[Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness

[Joseph Campbell]

Fair enough! I¹m not trying to give you a hard time. These are difficult
questions to which I don¹t have any answers either.

BUT, getting back to the initial issue, I don¹t think that the claim from
Chas¹s initial post is as absurd as it sounds outside of context, which is
the way that you¹ve noted it below: desecrating a Communion wafer is an act
more serious than genocide. Certainly this sounds absurd but in the proper
context it is equivalent to saying desecrating God is an act more serious
than genocide, which is not that absurd.


On 1/17/09 12:48 PM, "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:

> Joe, I'm not at all interested in "winning" this or any other debate, and I
> agree that it is difficult to interpret Scripture -- especially when so many
> varying conclusions result from the same passage.  My only concern here is,
> once again, trying to represent Biblical Christianity while commenting, not as
> perfectly as I'd like, on variances or, more important, errors thereof.  My
> conclusions -- my saying something's in error -- should be examined by whoever
> hears or reads them, and discarded with gusto if found to be wrong.  Either
> way, what matters most to me is that the Gospel never be maligned,
> misrepresented, or mocked.  I am, in that regard, an "apologist" for the
> Christian faith, and, as you know, an "apologist" is one who defends (not
> apologizes for) the historic, orthodox faith.  I don't always do it as well as
> I'd like, but it's still important to try.
> 
> My concern here was that, in Chas' initial post, desecrating a Communion wafer
> was represented as an act more serious than genocide, and I hoped my
> contribution relieved Visionaires of that impression.
> 
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: josephc at wsu.edu
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:11:16 -0800
> CC: chasuk at gmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> 
> 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 don¹t 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 scripture. But you can¹t be
>> serious that there is no scriptural basis for the doctrine of
>> transubstantiation. ³And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it
>> to them, saying, ŒThis is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of
>> me.¹² (Luke 22:19) I don¹t see how you could be more direct than to say ³This
>> (bread) is my body.² Obviously you have a different interpretation than the
>> literal one adopted by some Catholics and I have no desire to debate with you
>> on this issue. For one thing, I¹m sure that you could kick my Christian butt
>> when it comes to the Text; for another, I don¹t believe the 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 than 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 ³impressive² list. I wish that the
>> Catholic Church would take a more sympathetic view toward the issue of
>> abortion, that other Christian churches would re-examine their views about
>> women, etc. I have a lot to say about politics and religion and I would love
>> to see more thoughtful discussions on V2020 about these issues. The main
>> reason I¹ve been so critical of Chas is that I think that he¹s making
>> genuine, helpful, thoughtful discussions less likely. If we want to talk
>> about these issue we need to adopt a more respectful tone otherwise we¹re
>> just preaching to the choir. No Christians ­ other than you, Donovan, and I ­
>> are listening. Certainly the Catholics have tuned him out. I don¹t see how
>> you are going to begin to change a Catholic¹s mind about abortion if you
>> start the discussion by mischaracterizing their 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 don¹t believe this and you don¹t but the question is whether it is
>> inappropriate for someone to think that desecration of God is the worst kind
>> of sin. I don¹t think it is in appropriate. There is really nothing new here,
>> nothing different from Chas¹s first set of remarks. He finds the thought of
>> genuine Communion to be absurd. Well, good for him. He is not alone. Donovan
>> finds Chas¹s atheism to be absurd, too, and I don¹t appreciate Donovan¹s
>> insulting remarks about Chas¹s beliefs any more than I do Chas¹s insulting
>> remarks about Catholics. I¹m neither a Catholic or an atheist but I have
>> friends and family in both camps and 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 someone¹s fundamental
>> 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 whatsoever. Why stop with
>> Catholics? Why not find comments from other religions ­ Mormons, Muslims,
>> Jews ­ that we can take out of context and make fun of? And what do we gain
>> from this exercise? I just don¹t get it.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Any fundamental claim about the world ­ religious, philosophical, or whatever
>> ­ looks odd to those who don¹t 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.
>> <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009>
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
>> <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009>
>> 
>> 
>> Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
>> <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009>
>> 3D"2" width="100%">
>> 
>> Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
>> <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009>
>> 
>> 
>> Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
>> <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009> >
> 
> 
> Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
> <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090117/d8d91705/attachment-0001.html