tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4334396596944403305..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Denial flows into the TiberEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40145517934215991212017-07-01T00:04:50.753-07:002017-07-01T00:04:50.753-07:00I had the impression that the creation of ambiguit...I had the impression that the creation of ambiguity was intentional on the part of the Vatican, so that the the two "extremes" of the argument could be dismissed as rigorist and laxist, with probabilist or probabiliorist positions being taken to mean something less than the clear teaching that preceded the controversy. I could be mistaken here, but it seemed like a reasonable interpretation of things when the AL controversy errupted. Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03594029157743565867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11095146849257115972017-01-24T08:54:26.584-08:002017-01-24T08:54:26.584-08:00Now, if – I repeat, IF -- this is really what Fr. ...<i>Now, if – I repeat, IF -- this is really what Fr. Spadaro is asserting, then he is essentially attributing to Amoris the following two propositions:</i><br /><br />The today Cdl. G.L.Müller held this position in 1995. So it cannot be so wrong as you say. I think this is the reason why Müller recently said that AL does not suppose any "danger" for the faith.<br /><br />He later changed his opinion (because otherwise at these times you could not become a bishop), but he surely knows that his former opinion was not "heretic" or anything like that. So there is no "danger" in this propositions.<br /><br /><i>(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible.</i><br /><br />Wrong proposition. Sexual acts after broken marriages are in some circumstances morally permissible. Of course they are. Natural sex is not intrinsically evil. And not everybody will stay a celibate, this would be impossible (not for you and me, perhaps, but for many others). This is even aknowledged by Jesus himself (Mt 5,32).<br /><br /><i>(2) It is sometimes impossible to obey the divine commandment against engaging in adulterous sexual acts.</i><br /><br />The Church never demands impossible things in order to obtain forgiveness. Nor does Jesus in his saying (he blames only the man who dismissed his wife, not the women who has to remarry in order to survive). Obviously, this women who is "engaging in adulterous sexual acts" is not sinning. Jesus' word in your ear.<br /><br />The sin to forgive is not the new union, but the broken marriage. The new union is a consequence of sin, so of course it is not perfect and can never be the same quality as a real unique marriage in its full significance, but it is not a sin in itself.<br />So the Church can allow or tolerate it. This is what Müller pointed out in 1995.<br /><br />Also Ex-Pope Benedict admits that the second union is intrinsically a good thing, including sex of course. So it cannot be "sin" in itself. This is also the position of the orthodox churches which is by no means "heretic".<br /><br />But if these sexual acts are morally permissible, they are no longer "adulterous". At least if you define "adultery" as intrinsically sinful. They are just "irregular". Therefore the Pope is very clear in stating that it is not possible to equate "irregular" situations with (grave) sin (AL 301). This is all you have to understand if you want to get the teaching of AL.<br /><br />So, it is just a question of definition. If adultery is intrinsically sinful, you cannot call divorced and remarried "adulterers" only because they are "engaging in sexual acts". This would be simplifying too much, because adultery implies sin and infidelity these people in many cases are not sinning at all and their behaviour does not imply “infidelity”.<br /><br />So not every sexual union after a broken marriage is “adulterous” in its moral sense.<br /><br />Of course you may state that there is a kind of “material” adultery which persists, but I think we should not call it adultery at all. Would be the same as if you call any untrue statement a “lie” or any killing a “murder”. Simplifying too much.<br /><br />Jorgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11773034675388285942016-12-31T07:44:37.721-08:002016-12-31T07:44:37.721-08:00Of course when I speak of the “Catholic church'...<i> Of course when I speak of the “Catholic church's dogma about the Eucharist” I refer only to my own understanding of it – and I am aware that I may be mistaken (that's why I asked the questions). I will study the long text that resulted from the recent Synod of Bishops about the Eucharist, and if I reach any better understanding worth sharing I will do so. </i> <br /><br />If you want to know the Catholic Church's dogma, you would do better to study actual dogmatic and definitive teachings than to study Synod documents that had a lot of trouble getting a 2/3 vote, or an Apostolic Exhortation that isn't intended to be dogmatic or definitive. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11067404231816612522016-12-30T12:22:32.094-08:002016-12-30T12:22:32.094-08:00[continues from above]
Theology is the descriptio...[continues from above]<br /><br />Theology is the description of God as is relevant to our condition and can fit in the human mind – and therefore theology cannot be understood divorced from the human condition. Further as a matter of fact theology has as evolved through history, and even though it is not now and will probably never be complete we know enough to have a clear idea of its general form. I find a better analogy is that theology is like a garden: A garden with beautiful and fruitful plants all around for one to enjoy and to use, with some mighty trees deeply rooted, and with many seedlings that may grow adding to the beauty of the whole, or perhaps not. I mean just consider the richness and variety of the traditions of the monastic orders of the Catholic Church – and how a Catholic called to the monastic life may choose the one that is most attractive to her. Now, unfortunately, we limited theologians are the gardeners, but the biology of the garden of theological belief is Christ Himself; it is He who makes grow what is good and not grow what isn't. And we are given the Spirit to gently pull us towards the right choices since though the Spirit we have a direct vision of God. (Incidentally by “we theologians” I mean here all who speak about God, and therefore all theists, for by visiting that garden we all ultimately affect it to a greater or lesser degree, for good or for ill.) <br /><br /><i>”for the whole thing is an interwoven pattern that cannot be wholly understood in isolation”</i><br /><br />I am not sure what you mean by “wholly understood”. I did not ask for any kind of absolute understanding, but only for an answer – some answer - to the four simple questions I asked in my previous comment. For even though I think theology is not an interlocking structure it must of course be rational and thus free of contradiction, and it seems to me there are some contradictions in the Catholic church's dogma about denying people the Eucharist. When I described my own understanding I was trying to show that there is a view that does not suffer from these contradictions and hoping to get some specific criticism of it. Of course when I speak of the “Catholic church's dogma about the Eucharist” I refer only to my own understanding of it – and I am aware that I may be mistaken (that's why I asked the questions). I will study the long text that resulted from the recent Synod of Bishops about the Eucharist, and if I reach any better understanding worth sharing I will do so. <br /><br />Meanwhile I would like to very much thank you and the other interlocutors for this discussion, which I feel has been very productive for me. Not least because it has motivated me to take the Eucharist myself :- ) Which I haven't done probably since I was a little boy. I suppose I shouldn't be talking so much about something I haven't even experienced myself, but we Greeks tend to be bigmouths by nature. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55109857979648363602016-12-30T12:21:54.416-08:002016-12-30T12:21:54.416-08:00@ Tony,
”You just ignore that the Catholic Church...@ Tony,<br /><br /><i>”You just ignore that the Catholic Church has doctrines which all fit together as a whole”</i><br /><br />This sounds as if theology were like a mathematical theorem, such that if one finds a small part that is wrong then the whole structure collapses. I don't think this is so:<br /><br />First because the whole idea to try and have theology conform to the kind of mechanistic “all fit together” nature of the physical sciences is misguided. The personal beauty of creation goes far beyond the limitations of such mechanically interlocking structures. Christ is the truth not metaphorically but literally, and since Christ is not of a mechanical nature but the living personal creator of all, neither is truth. For example philosophers have discovered that moral theory, which concerns our relationship with Christ, resists systematic analysis. In my judgment the most fruitful part of theological knowledge acquired by the Christian tradition concerns practical everyday advice about how each one of us should follow Christ, and we know from personal experience that this is not a path amenable to recipes but that there are many different paths and callings. <br /><br />Secondly, because the view that theology is an interlocking structure does not agree with the historic disputes and how they were resolved, nor with the current disputes. Theologians always try to strengthen theological understanding, and are not just trying to add bits and pieces to a given interlocked whole – theology does not grow like a crystal does by adding layers but grows like an organism does. Our understanding of God has evolved (for example with the dogma of the Trinity) and the pretense that we are only reinterpreting ancient texts that have been complete and true all along serves no useful purpose. (Giving people the impression of intellectual certainty is not fruitful for it pushes faith to the background.) And I need not mention the ongoing theological differences between the Christian churches. Finally consider theodicy, the greatest theological problem and therefore also the greatest window through which we may see God's character. I think it's fair to say that we are making steady progress in theodicy, and I am confident the definite solution may be at hand. It's hard to see how such a new great insight will not deeply affect theology, and thus also some of the church's dogmas. <br /><br />In conclusion, isn't it completely natural that theology should evolve through the millennia? All other sciences display dramatic evolutionary growth; why should one expect that theology – the queen of all sciences both in profundity and in usefulness (and in difficulty) – should be an exception, or should be made to be an exception? Since we all agree that Christ guides His church, I'd say it's more worrying when a particular tradition appears not to evolve, for it suggests that it resists that guidance. Doesn't Christ in the gospels somewhere say something like “This much I told you because that's what you can understand now; much more will be told to you by the Spirit”? (I've found it, it's in John 16:12,13) <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46541644946973860692016-12-30T11:49:41.561-08:002016-12-30T11:49:41.561-08:00Thank you for your work on this troubling and disc...Thank you for your work on this troubling and disconcerting development in the church; your work is always very greatly appreciated and helps me immensely.<br /><br />Keep up the good work and Happy New Year to you and your family.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50096473019025816822016-12-28T19:13:23.337-08:002016-12-28T19:13:23.337-08:00I find that speaking of the Eucharist as a “medici...<i>I find that speaking of the Eucharist as a “medicine” or “food” can be confusing, for it leads to the thought that like medicine or food for the body so the Eucharist may benefit or may not benefit the soul (some, following their reading of 1 Corinthians, believe the taking the Eucharist will damage an unprepared soul). If we take seriously the idea that in the Eucharist one is given the opportunity to meet Christ, then taking the Eucharist can *never* hurt. As it would never hurt to be given the opportunity of meeting Jesus of Nazareth when He taught in person. ...<br /><br />In the theological sense one does not repent “a” sin....<br /><br />So at first sight it seems to me that the state of mortal sin is the state of being beyond what I call the door to perdition. On the other hand those who are past this point of no return to perdition are not really totally lacking in charity.... <br /><br />If we take seriously the idea that in the Eucharist one is given the opportunity to meet Christ, ...<br /><br />If for the church to deny the Eucharist to some people who honestly ask for it ....</i> <br /><br />Dianelos, you just go round and round and round the same points, over and over, as if nothing had been pointed out before. You just ignore that "opportunity to meet Christ" is an incredibly simplistic expression for the full reality, including its <i>sacramental</i> dimension. You just ignore that the Catholic Church has doctrines which all fit together as a whole, and you cannot pick and choose them piecemeal as if it were a cafeteria. You wish that the Church definition of the state of mortal sin is not valid, based on your preferences. You WANT that these people who present themselves for Communion are "honestly asking" instead of obstinately wanting to remain in the embrace of sin. You have killed this conversation by trying to make us - in the course of defending just one doctrine - explain the whole of the Bible, the Fathers, the Councils, and the other definitive Church teachings, for the whole thing is an interwoven pattern that cannot be wholly understood in isolation...and then when we move on to another facet of that pattern, you revert back to your former theses as if we had said nothing about them. Well, I am done. You can go on repudiating Church teaching because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notions, of course. I am getting off the merry-go-round. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72390273545667898382016-12-28T12:58:15.574-08:002016-12-28T12:58:15.574-08:00[continues from above]
”this is a completely sett...[continues from above]<br /><br /><i>”this is a completely settled and irreformable teaching in the Church”</i><br /><br />Out of curiosity: I understand scripture is considered to be infallible only when interpreted correctly – which leaves open whether any particular interpretation is correct. And certain rare (as well as recent) proclamations by the Pope which meet certain conditions are considered infallible. So I wonder what is the ground for your claim above? <br /><br /><i>”Please stop pretending that THAT question is the right framework in which to raise up questions about the basic doctrine”</i><br /><br />If for the church to deny the Eucharist to some people who honestly ask for it is a matter of basic doctrine then of course I am questioning a basic doctrine. Surely it's not like basic doctrine should not be discussed. And I do in fact doubt the wisdom of this particular one. <br /><br />I am aware that doubt entails the recognition that one may be in error. But I was thinking that we should nor fear doubt, nor fear being in error, because doubt is a blessing. Doubt is a pillar of creation and thus of the human condition. For without doubt there can be no faith, and faith is more beautiful than certainty. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58565716104788240142016-12-28T12:54:27.011-08:002016-12-28T12:54:27.011-08:00[continues from above]
I have a question about yo...[continues from above]<br /><br />I have a question about your understanding of “mortal sin”, if I may. Let me start by describing my background belief: I hold that in the human condition there is a state which is like a door that leads to spiritual life, and another state like door that leads to spiritual death. These are points of no return, and thus stepping through them is a step into eternity. The door to life (or to heaven) is such that beyond it no relapse is possible existentially speaking. No matter the temptation, no matter what, passed this point one will never let go of Christ anymore but will come for ever closer to Him. The door to death (or to perdition) is the opposite. After that point one will never turn towards Christ, and will in fact sink ever deeper into spiritual blindness and disorder. Unless by a supernatural act of special providence God brings one back. <br /><br />So at first sight it seems to me that the state of mortal sin is the state of being beyond what I call the door to perdition. On the other hand those who are past this point of no return to perdition are not really totally lacking in charity. Rather they have gone down a path where the charity in their soul will be ebbing away like water from a sink. And they are not literally spiritually dead, the way a biological organism may be dead (at which point it stops being a biological organism). The better analogy would be one of terminal illness, a state in which no cure is anymore possible within the natural order of things. <br /><br />Now to my question: I understand the Catholic Church holds that those who have divorced and are having sexual relations with another person (whether they are “remarried” or not) are in a state of mortal sin. But many a neighbor we personally know is a remarried divorcee, and we know that they are fairly good people and not at all “spiritually dead” or “completely lacking in charity”. I mean we know this with as much confidence as we may know anything about a neighbor. How do you explain this contradiction between theological theory and existential fact? <br /><br />For me the more perplexing question is this first one, but I have three of a more theoretical nature:<br /><br />2. Doesn't the fact that many in a state of mortal sin freely choose to go to confession prove that they are not really spiritually dead?