on certain Sundays'. On any day of
the week I can go to Mass and partake of it. Call it a perk!
As for the other, are you saying that the communion should be reduced
to the level of having a cracker and a welch's grape soda at home on
the couch? Or elevating the seriousness of the cracker and grape soda
at home at certain times? I recall with a little bit of disgust
Kenneth Copeland merrily telling people to go to their refrigerators
and get a piece of bread and some juice ('any kind will do') and that
they could have communion right there on their couches. Either this
is much too spiritual for me, or it's a serious degradation of the
whole sacrament itself.
While Lewis did say that communion turns out to be 'the old ordinary
act of eating and drinking' I'm not sure he would have approved of
(what seems to me) a cavalier interpretation of it.
Sam
**************************************************************************
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell III)
Professional Dilettante
Impossibly Logocentric
Unfashionably Orthodox
AJA
(Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)) wrote:
> Or elevating the seriousness of the cracker and grape soda
>at home at certain times?
Elevating our life activities, having a mindfulness of the presence in
our lives of the Person from Whom all blessings flow. I don't think
there is any danger these days of being too spiritual. Just the
opposite.
> I recall with a little bit of disgust
>Kenneth Copeland merrily telling people to go to their refrigerators
>and get a piece of bread and some juice ('any kind will do') and that
>they could have communion right there on their couches. Either this
>is much too spiritual for me, or it's a serious degradation of the
>whole sacrament itself.
Look on the positive side, Sam. Life is a sacrament. One is not
degrading any one ritualized sacrament but affirming life as a
sacrament.
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
>Elevating our life activities, having a mindfulness of the presence in
>our lives of the Person from Whom all blessings flow. I don't think
>there is any danger these days of being too spiritual. Just the
>opposite.
Okay, I see. Yes, we are to live our lives at all times with a
mindfulness of God. I recall the little book about Brother Lawrence
_Practicing the Presence of God_ who spoke of "not even picking up a
straw off of the ground without being mindful of the Presence of God."
As you already know, I'm a firm believer that there's something
extraordinary about the ordinary. :)
>> I recall with a little bit of disgust
>>Kenneth Copeland merrily telling people to go to their refrigerators
>>and get a piece of bread and some juice ('any kind will do') and that
>>they could have communion right there on their couches. Either this
>>is much too spiritual for me, or it's a serious degradation of the
>>whole sacrament itself.
>
>Look on the positive side, Sam. Life is a sacrament. One is not
>degrading any one ritualized sacrament but affirming life as a
>sacrament.
Very true, Ann. But this particular incident with the televangelist
struck me as a bit of bathos... bringing something sublime down to the
utterly mundane. Rather than elevating ordinary life to a higher
level of spirituality, it seemed to me to depreciate something that is
already wholly... holy (Sorry). We are not called merely to be Sunday
pew-warmers, certainly. And you've reminded me how lax I have been in
even praying the ordinary grace over meals as my parents so faithfully
did when I was growing up. It's a good habit to get back into.
Daryl
>From: Kerry Elizabeth Thompson ui...@earthlink.net
>Consider the following passage from John
>6:
-snipped for emphisis-
>40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the
>Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up
>at
>the last day.
>41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which
>came down from heaven.
>47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting
>life.
>
>51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of
>this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my
>flesh,
>which I will give for the life of the world.
>53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat
>the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
>54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I
>will
>raise him up at the last day.
>55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
>56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in
>him.
>58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did
>eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
I would never in a million years equate this with communion in any way other
than the fact that communion reminds us of what we are dealing with.
Jesus says _I am_ the bread. He doesn't say I will be the bread, he equates
belief in Him with being fed in the same sense he equates it with the water
offered to the woman at the well. At Paesach the cup of wine Jesus offers (his
blood) has a specific meaning, it is the 3rd cup, the cup of redemption, the
matzoh also symbolizes deliverence.
I find it absurd that Jesus would REQUIRE a person to perform some rite, no
matter how sacred or symbolic, before he would accept them. This is certainly
not the Jesus I know, the one that welcomes the worst of us, as we are,
unworthy, lost and prodigal.
>But, yes, according to Our Lord's own saying, receiving or having a deep,
>sincere
>desire to recieve His Body and Blood is the condition of Salvation.
Only if you read this in a strange way, out of context with what he is talking
about.
>The Bible is one column, one leg on which Faith rests. Tradition is
>the other.
I don't recall Christ having kind words for our traditions (see divorce)
>If you reject the idea that there is a Deposit of Faith, only part of
>which is represented by the Bible, then I suppose you can't on principle
>accept
>the idea of the Immaculate Conception.
I just don't find it necessary, true or not it simply seems a means to change
the focus of worship from Christ to Mary. I know your church says this is not
the purpose, but it has that effect.
I wish to be clear here, while I disagree with many of the tenents of the Roman
church, I also find a good deal to value there! They are especially strong in
promoting a deep, continual communication with God that I wish were more common
in my church.
Daryl
Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Psalm 127:1
(remove nopax for e-mail)
Daryl
>If we are truly grateful to Christ Jesus for his sacrifice, and intend
>to take Christ in every cell of our bodies, shouldn't we give thanks
>each time we eat and drink anything?
Ann, if you didn't have so much insight into the human condition I would swear
you were an angel, as it is I am suspicious. You are altogether to kind to be
totally human.
Daryl
>But once you step outside it
>and begin to question individual parts of it, the whole thing begins to
>be vulnerable. Yes, he came to believe that Indulgences were wrong --
>but having come to that point, he was thereby committed to believing
>that it was all wrong.
Curiously enough it was his study of the book of Romans that lead him away from
the Roman church.
David R L Porter
from dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) contains these words:
> Curiously enough it was his study of the book of Romans that lead him
> away from
> the Roman church.
I know :)))
My point was in response to Kerry's, that Luther could have stayed in
the church to reform it from within. I was suggesting that tidying up
the Indulgence abuse without challenging the whole of Roman Catholic
theology wasn't an option.
It's a useful point that I was glad to find (in Atkinson, I think), for
it lifts the Reformation issue above contemporary personalities,
individual abuses and Luther's own remarkable life. But the point you
make is, of course, the nub of it.
Andew Rilstone
Schooley <keithan...@pa.net> writes
>My point is not to convince you, or anyone who believes in
>transsubstantiation. My point is simply to say that quoting John 6
>does not foreclose the question.
It is also (perhaps) a textual problem that the long discourse about the
need to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood occurs in the fourth
Gospel, which is the one which does not refer to the eating of bread and
wine at the Last Supper.
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
************************************************************************
'Tis the time's plague when madmen lead the blind
************************************************************************
Andew Rilstone
<dary...@aol.comnopax> writes
>I find it absurd that Jesus would REQUIRE a person to perform some rite, no
>matter how sacred or symbolic, before he would accept them. This is certainly
>not the Jesus I know, the one that welcomes the worst of us, as we are,
>unworthy, lost and prodigal.
Well...We are told that Jesus told us to "make disciples of all nations,
baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit." That sounds like commanding a rite to me.
I wonder if this is just a manifestation of the old "faith vs works"
argument?
"Are you a Christian through your good works?"
"No: through Faith in Christ."
"Then you can be a Christian and carry on sinning."
"No: Christ cares about good behaviour a great deal."
"Are you a Christian through rites and ceremonies?"
"No: through Faith in Christ."
"Then you can be a Christian and not bother with baptism or communion."
"No: Christ commanded that we should do them."
I can conceive of a Lewisian-type argument that says "If we could only
look at it from Gods point of view, we'd see that it was a non-question:
taking the Body and Blood of Christ at the altar and having faith that
he died for us are in fact exactly the same event; they just happen to
look different to us because we are stuck in linear time whereas god is
outside it.."
Andew Rilstone
<ahne...@microdsi.net> writes
I think that this might be an example of the "meta-question" which tends
to separate Christian denominations.
Some people say "let's go back to the Bible and see what Jesus actually
said." If you read the account of the Last Supper in the synoptics, then
you find Him saying "Do this in remembrance of Me". "This" could
perfectly well mean "the annual Passover meal" or "an intimate meal with
your Christian fellowship"; rather than "the ritual eating of
consecrated bread and wine". I believe that there are Christian groups
who have drawn both these conclusions, either celebrating "the lord's
supper" once a year as a sort of Christian Passover, or regarding every
meal as sacramental.
Other people say "you can't just go back and look at the words of the
Bible in isolation; you have to take into account the ways in which it
has, historically, been interpreted by the Church and by good and wise
Christians over the millennia." On this view, if Communion had become a
church rite at least by the second century; and has remained so down to
the present, then you would have to be very brave to say "No, actually,
we've spotted what Jesus really meant, which all the other Christians
throughout history have missed."
I want to avoid making this a Catholic - Protestant issue; but it would
be presumably be true to say that the Catholic church places a higher
value on Tradition than many Protestant churches do.
Lewis definitely took the view that you had to interpret the Bible in
the light of tradition:
"(The Bible) carries the Word of God, and we (under grace, with
attention to tradition and interpreters wiser than ourselves and with
the use of such intelligence and learning as we many have) receive that
word from it..." ("Reflections on the Psalms.")
Talking about the story of the Garden of Eden, he speculated that the
actual text might carry some quite strange and obscure meanings, but
that it was reasonable, as a rule, to accept the consensus-intepretation
that the church had put on it:
<<Somewhere in "Problem of Pain"... can't find the quote right now...!>>
He was very down on Liberal theologians who claimed to have discovered
the "true" meaning of a passage that was different from the Church's
traditional one; but I guess he would have criticised revivalist
churches who did the same thing:
"All theology of the liberal type involves... the claim that the real
behaviour and teaching of Christ came very rapidly to be misunderstood
and misrepresented by his followers and has been recovered or exhumed
only by modern scholars... The idea that any man or writer should be
opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same language,
shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be
transparent to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion
preposterous". ("Fern Seed and Elephants")
However, naturally as an Anglican he accepted that there could also be
breaks with tradition; the Reformers were right to have abolished some
of the "Roman" practices -- in particular, Papal authority and the
invocation of saints.
AJA
>Ann, if you didn't have so much insight into the human condition I would swear
>you were an angel, as it is I am suspicious.
Please God, not yet! I've got all these Daylilies to plant!
Best,
A
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
<and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It is also (perhaps) a textual problem that the long discourse about the
>need to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood occurs in the fourth
>Gospel, which is the one which does not refer to the eating of bread and
>wine at the Last Supper.
While the passages in question "This is my body... This is my blood"
are not in John, isn't it referred to at least indirectly in the
passage in John 13 where Jesus exposes the traitor among them? In
John 13:17-18, Christ says after he has washed the disciples' feet:
"If ye know these things, happy are ye that do them...I speak not of
you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be
fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted his heel against
me." So the eating of bread at least is referred to. That the author
of John does not specifically record the well-known words "This is my
body" in this section doesn't surprise me so much because John is
thought to have been written much later than the Synoptic Gospels, and
I see the author as giving a Paul Harvey style _Rest of The Story_
where everyone who read it would already know that this was the last
supper. Far be it from me to be so critical as to tell John he should
have put in the words to tie the last supper in with the sixth chapter
where Christ speaks of himself as the living bread, but I agree that
stylistically and theologically it would have been so much clearer if
he had.
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
Sorry to post again so soon after my last one, but this may be a
helpful addition.
As Judas leaves, Jesus gives another sermon at this supper (and it IS
the last supper, isn't it?) that spans at least 3 chapters, and Christ
says in Chapter 15, verse 1 "I am the true vine, and my father is the
husbandman." I can only speculate, of course, but one wonders if when
he said "I am the true vine" he gestured at a cup of wine? Or when he
said "I am the living bread" or "I am the bread of life" he gestured
at bread? How much clearer these things would be to us had the
authors wrote like that! But since this is only speculation, I have
to leave the passage as it is. But if this is the last supper, surely
they thought of wine when he said "I am the true vine?" So unless I
am completely off base, I submit that both the bread AND the wine were
referred to at this supper in John.
It seems to me that Catholic symbolism can't be beat:
"I am the light of the world" -- Notice the Catholic use of candles
"I am the living water" -- Holy Water & Use of water with wine
"I am the bread of life" -- The Host
"I am the true vine" -- The Wine
There is probably more, but I am still very new to Catholicism.
