[Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness

Sat Jan 17 12:11:16 PST 2009

I'm not arguing for the interpretation, not saying it should be  
accepted over others. My only claim is that it is not absurd to take  
the words literally, for it is not obvious how the passage should be  
understood. As I've said before, the Bible does not come with a manual  
saying what passages are to be taken literally and which are to be  
understood symbolically, as you and I understand this particular  
passage.the whole point is that we too often jump from "it is obvious  
to me" to "it is obvious" forgetting about the background assumptions,  
traditions, etc. that play a role in the formation of our beliefs. We  
only notice the presuppositions and jumps in reasoning when they come  
from someone else.

Think of it this way. How much of the difference between your views  
and those of a Catholic are due to the Text and how much to it's  
interpretation, whether to take a passage as symbolic or as literal?  
And if the guidelines for the later are not in the Text itself, how  
can this be a difference in religion?

Not that I have answers to these questions?

Joe

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 17, 2009, at 11:09 AM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:

> Joe, I believe that for Christians who believe that the Bible is the  
> Word of God, that Word must then take its place as the basis for  
> faith and practice.  The Catholic belief that Tradition -- something  
> profoundly deeper than "we've always done it this way" -- is equal  
> to Scripture in authority isn't a diminishment of Scripture as much  
> as an elevation of doctrines and practices . . . which virtually  
> always came about through someone's interpretation of Scripture.
>
> And I'm truly surprised that you would use the passage in Luke as a  
> basis for transubstantiation, which is the belief that the host  
> (wafer), at the priest's invocation, ceases to be a wheat-and-water  
> product and becomes the literal, carnal, physical, flesh of Jesus  
> Christ.  I know you don't believe in transubstantiation, and neither  
> do I, but to use a passage pregnant with obvious symbolism to argue  
> for a doctrine that does away with the symbol in favor of the  
> literal is an interesting hermeneutic -- and one that I'm surprised  
> you would take on.  Frankly, I'm not sure that even a staunch Roman  
> Catholic would rest the doctrine on the Lucan passage you cite.
>
> I mean no disrespect, either to you or to the Roman Catholic Church;  
> on the contrary, I take Communion weekly with my church family, and  
> I take the symbol of the wafer very seriously, because it represents  
> the body of Christ.  I have participated in the Eucharist with  
> wafers, French bread, oyster crackers and pieces of flatbread, and I  
> do so because the bread-product represents -- puts me in remembrance  
> of -- the sacrifice of my Savior.  His literal body was pierced and  
> crucified and in his literal body, he rose from the grave.  But he  
> isn't, in my way of thinking, literally and actually present in the  
> bread, the chewing of which doesn't desecrate the body but nourishes  
> the Body.
>
> My concern, from Chas' initial post, was that in every religious  
> tradition, including the evangelical Protestant tradition with which  
> I identify, there is a danger of adhering so rigidly to one verse,  
> one strand of doctrine, one tradition or teaching, that the larger  
> Truth to which we belong becomes diminished.  Rigidity and  
> literalism in any hermeneutic can lead to an over-emphasis on that  
> which is less significant, sometimes to the point of absurdity.   
> Witness the many churches that practice snake-handling, largely from  
> a disputed passage in Mark.  It's there, right in the text, that  
> believers can handle poisonous snakes without being harmed -- I've  
> read it! -- but I think we would all agree that there's a larger  
> context that would mitigate that, if not do away with it altogether.
>
> The doctrine of transubstantiation, as much as I disagree with it,  
> is a cherished doctrine held by millions of Christians.  I would not  
> divide from them over it.  On the other hand, a statement that  
> suggests that Slobodan Milesovic could have received forgiveness by  
> going to his priest at St. Mary's here in town, while a local  
> Catholic kid who, in a fit of immaturity and silliness, mishandles  
> the Host and thus requires a papal dispensation to secure his  
> salvation, invites mockery and, I think, doesn't fairly represent  
> the teaching of the Church or the views of its members.
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:20:01 -0800
> From: josephc at wsu.edu
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com; chasuk at gmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Keely,
>
>
>
> Three quick sets of comments.
>
>
>
> First, I don’t think that scripture is the only basis for religious  
> belief. Thus, I think it is fine if some Christians – Catholics, for 
>  instance – base some of their beliefs on something other than scrip 
> ture. But you can’t be serious that there is no scriptural basis for 
>  the doctrine of transubstantiation. “And he took bread, gave thanks 
>  and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given f 
> or you; do this in remembrance of me.’” (Luke 22:19) I don’t  
> see how you could be more direct than to say “This (bread) is my bod 
> y.” Obviously you have a different interpretation than the literal o 
> ne adopted by some Catholics and I have no desire to debate with you 
>  on this issue. For one thing, I’m sure that you could kick my Chris 
> tian butt when it comes to the Text; for another, I don’t believe th 
> e doctrine in the first place, so I have little reason to defend it. 
>  But it is simply false to say that there is NO textual support for  
> the doctrine of transubstantiation.
>
>
>
> Second, the issue here is not the truth or falsity of the doctrine  
> of transubstantiation. I agree with you and Chas on that issue. The  
> real issue is how we should approach discussions about disagreements  
> of fundamental beliefs – religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs 