<br /><br />3. A necessary condition for being in a state of mortal sin is to have full knowledge. But, typically, remarried divorcees do not believe that what they are doing is a grave sin. But then they don't have full knowledge, thus they are not in a state of mortal sin after all, and therefore they should not be denied the Eucharist. Here I am trying to reason on what the catechism teaches. Do you see an error? <br /><br />4. It is not clear to me on what grounds he Church has decided which sins are mortal and which are venial. In the catechism I read <i>”Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."”</i> Now stealing is a very common sin. Does the Church consider that, say, all unrepentant tax-cheats are in a state of mortal sin? As well as all rich people who obstinately refuse to share their wealth with their starving neighbors. (Which indeed does show a great lack of charity – not to mention this is one case where according to the gospel Christ explicitly says that such people will not go to heaven.) So does the Church consider all these people to be in a state of mortal sin? And if not, why not?<br /><br />[continues below]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4731416337768012242016-12-28T12:51:09.992-08:002016-12-28T12:51:09.992-08:00@ Tony,
” They want to go on living as if married...@ Tony,<br /><br /><i>” They want to go on living as if married, but ALSO to receive Communion.”</i><br /><br />Undoubtedly true, at least in most cases. And the rich tax-collector Zacchaeus who was trying to see Christ had no intention to give up being a tax-collector or give up being rich. And nevertheless he was amply rewarded by Christ. <br /><br /> <i>”At best, then, they "want" to repent only of some of their grave sins, but not other of their grave sins.”</i><br /><br />In the theological sense one does not repent “a” sin. Repentance is the (usually gradual but sometimes abrupt) transformation of the soul into the likeness of Christ. From the inside repentance is experienced in that the soul becomes richer with charity, in that therefore love becomes more natural, selfless, and universal, in that the vision of Christ becomes brighter and faith becomes stronger, in that we become free masters of our will, and that therefore temptation becomes easy to overcome and sinning stops, in that spiritual joy becomes untiring. Repentance is the way of Christ, the path of truth and light, the path that leads to heaven - the very purpose and natural end of our nature. <br /><br />So I say let the church help her flock repent and their sinning will fall away. We are all different people. Perhaps it is easier for a particular neighbor to overcome this vice than the other. Given the extremely wise teaching of the church about the seven cardinal sins (or rather vices), to outgrow any one of them helps one outgrow all of them. The task of the church is to continue Christ's ministry the way He administered it, and in this way to make Christ visible to all - for the Church is the vehicle not the keeper. <br /><br /><i>”Plenty of people go to Communion because it's "the thing to do"”</i><br /><br />Right, and many go to Mass because it's “the thing to do” - but surely it's not like the priest should stay at the door of the church and deny entrance to those he judges unprepared. Not to mention that Christ asks of us to not judge our neighbor. A fact of the human condition is that when we judge our neighbor the charity in our soul ebbs. <br /><br /><i>”Being weak and grave sinners, the sacrament of confession gives them the sanctifying grace first to even have the requisite basic relationship with God, and additional graces to avoid those specific sins which they are subject to most so they can overcome them.”</i><br /><br />I think I understand the logic, but it is certainly much more complicated than how Christ approached the sinners. I am all for discipline and spiritual exercises for those who are ready, but here we are talking among the weakest among us. For them the approach to Christ should be made as easy as possible, since given the state of their soul it is already hard enough for them.<br /><br /><i>”Pope Francis is certainly NOT raising questions about whether the sacrament of the Eucharist can be received with benefit with someone who is clearly in the state of mortal sin”</i><br /><br />I find that speaking of the Eucharist as a “medicine” or “food” can be confusing, for it leads to the thought that like medicine or food for the body so the Eucharist may benefit or may not benefit the soul (some, following their reading of 1 Corinthians, believe the taking the Eucharist will damage an unprepared soul). If we take seriously the idea that in the Eucharist one is given the opportunity to meet Christ, then taking the Eucharist can *never* hurt. As it would never hurt to be given the opportunity of meeting Jesus of Nazareth when He taught in person. <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6336609231694941722016-12-27T11:56:03.790-08:002016-12-27T11:56:03.790-08:00We are talking about people who are committing gra...<b>We are talking about people who are committing grave sins and not really trying to repent and reforms themselves.”</b><br /><br /><i>People who go to mass and ask for the Eucharist are trying to repent.</i> <br /><br />You are talking at cross-purposes to what Jeremy is saying. The kind of people he is talking about are the people who DON'T WANT to give up living as if they were married with their adulterous partner. They want to go on living as if married, but ALSO to receive Communion. At best, then, they "want" to repent only of some of their grave sins, but not other of their grave sins. <br /><br /><i>Why else would they go to mass and ask for the chance of encountering Christ?</i> <br /><br />Plenty of people go to Communion because it's "the thing to do" when at Mass, and they don't want to stand out as NOT going to Communion. Others want to go because they have a vague and confused notion of Communion being good for you, but not because they believe that in Communion they receive Jesus Christ Himself (polls show that lots of Catholics don't believe the Eucharist is Jesus). Still others go for other reasons have to do with motivations that are little connected to "encountering Christ". <br /><br /><i>Actually being an especially weak and grave sinner will make one feel ashamed to encounter Christ, and this realization may hold back people. So, if anything, the church should first make it plain what the Eucharist is and then *encourage* people to take it, especially if they are weak and grave sinners. </i> <br /><br />The Church HAS made it clear to people what it is, and encouraged to take Communion with benefit by first (if they have committed grave sin) going to confession. Being weak and grave sinners, the sacrament of confession gives them the sanctifying grace first to even <i>have</i> the requisite basic relationship with God, and additional graces to avoid <i>those specific sins</i> which they are subject to most so they can overcome them. Let's not make going to confession out to being some kind of horrendous burden that only a few can undertake and survive: everyone from 7-year olds to mass-murderers do it successfully and come out the other side. <br /><br />Dianelos, your objection to Church practice is with the <b>docrines</b> of the Church, on what the sacraments actually are. Pope Francis is certainly NOT raising questions about whether the sacrament of the Eucharist can be received with benefit with someone who is clearly in the state of mortal sin, this is a completely settled and irreformable teaching in the Church, and he isn't making waves in this direction at all. At MOST, what he has done in AL, is raise doubts about whether some people who the Church <i>treats as presumptively in the state of mortal sin</i> should still be treated that way presumptively, for the purpose of whether they are considered eligible for receiving the Eucharist. Please stop pretending that THAT question is the right framework in which to raise up questions about the basic doctrine, or that the two separate problems are answerable in the same way. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67774524564986429192016-12-27T00:57:19.374-08:002016-12-27T00:57:19.374-08:00[continues from above]
