[Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness

Sat Jan 17 12:48:52 PST 2009

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 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
scripture. 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 for 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 body.” 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, I’m
sure that you could kick my Christian butt when it comes to the Text; for
another, I don’t 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 “impressive” 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 I’ve been so critical of Chas is that I think that he’s
making genuine, helpful, thoughtful discussions less likely. If we want to talk
about these issue we need to adopt a more respectful tone otherwise we’re
just preaching 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 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 don’t believe this and you don’t but the
question is whether it is inappropriate for someone to think that desecration
of God is the worst kind of sin. I don’t think it is in appropriate.
There is really nothing new here, nothing different from Chas’s first set
of remarks. He finds the thought of genuine Communion 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 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
someone’s 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 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="100%">

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.
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/20090117/7bd56b78/attachment-0001.html 