Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: transubstantiation again - some real concerns (and more) Message-ID: Date: 13 Nov 89 17:31:19 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA Lines: 122 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) writes: >I understand a sacrament as some action our Lord commands us to do, >or basically implied by His words in obedience to Him. So far, so good. >The priest is empowered(catholic doctrine) to call down Jesus into the >wafer, toenails and all at his consecration(if his intent is correct), >right? Now the church(catholic) would say that he can do this everytime >and God guarantees it, because He ordained it. Well, the priest doesn't "call down Jesus". The bread and wine are transsubstantiated into Christ's body and blood through the power of the Holy Spirit. Incidentally, Barry's questions could also be asked of Anglicans and Lutherans (OK, no toenails for them--I guess that's where consubstantiation comes in :-).) By the way, Chuck, this gives me an opportunity to clarify my earlier comment: I'm also uneasy with the implication that the "priest" is somehow sacrificing Christ. That's not really correct. Just as Christ, both victim and priest, sacrificed himself on Calvary, the Catholic Church believes that Christ is both victim and priest in the unbloody reenactment of the same sacrifice of Calvary, which is the Mass. The priest offers this unbloody sacrifice in the Eucharist, but only by virtue of his acting through a sacramental identification with Christ, the High Priest. The sacrifice is effected by Christ himself. I hope that gives you a feel for why I didn't like that statement. Anyway, Barry's emphasis is all wrong. This is not a magic act guaranteed by God. To this, Chuck said in a private comment: > I posted this because I thought it raised a real issue, the answer to > which I don't know, namely that of the "automatic" nature of the > sacraments. As I understand it, the Catholic concept of the communion > implies that when the correct liturgical action is performed, Christ > is present, independent of the faith of the priest or people. Of > course that fact won't do anybody any good without faith... (Indeed a > passage in one of Paul's letters implies that it might even do harm.) > This really does look like "magic" to many of us. It seems to me that > this impression of "magic" is common enough that it's worth responding to. OK. I think that your question reflects an unnecessarily mechanistic view of the Eucharist (actually any of the sacraments) which leads one inevitably to ask about absurdly unrealistic situations like this one. Most of the formulations which would lead you into this corner come from the refutation of heresies which would have you believe the opposite. Trent proclaimed that the conferring of grace in a sacrament depends on neither the merit of the minister nor that of the recipient, except in a negative way (through some obstacle.) This was an attempt to make clear that the grace of the sacraments comes from God acting through Christ in his Church, and not through some human force. This, and other proclamations seem to have been effective at dispelling the heresies, but at the expense of some confusion and excessive legalism on the part of all Christians. Let me refer back to the discussions of the sacraments which have appeared before here and in talk.religion.misc. The "faith" of the minister, writ small, is not necessary for a valid Eucharist. For example, he may be subject to the same doubts and crises of faith that we all have. He may be in a state of serious sin. (Please refer to our moderator's illuminating precis on the differences between Protestant and Catholic concepts of sin. In the Catholic view, a priest may be in a _state of sin_ because after sinning he might not yet have received absolution in the sacrament of penance. I've since learned that this Catholic concept of zig-zagging between being justified and not doesn't make too much sense to many Protestants.) These failings in themselves are not impediments to the valid celebration of the Eucharist. However, the minister must voluntarily intend in his actions what the Church intends--namely, he must intend to exercise his function in the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass as the Church understand it, and all that entails. I would interpret your hypothetical example as excluding this common intention. A true apostate would not share the same intention as the Church's, and hence the sacrament would not be valid--in the case of a Eucharist celebrated by such a fallen minister, we can safely say that the transformation of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood would not occur. All sacraments have a sign (the ritual), a reality (the immediate effect of grace), and a lasting effect. If a recipient does not have the proper disposition (i.e., the Tridentine impediment), then the fruitful reception of the sacrament (grace) does not occur. Note that the Church uses the word "disposition", not "faith"--this seems to be a _roomier_ word, encompassing a larger sense and a smaller sense than the word "faith". (Other Church documents point out that the act of celebrating a sacrament (the sign) may in itself prepare one to have the proper disposition.) Thus, a sacrament is not a magic act. A person without faith in the sacrament does not benefit from the graces imparted by the sacrament, since they are implicitly rejected. Now, all sacraments have a lasting effect. The lasting effect of the Eucharist is the ultimate conversion of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. As you see now, in Catholic doctrine, this requires the proper intention of the priest--the "sign" alone is not enough. However, Christ's presence is not dependent on the proper disposition of the congregation. (Remember, too, that the Eucharist can be reserved for later distribution to the sick or infirm.) Does this, in itself, constitute magic? In my view, no more than any act of the Divine. >God(Jesus) also ordained us to heal the sick (another sacrament) and >such. Now, how can the priest presume that Jesus is in the wafer everytime >with a guarantee, yet he cannot heal the sick everytime with a >guarantee. Remember now, this is the same priest who says he has the >power to make the wafer into Jesus. The sacrament called "Anointing of the Sick" (formerly known as Extreme Unction) doesn't necessarily address physical healing, but spiritual healing: the grace of the Holy Spirit imparted by the sacrament endows the recipients with fortitude to avoid temptation, to bear their illness more easily, and to assuage their anxiety about death. Along with that, the sacrament remits sin. According to the Church, if it is in the interest of a recipient's salvation, then even physical healing may follow, but you can see that this is not the main focus of the sacrament. The sacrament is as efficacious as Barry implies, just not in the way he envisions. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu