Weblogger “Bad” has a look at some Catholics in the leagues of the Perpetually Indignant.
I basically agree with his thrust; what the student did was sacreligious and just plain frickin’ rude, but some of the reactions he evoked are almost as offensive and are certainly embarrassing.
This actually points to an old, old argument between Protestants and Catholics. It’s a little weird to hear this referred to as a specifically “Catholic” thing, though if you’re Catholic you kind of get used to that. Much of the Protestant Reformation circled around angry arguments as to the nature of the bread and wine in Communion. People used to kill each other over this argument–literally. But nowadays, it seems to have devolved to an argument mostly between Evangelicals and Everybody Else: mainline, old-line Protestants, the Orthodox (both kinds), and Catholics all affirm the core doctrine that, during the ceremony of Communion, Christ is literally present in the bread and wine; the generic, ecumenical term is “The Real Presence.” What they teach–and really, once again, we’re talking about the vast majority of Christians worldwide here, not just the evull Catlickers–is that once the bread and wine have been consecrated, it is literally God present there, and if you’re not in a proper state to handle and receive it then you’re committing a sin. Catholics call the mystery Transubstantiation, Lutherans call it Consubstantiation, I forget what the other mainline Protestants and the Orthodox call it, but they’re all talking about the same Real Presence of Jesus. About the only Christians who don’t believe this are the Evangelicals, who are huge in the United States but really quite small in number outside of North America.
It’s a little ironic to some of us that the people who claim that they interpret the Bible “literally, not symbolically” choose to view this most sacred and ancient of Christian rites symbolically; Christ says in numerous places, quite clearly and unequivocally, that this is his body, this is his blood, compares it to the manna that fell from Heaven for Moses, and even says that without it you cannot inherit eternal life. This rite was in widespread practice by Christians before there was anything that they called a “Bible”–although most of us would agree that this is exactly what the Bible, both literally and figuratively, says about Holy Communion. Catholic and Orthodox (both kinds) have Communion at practically every worship service; most of the old-line Protestants do it a little less often, but only because they feel it’s so important it should only be done when you’ve spent weeks preparing for it, basically.
So. To get back to the point: the reaction of some Catholics to this obnoxious student who treated a communion wafer poorly is borderline hysterical–and not in the funny sense. Anyone with his head screwed on straight would know that while this is sacrilegious and insulting, it is not “kidnapping Jesus,” and far worse things have been done throughout history to communion bread. God somehow manages to survive I think. (Or not, if you’re a rabid atheist or something.)


{ 26 comments }
Huh ?
When I was a Methodist, I always had this idea that one of the neat theological things about Jesus insofar as ritual purity went was that he couldn’t be made unclean: he hung around with the supposedly most spiritually low class people possible, which you just weren’t supposed to do for fear of becoming defiled yourself, and he touched them, and instead of that defiling him, it purified them.
So while I understand why doing something with the Host is incredibly offensive and rude, the idea of God being defiled just seems incredibly odd to my lingering memory of that theology. I just have this weird idea stuck in my head that, theologically, the Christian God, and any part of that God, would be totally inviolable: impossible to defile. And if that God saw some irksome brat waving around the Host, his attitude would be "pffff, whatever: you think you can hurt Me?"
Bad’s last blog post..Late Night TV Discovers Most Offensive Thing Ever
Interesting. I’d always thought Eucharist was purely symbolic in my denomination (Episcopal, which is usually categorized as Mainline Protestant), but I just looked it up and you’re right — the doctrine is that while the bread and wine remain physically unchanged, they contain the "Real Presence" of Christ (what this means is officially a mystery) once they are blessed.
Yep.
There was a *huge* row over this between the Lutherans and the Catholics early on; the Lutherans wanted to call it Consubstantiation and insisted that it was wildly different from Transubstantiation. Then the Calvinists came along and infuriated the Lutherans over it with their own spin. The Episcopalians always strove for a middle path between it all.
What’s always interesting to me is to read what the Orthodox have to say about such things, because they split away from Rome long before there was any such thing as Protestantism, and were isolated from Western Europe, so they stand completely outside of the arguments that raged between Catholic and Protestant (and, at least as often, Protestant and Protestant), and what they basically tend to say is that Rome got trapped into trying to dogmatically nail down something that didn’t need nailing down, when all they needed to do was say "yes, this is the body and blood of Christ, we don’t entirely understand it but it is."
The Orthodox generally tend to be sensible about things that Catholics and Protestants have been known to fight like cats and dogs over.
But that’s basically become the default position of most mainline Protestants today: call it the Real Presence and stop bickering over exactly what it means, it’s a mystery, and the mystical has a firm and important place in the faith.