Blessings,
AJA
<and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>He was very down on Liberal theologians who claimed to have discovered
>the "true" meaning of a passage that was different from the Church's
>traditional one; but I guess he would have criticised revivalist
>churches who did the same thing:
I mostly agree with Lewis on this point. But saying that, there are
issues raised in the NT epistles about male/female relationships,
slavery, homosexuality, etc., which if one intends to follow Christ's
message in the Gospels one seems _obligated_ to take a look at new
meanings which may indeed reside outside of Tradition.
The examination of meanings is in itself a most ancient tradition.
Witness two tellings in Genesis of the creation story, Balaam's ass,
or passages in the OT such as forbidding the wearing of wool and
cotton at the same time, and many other instances of course.
And as Christ brought an entirely new tradition and culture, there is
from the beginning of Christianity a tradition to reject tradition.
>"All theology of the liberal type involves... the claim that the real
>behaviour and teaching of Christ came very rapidly to be misunderstood
>and misrepresented by his followers and has been recovered or exhumed
>only by modern scholars... The idea that any man or writer should be
>opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same language,
>shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be
>transparent to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion
>preposterous". ("Fern Seed and Elephants")
Preposterous maybe. But even as they walked with Jesus the apostles
seemed not to realize what was before them. Which is to say that
nothing, including the very Presence, is transparent or even opaque.
That doesn't excuse us, and we have to be prayerfully cautious as
Christians not to go off on some tangent- not to festoon, to use
Lewis' word, so much that the message is lost to us.
>However, naturally as an Anglican he accepted that there could also be
>breaks with tradition; the Reformers were right to have abolished some
>of the "Roman" practices -- in particular, Papal authority and the
>invocation of saints.
Or transubstantiation for that matter. It is not a particular
Anglican belief, true? To me, if my body and soul are of any
consequence, reading the whole of the gospel of John the tradition of
The Lord's Supper as eating the actual flesh and blood of Christ is
ritualizing something out of context when the whole of the gospel of
John is about the workings of the Spirit. John 6:63-64: "It is the
spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I
have spoken to you are spirit and life." Jesus was echoed by Paul
when he wrote in II Corinthians 3:6, "The written code kills but the
Spirit gives life."
It seems that all denominations interpret, and that tradition is
never carved in stone. The problem with an absolute and infallible
authority as to what a given tradition will be is that if it's wrong,
it isn't easy to change without cataclysmic breakage- as David has
pointed out. (Luther, et al)
But after all is said and said again and again, I believe in an
essential Christian unity- that there is that precious kernel of Truth
that unites us as a family, a community, of believers. C. S. Lewis
was inspired to write much about that essential unity, of course.
I believe it is precisely out of this essential unity of belief that
we care enough to scrap with our Christian brothers and sisters. One
family member might say that another member is rejected, an
ex-communicant. But the essential Gospel truth is that it simply is
never so.
Dan Drake
<phila...@softhome.net> wrote:
>... thus leading to a situation where "by one standard or another all
> of Christendom was damned soundly and completely during this time" (to quote
> H. G. Wells's _Outline of History_. Will I get kicked off the group for
> liking Wells?)
Not a bit of it. Lewis liked Wells; his praise of the spirit of
Wellsianity was by no means sarcastic. Just thought he was basically
unsound, that's all.
> And of course I have no idea what the doctrinal differences are that led to
> the Eastern/Western split.
Would you believe, "filioque"? (4 syllables)
In the West (Protestants included, I believe -- certainly Anglicans) the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque); in East, from
the Father only.
For a remarkable angle (or Angle) on this, try Dorothy L Sayers's _The
Mind of the Maker_, which shows that in the arts, at least, the spirit
definitely comes from both.
> I know very little history (yet more than most
> public-school students of my generation, I daresay. God, U. S. public
> schools stink.)
It's OK; in earlier generations there wasn't much about 1054 And All That
in the public schools. The schools, public and good private ones also,
are just doing a different bad job today, it seems to me.
--
Dan Drake
Anythi...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
What did the Berkeley City Council actually say about the war.
angering all the patriots and causing boycotts?
http://www.dandrake.com/berkeley.html
David R L Porter
from slyfootNO...@bellsouth.net (Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)) contains
these words:
> It seems to me that Catholic symbolism can't be beat:
> "I am the light of the world" -- Notice the Catholic use of candles
> "I am the living water" -- Holy Water & Use of water with wine
> "I am the bread of life" -- The Host
> "I am the true vine" -- The Wine
But are not at least two of those images - the bread and the wine -
common to all Christian churches? I'm not sure that the other two, while
I respect the meaning they have for Catholics, are unbeateable
expressions of the biblical symbolism.
I've been a little disturbed in this thread by the implication that
using actual bread is in some way a devaluing of the communion. Surely
the entire symbolism of the eucharist resides in the use of real bread
and real wine? To use a crusty oven-baked loaf is to do what presumably
Jesus did, and a bottle of supermarket plonk is presumable the sort of
thing they drank at the last supper. Jesus didn't buy in special
elements to institute the communion, he used what was already on the
table. The use of wafers, and the tradition of the laity receiving
communion in one kind and only the priest drinking the wine (I don't
know if that tradition still exists, but it did, for many years)
introduce a new level of symbolic representation. The reasons may be
very understandable, but closer to the symbolic spirit of the feast? I
can't see it.
Let's not advance the cause of one party over another and being closer
to what communion is all about. In our protestent church we use leavened
bread, which Jesus did not, so we have all diverged from the original:
what matters is the spirit in which we make our transpositions.
Slyfoot (Sam Campbell)
<david....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Let's not advance the cause of one party over another and being closer
>to what communion is all about. In our protestent church we use leavened
>bread, which Jesus did not, so we have all diverged from the original:
>what matters is the spirit in which we make our transpositions.
Thanks for this, David. At what point does an interfaith discussion
turn into a debate, I wonder? But it seems that perhaps I crossed a
line between them. Will it ever be possible, I wonder, for true
Christian unity among Christians who think that one denomination is
'more right' than another? Let's hope so.
David R L Porter
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:28:47 +0100, David R L Porter
> <david....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >Let's not advance the cause of one party over another and being closer
> >to what communion is all about. In our protestent church we use leavened
> >bread, which Jesus did not, so we have all diverged from the original:
> >what matters is the spirit in which we make our transpositions.
> Thanks for this, David. At what point does an interfaith discussion
> turn into a debate, I wonder? But it seems that perhaps I crossed a
> line between them. Will it ever be possible, I wonder, for true
> Christian unity among Christians who think that one denomination is
> 'more right' than another? Let's hope so.
You want to wait until we get into eschatology, Sam. Was Lewis
pre-millennial, post-millennial, or a-millennial? Wooh! See those
feathers fly (actually I can't recall the topic ever being discussed
here, but it has to come...).
For myself I'm a prelactarian. Milk goes in the cup first, then the
coffee. Can't stand the stuff those post-lactarians produce
(a-lactarians. of course, drink their coffee black) :)))))))))
I don't think you crossed any lines, it's good to get each other's views
on these matters. This newsgroup happens to be the only place at present
where I can listen to Catholics talking about what's important to them
-- and I value it.
Ernest Tomlinson
Elizabeth Thompson" <ui...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ernest Tomlinson wrote:
>> Yes. People ought never to forget that (although I doubt that one
>> person in a hundred, in the U. S., knows what "catholic" means.)
>>
>
> Back to the deplorable state of education. I wonder if it's as bad elsewhere
> as in
> the U.S.?
Well, I think I'm guilty of talking about my public-school education in a
superior way. Probably I got more out of it than I imagine.
All the same, I'm always coming across people who are supposedly educated,
yet are breathtakingly ignorant about many things--about history, about
literature, especially about science and mathematics--but worse than just
ignorant; they're almost proud of the fact that they escaped from school
without learning anything, so they can get onto the business of living in
the "real world" (i.e. making money.)
> But then, I was in the Liberal Arts,
> an
> English major, while she majored in Business. Also, of course, she was an ESL
> student, which made everything much harder for her than had she been studying
> in her
> native language. I think, though, that things like Education and Business etc
> are
> far more narrow than the Liberal Arts.
I'm sorry to say that the general impression I got of the Business and
Education majors at my college was that they were catch-all disciplines for
people who vaguely felt obligated to get a college degree, but who couldn't
settle on a more definite program.
> As an English major, I read about
> History,
> Sociology, Economics, various sciences, Religion, Art, etc, etc. Then, I
> minored in
> History - not Church History, unfortunately) and Music. So, though my
> education was
> perhaps not terribly deep, it was broad.