> . I think that we should approach them with a more respectful tone t 
> han Chas has been taking.
>
>
>
> Third, I am in total agreement with you and Chas when it comes to  
> social issues and religious belief. The history of Christianity is  
> filled with atrocities. Chas has already given an “impressive”  
> list. I wish that the Catholic Church would take a more sympathetic  
> view toward the issue of abortion, that other Christian churches wou 
> ld re-examine their views about women, etc. I have a lot to say abou 
> t politics and religion and I would love to see more thoughtful disc 
> ussions on V2020 about these issues. The main reason I’ve been so cr 
> itical of Chas is that I think that he’s making genuine, helpful, th 
> oughtful discussions less likely. If we want to talk about these iss 
> ue we need to adopt a more respectful tone otherwise we’re just prea 
> ching to the choir. No Christians – other than you, Donovan, and I  
> – are listening. Certainly the Catholics have tuned him out. I  
> don’t see how you are going to begin to change a Catholic’s mind  
> about abortion if you start the discussion by mischaracterizing thei 
> r beliefs in the way that Chas has. Who the heck are we kidding here?
>
>
>
> Best, Joe
>
>
>
>
>
> From: keely emerinemix [mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:11 PM
> To: Campbell, Joseph; Charles Warren; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness
>
>
>
> Joe, you make some good points.
>
> Still, my calling for some perspective in the desecrated wafer  
> (host) vs. genocide issue springs from my belief that when truth  
> claims are made in religion, as they are here, they ought to be  
> defensible.  That includes the doctrines that inform such claims.   
> If, as Catholic Christians or Protestant or Orthodox Christians, we  
> believe that the Bible is the Word of God and the basis for any  
> appeal to doctrine or conduct, it's fair to ask for, or point out  
> the lack of, Scriptural basis for that belief.  I believe there is  
> none, and my failure to find some Roman Catholic doctrine justified  
> by Scripture is one of the things that led me, 25 years ago, to  
> leave the Church.  I won't join the "Catholics aren't Christians"  
> chorus, ever, but I would hope the Vatican and each person in the  
> pews would thoughtfully analyze the doctrine of transubstantiation  
> from a Biblical perspective, just as I would hope that Southern  
> Baptists would re-examine their conclusions regarding women's roles  
> in church, family, and society -- or Calvinists their belief that  
> God actually doesn't love, doesn't want to save, intends to create  
> for the purpose of damnation, some people for no reason at all,  
> other than His "good pleasure."
>
> A better example:  I'm quite sure that some Christians in Moscow  
> would like me to re-examine a whole lot of things that I believe,  
> and I hope I would always be open to correction.
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:58:43 -0800
> From: josephc at wsu.edu
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com; chasuk at gmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Dear Keely,
>
>
>
> Desecration of Communion is desecration of God, according to these  
> Catholics. Again, I don’t believe this and you don’t but the  
> question is whether it is inappropriate for someone to think that de 
> secration of God is the worst kind of sin. I don’t think it is in ap 
> propriate. There is really nothing new here, nothing different from  
> Chas’s first set of remarks. He finds the thought of genuine Communi 
> on to be absurd. Well, good for him. He is not alone. Donovan finds  
> Chas’s atheism to be absurd, too, and I don’t appreciate  
> Donovan’s insulting remarks about Chas’s beliefs any more than I  
> do Chas’s insulting remarks about Catholics. I’m neither a  
> Catholic or an atheist but I have friends and family in both camps a 
> nd it bothers me that their beliefs are discussed in such a flippant 
> , insulting way.
>
>
>
> I find the whole idea of taking bits and pieces of someone’s fundame 
> ntal beliefs out of context and making fun of them to be a worthless 
>  exercise. It is offensive and as far as I can tell of no good whats 
> oever. Why stop with Catholics? Why not find comments from other rel 
> igions – Mormons, Muslims, Jews – that we can take out of context  
> and make fun of? And what do we gain from this exercise? I just don’ 
> t get it.
>
>
>
> Any fundamental claim about the world – religious, philosophical, or 
>  whatever – looks odd to those who don’t accept. That is just the  
> way that fundamental claims work. Going to the trouble to point out  
> the oddness serves no useful end, as far as I can see. Ultimately it 
>  leaves us all open to the same kind of pointless ridicule.
>
>
>
> Best, Joe
>
>
>
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com 
> ] On Behalf Of keely emerinemix
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:12 PM
> To: Charles Warren; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness
>
>
>
> I think I'm with Chas on this one.  A little perspective, please!
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:38:42 -0800
> > From: chasuk at gmail.com
> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28663430/
> >
> > This just in:
> >
> > "Confessions of . . . sins . . . such as genocide or mass  
> murder . . .
> > [are] handled at the local level by priests and their bishops"
> >
> > However for the REALLY heinous sins, only the pope can grant  
> absolution.
> >
> > Which sins are this grave, you wonder?
> >
> > Well, for example, only the pope can absolve those "who receive
> > Communion and then remove the host from their mouths and spit it out
> > or otherwise desecrate it," this article reports.
> >
> > So spitting out a wafer is worse than genocide?
> >
> > *Chas's head explodes*
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
>
>
>
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
>
>
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. 3D"2" width="10 
> 0%">
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
>
>
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090117/987c956b/attachment-0001.html 