Not sure you can just believe something..well, that you just don't believe in order to keep within the christian circle. I cannot go back...and I don't think that "the hell with that." is the only route. I believe one can keep the awe and understand that we don't really know about the great unknown reality that is beyond us. Maybe the ontology is believing there is something greater, the creator, the one that will be known in our afterlife...is enough. The role of this being, this holy spirit will be understood at that time....and we keep living with morality and ethics.. .and the way of the red letters until then. We can embrace faith, knowing and experiencing so little.
Question: Why does the revelation or acknowledgement of that ontology have to be associated with a ritual or ceremony (i.e. baptism, communion)? Can’t you know God without an iconic relationship?
The profound influence of Karl Rahner’s ideas on Eucharistic Theology in the 20th century should not be so easily dismissed as being heterodox. Over the years he received a lot of pushback from hard core ‘Transubstantionists’ who were locked into a view of an ontological presence of Christ within the elements during communion. His theological discourse seems to point towards a more flexible and evolved view of ‘Substance Theory’ where ‘Transignification’ and or ‘Transfinalization’ are of paramount importance coming more from an informed Enlightenment / Scientific perspective. He seems to emphasize that the Resurrected Christ is already continuously present within ‘Creation’, therefore the chemical change of the elements for Believers who partake in the Eucharist, has a more of a metaphysical / redemptive significance, through the ‘Corporate Consecration of the Act Itself’, rather than the ingestion of a actual cloaked spiritual flesh & plasma celebration - One may be tasting bread and wine as a believer, but metaphysically you’re not. For me, rather than going down the rabbit hole of the theological debate on the actual nature of the Host, it seems logically coherent to assume that it is both ‘Transsubstantial’ and ‘Transignificant’ simultaneously - i.e ontologically real and symbolically efficacious. The real question is whether one’s faith, prior to entering the mystery, affects or determines its redemptive value (?) Any theory or system of belief on this topic should not be separated from Jesus’s teaching found in the ‘Bread of Life Discourse’ in John 6 where he does not mince his words and lays out the mystery -
“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”
The old Anglican prayer book (sadly mostly deprecated nowadays and replaced with a minimalist and bland alternative that does nothing for anyone) has a sub section within the Eucharist section called The Great Thanksgiving which is full of devotional prayers and responses focused on the glorious Person and Work of Christ, with emphasis naturally on His sacrificial death, leading on naturally to the Holy Communion event.
I'm sure other denominations have something similar, but as Richard says many churches have sidelined this sacred ceremony, or watered it down. I would suggest for many its not flash enough, people want to be entertained in church not sit in reflective silence.
Ceremony and Ritual, and the Sacraments, and Hymns and Creeds, help cement the great biblical truths in the human mind and heart. I guess this is the need for the Ontological. Too much of our services sell out to entertainment, by pass both head and heart and leave us empty.
I have come to realize much (all?) the fighting over the Eucharist is because we are focusing almost entirely on what happens to the bread and wine, to the exclusion of nearly everything else.
I have, as of late, come to realize the entire Mass, from start to finish, is about totally about the Real Presence, about making the Risen Christ truly tangible and present. Not only this, but it "makes present" and "re-creates" his sacrifice on Calvary (this is an extremely important concept).
The Body of Christ gathered, formed and fed by God's own flesh and blood (his very essence), conformed into the pattern of his death and resurrection (which is the only way we can be in right relationship with God and one another) and sent forth transformed to be active participants in God's redeeming work in the world.
“Connecting to the real” is something we discussed last week among a small group of men I meet with bi-weekly. My argument, which hasn’t been touched on, is that it is challenging to “connect to the real” unless it is experienced. IOW, just talking about the Real or studying or professing doesn’t get us there. We are experiential beings. Our experiences shape us much more than our ponderings. And how do we “experience the Real”? I say it is through the love and service of the Church. And to the extent that the Church is failing in this area, we are failing at “experiencing the Real”. “I was blind, but now I see” is not an intellectual exercise.
I agree that the Real in church is about much more than thickening Sacramental ontology (and especially a push towards a particular Sacramental theory). Surely your point about substantial human relations and tangible helping is pointing to an even more neglected arena of the Real. Not to mention deep Word and deep Spirit connection.
I agree that the Real in church is about much more than thickening Sacramental ontology (and especially a push towards a particular Sacramental theory). Surely your point about substantial human relations and tangible helping is pointing to an even more neglected arena of the Real. Not to mention deep Word and deep Spirit connection.
I'm inclined to agree. I feel closer to Jesus through the Eucharist and the focus on taking in his flesh and blood. Though a two-way exchange is going on - Christ's flesh and blood are making new life in me, by replacing my old flesh. Could it be that Christ, in a sense, is eating us as we eat him?
Hi Adam, Richard can certainly respond to you. In the meantime, I'd like to point out that Christ doesn't need to eat us... The Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our human nature completely in the Incarnation and knows everything about being human because he is fully human as well as fully God. This is what Christians have believed since the beginning; it took some of the best Christian thinkers to be able to try to put words to it in the first few Councils after it got "chewed on" over the years, but the sense of it is there at the beginning.
So yes, there is a two-way exchange going on, as each person voluntarily gives him/her self as an offering in the worship setting and receives Christ's flesh and blood. But the Incarnation is already a given; my experience is that far too many people, especially the non-ontological folks, haven't grappled with the ramifications of it.