Mine was very strange. I majored first in Chemistry, but ended up failing
out (not because I was bad at Chemistry; I was just bad at everything else
:); then I found my way into Computer Science (another catch-all discipline
for washed-out scientists and mathematicians) and then Classics.
One thing that bothered me about my CSU education is that, even for my
Classics degree, I didn't need to establish a solid base of knowledge in the
humanities. Instead of a well-defined required curriculum of humanities and
social science, there was a watered-down "General Education" requirement,
which would could satisfy by taking the most heterogeneous assortment of
unrelated classes. So I ended up taking a six-week summer class in
Comparative Religion, an introductory course in Linguistics, another summer
course in "Current Social Problems" or some such nonsense. The
proliferation of disciplines accounts for this, in part. Actually
_defining_ a humanities curriculum would mean leaving out classes in a lot
of two-bit departments which want to muscle their way in: Women's Studies
and Sociology and that sort of thing. (Am I sounding "grumpy Tory don"
enough? :)
>
>> Or do you think that this sort of thing does not constitute a real change in
>> the Church from "what she has always been"? One of the reasons I hold the
>> Catholic Church in great respect is that, when she does change her mind (as
>> I believe she has done, with respect to evolution and other things), she
>> does so only after great thought. The intelligence exhibited in a document
>> such as the _Humani Generis_ encyclical is I believe characteristic of the
>> Catholic Church.
>
> This is a good question, and a difficult one. Is it change, or is it growth
> and
> development? Is there a difference between the two? I think there is, if a
> fine
> one. An analogy I've heard that seems to me a good one is that of the acorn
> and the
> oak. The essence, the being of the oak is in the acorn and one might say that
> the
> full expression of the acorn's being is the oak. The oak grows from the
> acorn, is
> to all appearences utterly different from it, and yet is the fullest
> expression of
> it.
>
> Similarly, take a person. One remains a distinct individual throughout
> infancy,
> childhood, and adulthood. Yet, one grows and develops. Changes? John
> remains John
> when he loses his baby teeth, when years later he loses his hair, even when he
> realizes that some of his early ideas were inaccurate or flat out wrong. The
> Church, too, grows and develops over time, sometimes realizing that early
> ideas were
> inaccurate or prejudiced, etc. A static institution would not accurately
> represent
> or adequately teach and care for the dynamic units, individual humans, who
> make up
> the Body of Christ.
>
>>
>>> The Protestant "reformers" were either
>>> low-level, badly educated jerks, like Luther, who were pissed that the
>>> Church
>>> didn't listen to their ideas and because of those ideas advance themselves,
>>> or
>>> else they were kings, like Henry VIII who were pissed that they couldn't
>>> push
>>> the Pope around.
[the founding of the Anglican church]
> King's and other powerful folks often tried , and sometimes managed, to bully
> or
> intimidate, or just out manouver the Pope. It's just England's bad luck that
> Henry
> and the pope of the time were equally stubborn. Yes, for all the reasons for
> breaking with Rome, that does seem the least, ahem, mature and reasonable.
Well, I'm not _au fait_ with the history here; I assume that Archbishop
Cranmer based the decision to split with Rome on some doctrinal argument
which was at least plausible. (Correct me if I'm wrong--did he not argue
that the Pope, being merely the "Bishop of Rome", had no more authority over
the Church than any other bishop?
[Communion wafer vs. pita bread]
> You see? You feel it too. Pita bread is very well in itself, but it isn't
> quite
> the thing when it comes to Communion. Though that reminds me of another of
> Patty's
> complaints. She says that if it were "real" bread, she might be able to
> concede
> that Our Lord is present in it. But, she can't cope with those silly little
> things
> they give you. (She can't seem to remember the words "Host" or "wafer.")
> It's the
> reverse of what you're saying. For some reason, she can't accept the Host as
> bread
> and thus as The Bread of Life, the Body of Our Lord. Maybe if she went to a
> service
> that used bread - IIRC the Greek Orthodox... Her husband is GO. Maybe I
> should
> suggest that they attend those services for a while. She might begin to get
> the
> idea. Thanks for making me think of this.
Coincidentally enough, at Sunday service at St. Mark's a few days ago,
during the homily the priest lifted up the loaf of bread (not pita bread,
but a round, pristine loaf of bread) and said something like, "Little did
the <mumble> Bakery of Sand Point (or something like that) know that this
bread would become for us the body of Christ." And that worked very well, I
thought--it made clear that the choice of bread wasn't just some
afterthought, as though the church had run fresh out of the proper stuff and
had to duck on over to the local grocer's for a substitute.
It's apparent thoughtlessness which bothers me. I wrote a little about the
Wiccan version of Communion in another thread. It's a little damaging to
one's appreciation of the supposedly sacred nature of this rite to see it
done (as I have seen it done) with donut holes and apple juice. I suppose
one could argue that donut holes aren't any more or less sacred than any
other bread, but the use of donut holes suggests to me not sacredness but
frivolity.
Cheers,
Ernest.
Daryl
>So the eating of bread at least is referred to.
I would have been surprised were it not, this was a Seder after all. >Far be it
from me to be so critical as to tell John he should
>have put in the words to tie the last supper in with the sixth chapter
>where Christ speaks of himself as the living bread, but I agree that
>stylistically and theologically it would have been so much clearer if
>he had.
I would not contest what Christ did at the last supper, only that it was
intendend as a physical, as opposed to a spiritual, partaking of the life (and
death) of Jesus. It is where the Protestant and Catholic diverge. I would say
that one could take physical communion a zillion times without benifit, just as
one could be baptized without benefit, the merit is in the reflection on and
becoming attuned with the principles represented. I would take my cue from the
Seder service itself, likewise replete with symbols that recall the provision
of God, which was another remembrance He commanded. It posesses no "magic" of
its own but gains a great deal of virtue looking back to what God has done and
forward to what he was to do. Christ speaks of baptism with fire as well, have
you seen this?
Daryl
>referred to at this supper in John.
No one doubts it to my knowledge, as I said it was a Seder service.
Daryl
> At what point does an interfaith discussion
>turn into a debate, I wonder? But it seems that perhaps I crossed a
>line between them.
I think, in this forum, we should not be afraid to discuss such things, it
helps us understand one another. So long as our pride does not lead us to words
of anger or condemnation we ought to be able to expose ourselves a bit more
here than in other places.
> Will it ever be possible, I wonder, for true
>Christian unity among Christians who think that one denomination is
>'more right' than another? Let's hope so.
I think we can, provided we realize that what we are called to may not suit our
bretheren. If we could just sit down on occasion and list ten things about one
denomination or another that we like instead of focusing on what does not ring
true to us, we might be more forgiving of what seems to be their errors.
Alas, one thing I admired most about the Roman Church, the Latin Mass (and the
glourious music that had been written for it) has been forsaken.
Daryl
writes;
>In the West (Protestants included, I believe -- certainly Anglicans) the
>Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque); in East, from
>the Father only.
Actually, in many Protestant churches the issue is never addressed, the Holy
Spirit, as is Christ, being God as much as the Father and Son, and possessing
divinity in equal measure; it seems strange to speak of Him proceeding from
anything, He is, that is all, and He is with us, now and forever.
Keith Schooley
> >While the passages in question "This is my body... This is my blood"
> >are not in John, isn't it referred to at least indirectly in the
> >passage in John 13 where Jesus exposes the traitor among them? In
> >John 13:17-18, Christ says after he has washed the disciples' feet:
> >"If ye know these things, happy are ye that do them...I speak not of
> >you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be
> >fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted his heel against
> >me." So the eating of bread at least is referred to.
<snip>
> As Judas leaves, Jesus gives another sermon at this supper (and it IS
> the last supper, isn't it?) that spans at least 3 chapters, and Christ
> says in Chapter 15, verse 1 "I am the true vine, and my father is the
> husbandman." <snip> But if this is the last supper, surely
> they thought of wine when he said "I am the true vine?" So unless I
> am completely off base, I submit that both the bread AND the wine were
> referred to at this supper in John.
This line of thinking ends up in an exegetical conundrum. *Any*
reference to eating, bread, drinking, wine, a cup, a vine, or fruit
can be (and has been) interpreted as a reference to the Eucharist; any
reference to water is interpreted as a reference to baptism. One
wonders what Jesus would have done had he wished to refer to any of
these things without referring to the Sacraments.