This then is my argument: ...[continues from above]<br /><br />This then is my argument: that the church should continue Christ's ministry as He ministered it. I think this is a powerful argument, and I wish somebody would engage with it. Not hearing any direct comment beyond kind of “how dare you question the Church's wisdom” makes me think that my companions in this discussion don't know of any retort, but perhaps I am mistaken. Actually, come to think of it, Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has already agreed with me in footnote 351. But the Eucharist is the central event in the life of the church, and the question we are discussing is central to the Eucharist – so I think the answer merits to be there clear and bright at the center of our theological discourse and not reduced into a footnote. Perhaps Pope Francis knows how inflexible and resistant to growth the Church's mind has become and therefore applies only gentle pressure. If that's what is the case then I can fully empathize with his double burden, but I am not myself bound by such political considerations. <br /><br /><i>”We are talking about people who are committing grave sins and not really trying to repent and reforms themselves.”</i><br /><br />People who go to mass and ask for the Eucharist are trying to repent. Why else would they go to mass and ask for the chance of encountering Christ? Actually being an especially weak and grave sinner will make one feel ashamed to encounter Christ, and this realization may hold back people. So, if anything, the church should first make it plain what the Eucharist is and then *encourage* people to take it, especially if they are weak and grave sinners. <br /><br /><i>”It is normal practice in the Orthodox Church to prepare oneself through confession for the sacrament.”</i><br /><br />I think that's correct. I mean it's not like preparing oneself hurts. Knowing what the Eucharist actually is, it's very natural to wish to be as spiritually clean as one can when one encounters Christ. On the other hand I don't think it is ever the case that a person who reverently asks is denied the Eucharist in the practice of the Orthodox church. I could ask and find out. <br /><br /><i>”Christ was not a sentimentalist.”</i><br /><br />That's my impression too. I agree with all you write about sympathy, but I am not sure how you answer the question of whether it is possible to love our neighbors without feeling sympathy for them. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36553636769426124222016-12-27T00:55:35.962-08:002016-12-27T00:55:35.962-08:00@ Jeremy Taylor,
”Can we really "encounter ...@ Jeremy Taylor, <br /><br /><i>”Can we really "encounter Christ, in order to be Christ", through the Eucharist, and yet be obstinately in grave sin?”</i><br /><br />I think we can. Actually, isn't it exactly the other way around: that encountering Christ can only be of help for overcoming obstinate great sin? <br /><br />Incidentally, thanks for this. I will study the text you pointed me at, but I am happy to find out that Orthodoxy teaches that in the sacraments “we encounter Christ, in order to be Christ”. For that's exactly what I have been saying about the Eucharist – only adding that in the Eucharist the encountering is physical. In my recent discussions in this blog I have had several times the following experience: Either of finding out things that perfectly fit with my own experience or which kind of plug a gap in my understanding, such as the teaching about the seven cardinal sins or the definition of sinfulness as the state where the soul lacks charity. Or finding out that others much better than me have said things I too was saying, such as St Teresa of Avila's teaching about mental praying, the continuous process of repentance (“law of graduality”) taught by Pope John Paul II and now reaffirmed by Pope Francis, and now the very concise “In the sacraments of the church you encounter Christ, in order to become like Christ”. <br /><br />Creation is characterized by the multiplicity of paths available in the human condition. One path to knowledge, or one path of learning, a path which I find so extraordinarily efficient that I suspect is really the gist of all paths, is basically to discover what you try to learn. There is actually a lot of background to this idea, starting from Piaget's study about how children learn to Pappert's thoughts in his book “Mindstorms” (a seminal book in my life, highly recommended). And there is a saying in my tradition that goes like “whether you believe or not, do investigate”. I say truth is a live thing that wants to be met. Ultimately truth is known by acquaintance. <br /><br />So let's go back to the Eucharist being to encounter Christ in order to become like Christ. Why is it that many hold that you must be prepared *before* encountering Christ? I am anxious for an answer here, because the facts appear to contradict this premise from all directions. The thief hanging from the cross was a very evil person not “prepared” to encounter Christ, actually not even wishing or expecting to encounter Christ. Paul was an extremely evil person when he encountered Christ. From the gospels we know that Christ never denied anybody's wish to encounter Him, and pretty much actively threw Himself amidst the sinners. Christ offered the Eucharist even to Judas Iscariot. Finally, Peter after taking the Eucharist denied Christ three times, proving that the Eucharist is a gift which by itself changes nothing – so it's not like the Eucharist is a very powerful medicine that if given to an unprepared soul will gravely hurt it (which seems to be part of what people against the free offering of the Eucharist are suggesting). <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11399333813354824892016-12-26T18:29:36.883-08:002016-12-26T18:29:36.883-08:00I'm not sure why you assume that by transform ...I'm not sure why you assume that by transform I meant without any effort or inclination on the part of the one taking the Eucharist. The contrary is surely implied in my whole argument. You seem to have taken the most perverse meaning of my words, a practice others have noted. Anyway, I don't see what good your private musings on the Eucharist are.<br /><br />Here is an introduction to the Orthodox sacramental theology:<br /><br />http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7106<br /><br />Your position doesn't make sense. Can we really "encounter Christ, in order to be Christ", through the Eucharist, and yet be obstinately in grave sin? We are not talking about the normal sins of life we all struggle with. We are talking about people who are committing grave sins and not really trying to repent and reforms themselves. How can the Eucharist "transform...the deepest and most fundamental human experiences", except in a magical way, if we do not have to prepare ourselves for it? As I understand it, it was long the practice of the Orthodox Church, and in many places still is, to only take communion once a year, and to prepare oneself for it through confession. It is normal practice in the Orthodox Church to prepare oneself through confession for the sacrament. <br /><br /><i>What I know is that the charity of the soul is the ground-well of love, and that love entails feeling sympathy. Don't you agree? Do you perhaps find that it is possible to love our neighbor without feeling sympathy for her? </i><br /><br />Sympathy is a feeling of pity from the outside (unlike empathy), and one that can occur without consideration of the situation that led to the feeling of sympathy. Sympathy can be a good thing, certainly, but the problem is that sentimentalists take it to be the foundation of all charity, love, and compassion, and they set aside considerations of justice, virtue, and truth. Christ was not a sentimentalist. Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80412745310719361172016-12-26T14:57:26.660-08:002016-12-26T14:57:26.660-08:00[continues from above]