Not sure you can just believe something..well, that you just don't believe in order to keep within the christian circle. I cannot go back...and I don't think that "the hell with that." is the only route. I believe one can keep the awe and understand that we don't really know about the great unknown reality that is beyond us. Maybe the ontology is believing there is something greater, the creator, the one that will be known in our afterlife...is enough. The role of this being, this holy spirit will be understood at that time....and we keep living with morality and ethics.. .and the way of the red letters until then. We can embrace faith, knowing and experiencing so little.
Question: Why does the revelation or acknowledgement of that ontology have to be associated with a ritual or ceremony (i.e. baptism, communion)? Can’t you know God without an iconic relationship?
The profound influence of Karl Rahner’s ideas on Eucharistic Theology in the 20th century should not be so easily dismissed as being heterodox. Over the years he received a lot of pushback from hard core ‘Transubstantionists’ who were locked into a view of an ontological presence of Christ within the elements during communion. His theological discourse seems to point towards a more flexible and evolved view of ‘Substance Theory’ where ‘Transignification’ and or ‘Transfinalization’ are of paramount importance coming more from an informed Enlightenment / Scientific perspective. He seems to emphasize that the Resurrected Christ is already continuously present within ‘Creation’, therefore the chemical change of the elements for Believers who partake in the Eucharist, has a more of a metaphysical / redemptive significance, through the ‘Corporate Consecration of the Act Itself’, rather than the ingestion of a actual cloaked spiritual flesh & plasma celebration - One may be tasting bread and wine as a believer, but metaphysically you’re not. For me, rather than going down the rabbit hole of the theological debate on the actual nature of the Host, it seems logically coherent to assume that it is both ‘Transsubstantial’ and ‘Transignificant’ simultaneously - i.e ontologically real and symbolically efficacious. The real question is whether one’s faith, prior to entering the mystery, affects or determines its redemptive value (?) Any theory or system of belief on this topic should not be separated from Jesus’s teaching found in the ‘Bread of Life Discourse’ in John 6 where he does not mince his words and lays out the mystery -
“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”
The old Anglican prayer book (sadly mostly deprecated nowadays and replaced with a minimalist and bland alternative that does nothing for anyone) has a sub section within the Eucharist section called The Great Thanksgiving which is full of devotional prayers and responses focused on the glorious Person and Work of Christ, with emphasis naturally on His sacrificial death, leading on naturally to the Holy Communion event.
I'm sure other denominations have something similar, but as Richard says many churches have sidelined this sacred ceremony, or watered it down. I would suggest for many its not flash enough, people want to be entertained in church not sit in reflective silence.
Ceremony and Ritual, and the Sacraments, and Hymns and Creeds, help cement the great biblical truths in the human mind and heart. I guess this is the need for the Ontological. Too much of our services sell out to entertainment, by pass both head and heart and leave us empty.
I have come to realize much (all?) the fighting over the Eucharist is because we are focusing almost entirely on what happens to the bread and wine, to the exclusion of nearly everything else.
I have, as of late, come to realize the entire Mass, from start to finish, is about totally about the Real Presence, about making the Risen Christ truly tangible and present. Not only this, but it "makes present" and "re-creates" his sacrifice on Calvary (this is an extremely important concept).
The Body of Christ gathered, formed and fed by God's own flesh and blood (his very essence), conformed into the pattern of his death and resurrection (which is the only way we can be in right relationship with God and one another) and sent forth transformed to be active participants in God's redeeming work in the world.
My comment was meant to be a reply to Dan Sides, but I seem to be doing something wrong.
“Connecting to the real” is something we discussed last week among a small group of men I meet with bi-weekly. My argument, which hasn’t been touched on, is that it is challenging to “connect to the real” unless it is experienced. IOW, just talking about the Real or studying or professing doesn’t get us there. We are experiential beings. Our experiences shape us much more than our ponderings. And how do we “experience the Real”? I say it is through the love and service of the Church. And to the extent that the Church is failing in this area, we are failing at “experiencing the Real”. “I was blind, but now I see” is not an intellectual exercise.
Hunting Magic Eels is all about this issue.
I agree that the Real in church is about much more than thickening Sacramental ontology (and especially a push towards a particular Sacramental theory). Surely your point about substantial human relations and tangible helping is pointing to an even more neglected arena of the Real. Not to mention deep Word and deep Spirit connection.
I agree that the Real in church is about much more than thickening Sacramental ontology (and especially a push towards a particular Sacramental theory). Surely your point about substantial human relations and tangible helping is pointing to an even more neglected arena of the Real. Not to mention deep Word and deep Spirit connection.
I'm inclined to agree. I feel closer to Jesus through the Eucharist and the focus on taking in his flesh and blood. Though a two-way exchange is going on - Christ's flesh and blood are making new life in me, by replacing my old flesh. Could it be that Christ, in a sense, is eating us as we eat him?
Hi Adam, Richard can certainly respond to you. In the meantime, I'd like to point out that Christ doesn't need to eat us... The Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our human nature completely in the Incarnation and knows everything about being human because he is fully human as well as fully God. This is what Christians have believed since the beginning; it took some of the best Christian thinkers to be able to try to put words to it in the first few Councils after it got "chewed on" over the years, but the sense of it is there at the beginning.
So yes, there is a two-way exchange going on, as each person voluntarily gives him/her self as an offering in the worship setting and receives Christ's flesh and blood. But the Incarnation is already a given; my experience is that far too many people, especially the non-ontological folks, haven't grappled with the ramifications of it.
Cheers-
Dana