It seems to me necessary to look to the context to discover whether a
genuine reference is being made to the Sacrament or not. It would
appear that John 6 is indeed a foreshadowing of communion (although,
as I have said, I think that both John 6 and communion itself point to
the spiritual "taking in" of Christ through faith). I would see "he
that eateth bread with me" simply as a reference to the fact that the
traitor was in their midst at the meal (although gone by the time the
portion relevant to communion took place), and "I am the vine" as a
reference to Jesus as the *living* vine, from which the branches
(disciples) receive spiritual life and thereby bear fruit. To suppose
that He means them to understand the branches receiving life by
drinking the product of their own fruit would seem to invert the
metaphor.
Of course Lewis, recognizing the interpretation (as opposed to the
practice) of Communion as the primary stumbling-block to unity among
the Christian community, wisely said little in advocating mere
Christianity.
Grace and peace,
Keith
Dan Drake
> > nos...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake)
> writes;
>
> >In the West (Protestants included, I believe -- certainly Anglicans) the
> >Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque); in East, from
> >the Father only.
>
> Actually, in many Protestant churches the issue is never addressed, the Holy
> Spirit, as is Christ, being God as much as the Father and Son, and possessing
> divinity in equal measure; it seems strange to speak of Him proceeding from
> anything, He is, that is all, and He is with us, now and forever.
Thank you. It seems a very logical point of view. (Regardless of what
Sayers may have demonstrated in the context of art.)
Nicholas Young
(baptism, communion, transubstantiation, etc.), but have refrained from
participating on the grounds that the resulting fascinating discussions
would take more time than I can possibly afford ... But this one got past my
guard.
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 04:59:47 UTC, dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:
>
> > > nos...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake)
> > writes;
> >
> > >In the West (Protestants included, I believe -- certainly Anglicans)
the
> > >Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque); in East,
from
> > >the Father only.
Are you saying that this was a (the?) major cause of the East-West Church
divide? Or were there other equally important causes? What about the "iota
of difference" (I won't attempt to spell the Greek words) concerning the one
substance - was that also a cause?
And does this mean that the Eastern churches use a different version of the
Nicene Creed? That would seem rather odd since surely that was codified
well before 1000 AD (though my grasp of history may be more than a little
shaky here).
> > Actually, in many Protestant churches the issue is never addressed,
Don't forget that most Anglican churches, and many non-conformist ones, say
the (Western) Nicene Creed at most services. It's stated at least, even if
not given much thought. Probably in common with many other issues.
> > the Holy
> > Spirit, as is Christ, being God as much as the Father and Son, and
possessing
> > divinity in equal measure; it seems strange to speak of Him proceeding
from
> > anything, He is, that is all, and He is with us, now and forever.
Possibly so. But no odder than the Son being "begotten" of the Father and
therefore proceeding from him in some sense, though possibly not in quite
the same sense as the Holy Spirit proceeds. Would you similarly argue that
that statement is odd, given that Jesus is also present with us now and
forever?
> Thank you. It seems a very logical point of view. (Regardless of what
> Sayers may have demonstrated in the context of art.)
At the risk of sounding trite, attempting to apply logic to the mysteries of
the Trinity is not always guaranteed to give a useful answer. At least,
that's my experience. YMMV.
ObLewis: as someone else quoted, the command was Take, eat, not Take,
understand. I don't think this is Lewis advocating leaving our brains at
the door (that would be most unlike him), but I think he always recognised
that not everything in Christian doctrine, let alone Christian experience,
was reducible to a set of propositions.
Nicholas.
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
a pleasure to read (as are Andrew's posts in this thread also). For a new
Catholic, Sam, you're a fine explicator and apologist.
Solidarity
Kerry
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
> You want to wait until we get into eschatology, Sam. Was Lewis
> pre-millennial, post-millennial, or a-millennial? Wooh! See those
> feathers fly (actually I can't recall the topic ever being discussed
> here, but it has to come...).
>
> For myself I'm a prelactarian. Milk goes in the cup first, then the
> coffee. Can't stand the stuff those post-lactarians produce
> (a-lactarians. of course, drink their coffee black) :)))))))))
Do you put the milk and sugar in before the tea, too, David? I had a college
chum from Bombay who did that, shocking and horrifying my Bostonian mother.
For myself, I'm a post-lactarian and a-sucran. I hope that doesn't mean we
can't be friends any more.
Solidarity
Kerry