”Your talk of Christ and s...[continues from above]<br /><br /><i>”Your talk of Christ and sinners only shows that Christ reached out to save sinners. I see no real reason to translate this to the situation of the sacraments”</i><br /><br />The sacraments are not alien to Christ's actual ministry. On the contrary they are there to continue Christ's ministry. <br /><br />But I think I failed to make my argument clear: Assume for a moment that my understanding of the Eucharist is correct, and that in the Eucharist the physical presence of Christ is not just reenacted but realized in the experience of the faithful who takes it. Then, given the fact that in His physical ministry Christ reached out to the sinners and was often physically with them (indeed, to the consternation of even some of His disciples, He appeared to search out and to help those who most religious people of His day despised and condemned)– then not by analogy but by direct example it follows that today's church should also reach out and offer the Eucharist (Christ's physical presence) to today's sinners. <br /><br />Indeed the help Christ gave to the adulterous woman is identical to the case Pope Francis mentions in his Amoris Laetitia. Christ went out of His way to be present and tend a helping hand to that adulterous women, but many Catholics believe that today the Church should deny the presence of Christ to the same adulterous woman. <br /><br /><i>”Peter was not perfect - you don't have to be perfect to take the sacraments, they help to perfect you”</i><br /><br />Above I discussed the case of Peter. One who lives with Christ for years on end, and who promises never to deny Him, and then a few hours later does so thrice – such a person was not just lacking in perfection; rather the state of his soul was in a shockingly bad state. As was Paul's when he persecuted Christians (and apparently organized executions of them, such as of St. Stephen's). The teaching here is that faith in Christ can move mountains. <br /><br /><i>”Judas is a unique situation”</i><br /><br />In some sense the greatest sinner of all. And even so Christ offered him the Eucharist too. Surely it's not like the Church should be more exacting than Christ. <br /><br /><i>”If someone makes it plain publically they are not ready to take the sacraments, it is more charitable to prevent them from taking them.”</i><br /><br />In my understanding when they attend church and solemnly ask for the Eucharist they make it plain that they are ready. <br /><br /><i>”I think your problem, or one of them, is you mistake modern sentimentalism (cf. Babbitt and P.E. More) for Christian charity, when they are clean different things. There is more to Christian charity than gushing sympathy.”</i><br /><br />I don't know these writers. What I know is that the charity of the soul is the ground-well of love, and that love entails feeling sympathy. Don't you agree? Do you perhaps find that it is possible to love our neighbor without feeling sympathy for her? Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2820743875307189452016-12-26T14:55:49.940-08:002016-12-26T14:55:49.940-08:00@ Jeremy Taylor,
“I don't see how it follows ...@ Jeremy Taylor,<br /><br /><i>“I don't see how it follows that because the Church should reach out to sinners, that it should give its sacraments to those in manifest grave sin.”</i><br /><br />This depends on what the Eucharist *is*. My understanding is that in the Eucharist one is given the possibility to experience the physical presence of Christ. If this understanding is correct then it follows that all who ask for the Eucharist because they honestly desire to physically know Christ should receive it. Especially if they are grave sinners. <br /><br /><i>”Why is it only the Eucharist that should be given out in this way. I think even you would acknowledge the absurdity of giving baptism or confession to those who are not prepared for them.”</i><br /><br />In my church baptism is given to little babies, so it's not like they are prepared. I understand the same goes for the Catholic church. As for confession, I am not sure in what sense one should be prepared. In any case perhaps it's not a good idea to open two more cans of mysteries. <br /><br /><i>”Would you think someone manifestly unprepared should be initiated in the Hesychast path?”</i><br /><br />I hold that there is one way to salvation but many ways to kind of approache that way. Mystical ways are a case in point. As for hesychasm, I am not sure it's a matter of being prepared for such a lonely path, as to be inclined towards it. Perhaps the preparation is done to find out if one is in fact so inclined. <br /><br /><i>”I don't see how your (quite verbose) response really gets to the heart of the matter - what a sacrament is.”</i><br /><br />I am often accused of verbosity, but in this case I thought I was being quite economical given the momentous issue at hand. <br /><br /><i>”A sacrament, the Eucharist above all, is transformative to those prepared for it.”</i><br /><br />This can't be right, since as a matter of fact most of those who take the Eucharist are not transformed by it. According to my understanding the Eucharist can at best make as powerful an impression on one's soul as experiencing the actual physical presence of Christ. I assume most Christians experience something much weaker than that, down to nothing special at all. But if they experience little or nothing then little or nothing is apt to move in their souls. <br /><br />Let us not forget the very fist Eucharist, given by Christ in person. Peter certainly took it, but was still so spiritually weak and thus so short in repentance, that a few hours later He would deny Christ three times. <br /><br />According to my understanding the Eucharist is an open door through which we may physically touch Christ. This is a momentous thing, but let's not forget how little impression Christ made to His disciples who walked with Him and experienced Him every day and probably many times talked privately with Him. The human soul is a hard thing to transform into the likeness of Christ, which means that it's hard for us to repent. I say theology should not only be internally coherent, but cohere with the actual human condition also. If anything the latter is more basic. <br /><br /><i>”Why it is wrong to prevent those who are obviously unprepared for it, I'm not sure.”</i><br /><br />I understand the Catholic church takes Paul's admonitions in 1 Corinthians 11:27 literally, and decides that for example the remarried divorcees who would take the Eucharist commit a terrible sin because the are *unworthy* of the Eucharist. Notwithstanding the fact that the original Greek is ambiguous and that given the context the correct translation appears to be *in an unworthy manner”, that is take the Eucharist disrespectfully.<br /><br />[continues below]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64729255371152901642016-12-26T12:37:50.180-08:002016-12-26T12:37:50.180-08:00[continues from above]
To repent in the theologic...[continues from above]<br /><br />To repent in the theological sense is to undergo a transformation of the soul such that it outgrows the sinning. One may still experience temptation but the soul is such that it will not succumb to it. (Thus theological-repentance entails colloquial-repentance, but is completely different in kind.)<br /><br /><i>”If your interpretation was correct, then Tony was talking nonsense”</i><br /><br />So what? Surely Tony is not infallible? In any case, disagreeing with some idea does not entail that what that person said was nonsense. First because one may be the one in error, and secondly because a lot of errors are not nonsense. If all errors were nonsense than much of philosophy would be reduced to being nonsense, which it isn't. Not to mention much of physics, at least on physical realism. <br /><br /><i>”practice humility; many men have lived who were wiser than you, so listen very carefully to them, and when you disagree or do not like what they say or do not quite understand it, listen to them all the more.”</i><br /><br />I agree with your advice, indeed sometimes I am a quick/superficial reader. <br /><br />On the other hand I am not a professional philosopher or theologian; I have not formally studied these fields. I don't have the time to study what others here might consider to be reliable background belief (e.g. Thomism). So I exploit discussions to learn faster. Hopefully I am not the only one profiting here. Having said that, a very good way to learn is to first try to solve a problem and then study the respective theory. At school I enjoyed solving math problems and I remember the last problems in each chapter referred to the theory that would be taught in the next chapter. The general idea is that one understands the theory better once one has understood the problems the theory solves. <br /><br /><i>”Make sure the questions you ask outnumber the conclusions you draw and the dictates you hurry to proclaim.”