(Although I should also note that relationships between Catholics and most mainline Protestant groups–Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalian, etc.–are actually pretty warm these days, and while things are still a little prickly with the Orthodox, especially in certain countries like Ukraine, they’re also better now than they have been in a thousand years.)
If you’re a rabid (or non-rabid) atheist, God wasn’t around in the first place. If you’re a devout Christian, he survives. I’m not aware of any world view under which God exists, but is weak enough to be threatened by anything humans can do.
“when all they needed to do was say yes, this is the body and blood of Christ, we don’t entirely understand it but it is.”
Seems like by far the most sensible approach. If appeals to the supernatural were in general just admitted appeals to mystery like this, rather than claims of a superior form of understanding, I’d have a lot more respect for them.
Bad’s last blog post..Late Night TV Discovers Most Offensive Thing Ever
What the…? Does anyone know what random tag would be causing this sudden bizarre formatting?!?
The strange formatting is an act of God.
Just admit its a mystery, and leave it at that!
Yuk, yuk.
By the way, I wanted to point out for Maniakes that this whole "real presence" thing is the very reason that most denominations of Christianity call it "The Host" in the first place; it’s hosting the real presence of God right there in its substance or essence. This is why it’s such a Big Deal.
(My kingdom for whoever can figure out what closing tag will make this goofy formatting go away! I have to go to work, back later…)
Dean
There’s an open <em> tag somewhere. I suspect it’s in Bad’s post that isn’t displaying propertly (#6.5?)
I like WordPress but it’s prone to this type of behavior.
God is not directly involved.
Scott:
"God is not directly involved."
Prove it!
Scott does not have to prove a negative. :)
There is a missing "a" tag at the end of Xrlq’s "last post" hyperlink that is causing the closing  "em" tag from being processed correctly
Will this fix it?
[Drat it! No!]
If God isn’t involved, it must be Satan.
heh, I tried that too.. Can you edit the last post url and add the /a tag??
Why can’t I edit Xrlq’s post #5?
Personally I blame Bush…Â
"it’s hosting the real presence of God right there in its substance or essence."
Makes sense. I’d been curious about that, and had assumed it was some archaic double-meaning (like the term "accident" being used to refer to the physical appearance of the bread and wine).
oh what the heck
this didn’t work, either
Well I was able to edit XRLQ’s comment, and for some reason it was formatted weird too, but fixing it didn’t fix what followed.
I blame the Jews.
quote it, post it again and DELETE the original maybe edit it into your comment #7
What the…? Does anyone know what random tag would be causing this sudden bizarre formatting?!?
Found it Dean, but had to eliminate Bad’s "last blog post" url (Sorry Bad) from his comment. The problem appeared to maybe be farther up, but I was able to break the chain there.
Thanks Sandi!
Now I wonder what caused it. Bad, do you have some weird code in your headline or something?
Maniakes: Believe it or not, the term "accident" has a specific meaning too; it’s based on Aristotelian philosophy, and was embraced by St. Thomas Aquinas in his own explorations of the nature of the Eucharist, and this was prior to the Reformation. The Episcopalians generally regard him as a Saint and will tend to use his language, even though they don’t take a firm stance on transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation or any of that other stuff, which frankly also bores me to tears too.
But essentially (heh) this idea is that a thing’s substance is separate from its properties; those properties which are not substantial are accidents. In modern terms this is hard to understand at first, as it’s got nothing to do with atoms or molecules or energy or any of that; in Aristotelian terms, those would all be accidents. The substance of anything at all is not matter, energy, or any of its physical properties.
Thus–and again, we are getting into some pretty arid theological territory here, and one of the things the Orthodox complain about (the Western Church’s tendency of overexplaining and overanalyzing)–but the accidents of an object are any of its physical properties or appearances that people can see or detect with their normal five senses. Its substance is deeper, and in most ways beyond human understanding.
So if they’re telling you its physical properties are accidents, that’s where it comes from. Its substance is changed when it becomes the Eucharist, but its accidents, its physical properties, do not.
Make sense?
(Can you tell I studied this stuff really hard before making my leap of faith?)
I keep trying to tell people that cracker-napping makes you the spawn of The Devil but nobody takes me serial! I am super serial and no one will stone this child! Waaaaah!
Personally, if there is a God, I am sure he can handle a little cracker-napping. Besides he’ll have The Body of Christ in his home! Good fortune! At least they don’t strap dynamite to themselves, tie themselves to the hood of a car and drive them selves through a brick wall just to blow up a building. I rate this outburst a 4 of 10.
Comments on this entry are closed.