</i><br /><br />Well, I do make a lot of questions, and I try to always respond to questions people ask me. I don't like to be pushy on others when they don't answer, but if you find I haven't answered a question of yours directed to me feel free to insist. <br /><br /><i>”Try to interpret your interlocutors as thought there were intelligent people who probably make sense most of the time. It will mean putting aside your own ideas, your own feelings, your own willfulness — but that is just what humility is, and will indeed be a good example for all.”</i><br /><br />I disagree with this particular piece of advice. It's one thing to try to understand what the other person means, and quite another to assume that the other person must be correct. Putting aside one's own ideas is not good advice for a fledgling theologian. In this context I think we must note that is a difference between the sciences. In the physical sciences it is usually easy to test which theory is the one closer to the truth, so even though there is some resistance to change, in general universal agreement is reached. In theology it is much harder to ascertain the truth, and the amount of ongoing disagreement proves that false beliefs abound. I don't think it is reasonable to hold that one's own church is the one completely or almost completely in the right. And even should one believe say that the Catholic church has gotten almost everything right (or everything ex-cathedra right), there are disagreement within the Church as Feser's latest posts prove. So while it makes sense to say to a fledgling physicist “put aside your own ideas and learn the state of the art before you question anything” the same does not apply to theology. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19092210550987438102016-12-26T12:37:03.611-08:002016-12-26T12:37:03.611-08:00[continues above]
In theology matters are especia...[continues above]<br /><br />In theology matters are especially hard because so many of the best among us are sometimes found to be grossly in error too. I have already mentioned the Aquinas quote <i>”Now man is absolved from both punishment and guilt by means of external actions”</i> Don't you agree this is completely wrong, and thus wrong about a central matter of soteriology (soteriology being the most critical part of theology)? We know that even huge saints have to struggle and sometimes resort to arguing with each other before seeing the truth – a good example being the disagreement between Paul and Peter. So in theology evidence of the form “X said this” is particularly weak – I feel confident that a Catholic would not be particularly impressed by “Calvin said this”. <br /><br /><i>”you go right on telling other people what they should do, complaining that their ideas are stupid or monstrous”</i><br /><br />I am not telling other people what they should believe and what they should do. I don't wish to have that responsibility. It's a burden enough to be responsible for my own beliefs and actions. On the other hand, clearly, when one speaks about ethics and says “X is evil” one is implying that *if* one is right then people who do X are doing something evil. I see it is especially easy to be misunderstood here. So I did claim that in my judgment for a priest to deny the Eucharist to a member of His flock who honestly asks for Christ's help commits a horrific sin of lack of charity. The Catholic church's official position (with the possible exception of a footnote in Amoris Laetitia) as well as all participants in the current discussion seem to disagree with me. By expressing my view I hope to get feedback that will deepen my understanding one way or the other. <br /><br /><i>”It never seems to occur to you that as a matter of intellectual honesty you might have an obligation to make sure you understand a position you criticise”</i><br /><br />A good way to understand better what the other person is saying is by testing it. I think it is rather inefficient to ask for clarifications without explaining what one sees is wrong. Error is usually (but not always) characterized by internal incoherence and we have the Socratic method of asking questions designed to bring such incoherences to the surface, but I feel uncomfortable doing that – it feels like being too clever by half. When I see an incoherence I'd rather challenge it directly. <br /><br /><i>”Observe that you clearly did not understand what the "broken window" stood for”</i><br /><br />OK, so here's the original quote: <i>”If you deliberately break your neighbor's window, realize you did wrong and apologize, there still is the broken window. To pay for the window and tell your neighbor you will not do it again would indicate a more sincere repentance.”</i><br /><br />It seems obvious to me that what our companion is saying there is that in order to repent one must first make amends. So I responded that this is in general true but also that this is not a necessary requirement since making amends is sometimes not possible. I wonder, how did you understand the “broken window” argument?<br /><br />The point is that I find that the concept of “repentance” - perhaps the central concept in Christian soteriology – is often used in its everyday sense and not in the correct theological sense. Let me use this example: We know there are husbands who assault their wives and violently hit them. I understand in many cases they afterwards feel sincere remorse, break down and cry, swear they will never do it again, do huge amends like agreeing to something they had long disagreed or giving their wife an expensive gift. So far, in the colloquial sense of the word, they have sincerely repented. But then, a few weeks later, they assault and hit their wife again, perhaps worse than before. Thus they prove that they haven't repented in the theological sense. <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6319971904515561152016-12-26T12:36:32.176-08:002016-12-26T12:36:32.176-08:00@ Mr. Green,
”actually believing in Christ is pu...@ Mr. Green, <br /><br /><i>”actually believing in Christ is purely optional.”</i><br /><br />You say this ironically, but it seems to me that Christ in the gospels insisted much more on the following of His commands than on mere belief (for example in John 15:14 He says <i>”You are my friends if you do what I command you”</i>. <br /><br />I have often wondered – who is closer to Christ, the one who follows the commands even without knowing about Him (she might be a Hinduist or an atheist), or the one who doesn't follow the commands notwithstanding of knowing about Him. If the answer is the first one, does it make sense to call Christian the second one and not the first one? <br /><br />But I am curious. Who do you think is a Christian?<br /><br /><i>”intellectual humility is something grossly lacking from your postings”</i><br /><br />To say how one sees it is the only honest thing to do, don't you agree? Anything else would be hypocritical, or at least cowardly. I think lack of humility is to speak as if one were certain, or, worse, as what one speaks is certain truth. As it happens I do feel quite confident, but as I wrote before I am not even certain about theism. I think nobody is. Therefore I am uncertain of all theological beliefs I hold. <br /><br /><i>”Perhaps this is merely owing to a poor manner of communication”</i><br /><br />Communication is very hard in general, especially in things philosophical or, even more so, in things theological. In our discussions I have been very surprised to see how people misunderstood what I tried to say – but then again perhaps I misunderstood their response :-)<br /><br />I suppose the reason is that the effect a text has on a person depends on her background set of beliefs (or “noetic structure” as Plantinga might put it), and perhaps even more to a person's actual condition. I think it is quite evident that how people experience life can be quite apart in its defining qualitative aspects. This is no profound thought, consider for example how differently a musician experiences music (let alone a musical score sheet) in comparison to a non musician. So two Catholics of similar experiential background (including education, country, etc) are apt to misunderstand each other less than say a Catholic and a Greek Orthodox living in the other side of the Earth. Still not only disagreements but also misunderstanding can sharpen one's understanding. <br /><br /><i>”But you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about”</i><br /><br />True; I am here precisely because I am trying to understand better. It is always useful to discuss one's views, since feeling content in one's experience of beauty joy and clarity one may miss something important. Truth is always beautiful, for the Holy Spirit is beautiful. But beautiful thoughts are not always true. And it would seem that our cognitive faculties are such that if one keeps thinking about a patently muddled idea in the end one's mind will kind of mold itself around that idea and one will experience it as being clear. I have found that discussing with people who disagree with me is especially useful for they drive me to check better my own thoughts and motivate me to study the right kind of stuff. As I have said before the best test of truth is to measure its fruit on one's soul: if it moves one to love Christ more and makes it more natural to follow His commands then it comes for the truth; if not it comes from deception. That's perhaps the main reason why I don't believe in hellism. <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85840801786400557722016-12-25T15:23:49.709-08:002016-12-25T15:23:49.709-08:00I don't see how it follows that because the Ch...I don't see how it follows that because the Church should reach out to sinners, that it should give its sacraments to those in manifest grave sin. Why is it only the Eucharist that should be given out in this way. I think even you would acknowledge the absurdity of giving baptism or confession to those who are not prepared for them. Would you think someone manifestly unprepared should be initiated in the Hesychast path? I don't see how your (quite verbose) response really gets to the heart of the matter - what a sacrament is. A sacrament, the Eucharist above all, is transformative to those prepared for it. Why it is wrong to prevent those who are obviously unprepared for it, I'm not sure. Your talk of Christ and sinners only shows that Christ reached out to save sinners. I see no real reason to translate this to the situation of the sacraments (Peter was not perfect - you don't have to be perfect to take the sacraments, they help to perfect you; Judas is a unique situation). If someone makes it plain publically they are not ready to take the sacraments, it is more charitable to prevent them from taking them.<br /><br />The Eucharist cannot make a difference to those obstinately stuck in grave sin. You are making of the sacrament either a profane simple or some piece of magic.<br /><br />I think your problem, or one of them, is you mistake modern sentimentalism (cf. Babbitt and P.E. More) for Christian charity, when they are clean different things. There is more to Christian charity than gushing sympathy.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9460773140989637662016-12-25T13:07:43.899-08:002016-12-25T13:07:43.899-08:00[continues from above]
Should the neighbor who co...[continues from above]<br /><br />Should the neighbor who comes asking for that experience also be a good Christian and not say a very grave (and thus unrepentant) sinner? Well the thief hanging on the cross at the size of Christ was a very grave sinner, wasn't he? And in his ministry on Earth we find Christ again and again visit the sinners and those who were considered unworthy – the Romans, the tax collectors, the Samaritans, the adulterous woman, and so on. To all He was kind and gave a helping hand. Indeed in the gospel we find Christ speaking unkindly only to the learned scribes and Pharisees of His time, and to the merchants in His father's house. So Christ was there amid the sinners. Not to mention that at the actual crucifixion only the youngest of the disciples was present, as well as His mother and a few women (and I notice it was women who first knew of Christ's resurrection – perhaps men are by nature more pigheaded). I say as Christ was, so His church must be. <br /><br />Christ suffered the breaking of His body and the shedding of His blood for the salvation of all, and thus especially for the sinners who are furthest from salvation. The church which is the visible manifestation of Christ in human history should continue Christ's ministry, in spirit and in action. It is Him it is to follow in all matters. So, if I am right, the church's call in general should be to the sinners. Like the not sick need the doctor less and those not lost need the guide less, so those walking on the path of repentance (or even only with knowledge of Christ) need the church less. The reason of the church is the care of the sinners in its midst. It is for them the call to the sacrament of communion should primarily be directed to, because for them it can make the greater difference. What the church should be doing is not denying the Eucharist to the sinners but trying to get the sinners to understand what an exceedingly marvelous thing the Eucharist actually is. And if anything it is more natural for confession to follow the Eucharist<br /><br />I see that I have arrived at a position which is about the opposite to the church's in a matter that is central in the church's ministry. I am aware how weird my position is and how much I risk making a fool of myself, indeed how probable it is I am making a fool of myself (some in our company are fairly certain I am a fool :-) But what I write makes sense to me and makes Christ more brightly beautiful in my eyes (and thus works both in reason and in faith) so why should I hide it? I was moved by our recent discussions in this blog towards thoughts that have given me spiritual clarity and joy. <br /><br />What can I say against the view I expressed above? The first Eucharist was given by Christ to His disciples, so it would seem it is meant to be given to those who are close to Christ. But among the disciples there was also Judas Iscariot, who is like the epitome of a sinner. And there was Peter who was quite far from repentance, as was presently to be proven. So it's no like Christ was being picky. Not to mention that the Last Supper was the Passover which in the Jewish tradition is celebrated in family and friends, so it's not like Christ could have invited tax collectors or Romans. We have also Paul's stern admonitions in 1 Corinthians which as I have argued should be understood within the context of an epistle sent to a church in which the sacrament was being celebrated in rowdy feasts. Finally “Eucharist” means “giving thanks” which can be interpreted as befitting those who are already blessed, but also as befitting those to whom Christ offers the gift. <br /><br />In my case faith in God has moved me to fear less, but perhaps I am just being just brazen or impudent – who knows. I've just found out that recently a “Synod of Bishops” was celebrated having the Eucharist as its theme. The result is a <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html" rel="nofollow">long text</a> which I intend to study in the next holy days.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83720778534540265762016-12-25T13:03:59.889-08:002016-12-25T13:03:59.889-08:00@ Jeremy Taylor
”Sacraments are transformative, y...@ Jeremy Taylor<br /><br /><i>”Sacraments are transformative, yes, they lead us towards God. But they do this neither as symbols only (in the profane sense of that term) or as magic that works on us independent of our will and preparation. We must prepare ourselves for the mysteries, we must purify ourselves. This is the teaching of mystics and the Church's teaching towards communion.”</i><br /><br />A few thoughts. In this thread I was not suggesting that those those who ask for the Eucharist shouldn't prepare themselves. I was objecting to the idea that the church may deny the Eucharist to somebody who honestly asks for it. These are two different issues. <br /><br />We all agree the Eucharist it's not some kind of magic potion, and that it's not some kind of prize for the meritorious. So what is it? <br /><br />In Luke, the gospel of salvation, we find Christ having the Last Supper with all the disciples. It was Passover, the great celebration of spiritual freedom in the Jewish tradition. There Christ announces His eminent death, shares wine which He calls His blood and bread which He calls His body, and says this is My new promise of salvation to you, eat and drink to remember Me. <br /><br />The church recognized in the Last Supper a momentous event to be kept alive in the Christian community, a gift and promise meant for all. (The twelve would be like today's priests, but the church gives the Eucharist to the flock too – actually the gospel does not say that *only* the twelve sat at the table). <br /><br />I think we shall all agree that the sacrament of communion as practiced by the church is *not* a symbolic or theatrical representation of the Last Supper, but something real, a realization anew of the substance of what happened at the Last Supper. I think that in the sacrament of communion the possibility is offered of experiencing Christ not just in spirit but physically. The same kind of experience that the disciples had. In a sense in the Last Supper Christ initiated a mystery of His continuous physical presence in His church. And since the church is the mystical body of Christ, I think one can hold that the mystery of the sacrament of communion lies at the heart of the church. (So, another thing we all probably agree is how important this matter is.) Actually in the Eucharist the Christian experiences not just the physical presence Christ, but given Christ's words in the Last Supper, namely the breaking of the body and the shedding of the blood, one experiences the physical presence of the Christ crucified – the same experience that moved the thief to repentance. It is that physical experience of the presence of Christ that can help the Christian in her path of repentance. Of course not all who take the Eucharist will experience that to the same degree, and for those who experience it very vaguely or not at all the whole thing may in the end turn out to do more harm than good since they may walk away disappointed. I say it *may*, for I don't see how a soul who comes asking for the help of Christ can possibly walk away hurt in any sense. <br /><br />If the above understanding about the Eucharist is correct then what does it imply? Well, one thing it implies is that for the Christian to experience what the Eucharist is she must first understand it. She must understand that here she is given the opportunity to physically experience Christ, that in the sacrament we are all transported back to be present at the actual passion of God incarnate. And she should not only understand what the sacrament is supposed to be, but believe it actually is – that Christ's physical presence is not limited to the few lucky in ancient Palestine but that in because of love Christ uses His church to give us all the same possibility. Beliefs affect experience; without this belief I don't see how the sacrament can take place in the soul of the Christian. So this is clearly part of the preparation. <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2630470764058419502016-12-23T21:03:19.460-08:002016-12-23T21:03:19.460-08:00Someone in the situation you are describing is den...Someone in the situation you are describing is denying themselves the Eucharist. If she wishes salvation, then she should repent her sins, go to Reconciliation, and then receive the Eucharist. This is what I, or anyone, should do in this situation, if we submit to the Church's teaching rather than our own desires.<br /><br />Christ didn't say "you're good to go"...he said "repent and sin no more".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75889454018572667372016-12-23T04:48:02.693-08:002016-12-23T04:48:02.693-08:00It follows from the reality of that discontinuity,...It follows from the reality of that discontinuity, that the characterization of a (more or less smooth, continuous) gradual change from imperfect toward the perfect is an accurate characterization ONLY with respect to the process <i>AFTER</i> a person is in the state of sanctifying grace. Once you assume that state, the rest of the process really is gradual, diffusely apprehended, occurs in piecemeal and unevenly with respect to the habits of the different virtues, etc. Once a person is in the state of grace, he never knows <i>how far</i> along he is yet toward perfection in any distinct way, (and, generally, the farther along he is, the less knowing of "how far" is important to him). He can always observe the effects of the growing perfection in the changes of his behavior, including the ease and delight in which he undertakes difficult things (if he does), but at the same time he can always see room for improvement, areas of remaining defects in his love. But all of that gradualness, what Francis calls "the law of gradualness", is coherent ONLY in terms of a person already in the state of sanctifying grace. There is nothing gradual about the change from being in mortal sin to being in the state of grace. THAT's not subject to the law of gradualness. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41508531263902191802016-12-23T04:32:33.311-08:002016-12-23T04:32:33.311-08:00Incidentally “repentance” in theology means someth...<i>Incidentally “repentance” in theology means something quite different than in everyday talk. Repentance is not about feeling sorry for something one did, deciding to never do the same again, and when possible making amends with the one one hurt (and when not making work of contrition instead). Repentance is the interior transformation of the soul into the likeness of Christ, a transformation such that leads to a state of being in which temptation is overcome and thus sinning stops. Of course repentance is a continuous process that ends only in atonement with Christ. Often for simplicity's sake we use the concept as something that is or isn't done, about this or about that other vice. And of course it is a complex process that works differently in different human conditions and circumstances - but the sure manifestation of it taking place is that charity in one's soul grows. Charity being the ground-well of selfless love for all. <br /><br />I hope what I here write sounds as simple as it actually is: To transform one's soul into the likeness of Christ is to become like Christ and thus to love as He did. Namely profusely, selflessly, universally. ....<br /><br />So if you find yourself naturally loving like Christ did and like Paul describes – then you'll know you have repented :-)</i> <br /><br />And conversely, the corollary is that if you don't yet find yourself loving like Christ did and like Paul describes, THEN YOU DON'T KNOW you have repented. In that sense of repentance. <br /><br />And, because the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is that it actually harms one who is not in the state of grace, under this ideal of repentance, a Christian would have to be much, much farther along in the process of becoming like to Christ in order to choose to receive the Eucharist than what the Catholic Church has said. To be confident that he is in the state of grace which gives charity, he would have to live for some time proving to himself that this really is charity and not some chimera, not some self-delusion, not a fraud. On the other hand, through the sacrament of confession, a person can be restored to the state of sanctifying grace, and <i>be confident of that reality</i>, even when their repentance is still a small, wriggly, tarnished and feeble reality, not yet the great, noble, glowing reality you describe. Even when they are still committing <i>venial</i> sins on a regular basis, and find it nearly impossible to actually WANT to be separated from those venial sins. Even when they are not YET showing that selfless love toward every person, even when they are still sometimes boastful or arrogant. <br /><br />So who now is withholding the Eucharist as a prize? Not the Catholic Church, not the traditional practice of receiving the sacrament after being restored to grace through confession. The sacrament of confession is the great gift whereby Christ enables us to approach the Eucharist in confidence EVEN THOUGH we are aware of still extensive defects in our love, by giving us the confidence of having been restored to sanctifying grace even before having the extensive proof of it in a long period of selfless acts of charity and with no failures along the way. <br /><br />It is sheer blather to pretend that because "turning" and "conversion" will be a life-long process, that there cannot be a fundamental discontinuity in that process between the condition of being still in the state of mortal sin, and being in the condition of sanctifying grace. That discontinuity is <i>built in</i> to the nature of the spiritual life, corresponding to the difference between being dead and being alive. There is a reason Christ and the Apostles call being in Him "life" and contrast it with the deadness of not being in Christ. They are pointing to a stark interior discontinuity. Tonynoreply@blogger.com