Press the title below for his article and you will read his 1970's theology watering down the dogma of transubtantiation which led to the heresies and sacrileges associated with the modern Mass from which we were recovering but Grillo and the 1970's crowd wish to recover! WHY IS THE QUESTION????
2 comments:
The person who wrote this is terrible at composing and presenting arguments.
Is the Presence Real?
Metaphysics be damned. He can’t be bread so I suppose He could not be a burning bush. We are The Creators advisors; He has Laws He cannot break! What absolute foolishness. Even an atheist can see through that.
I always thought that the author's first point was correct: that transubstantiation was the best explanation for the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but not the only possible explanation. That is, the Aristotelian ideas of "substance" and "accidents" (or is it Platonic?) are useful but not essential to the dogma of the Real Presence and it is possible that someone may come up with another explanation or description of how Jesus is really and truly present under the forms of bread and wine.
As for the rest, I confess I can't make heads or tails of it. It reminds me of a lot coming out of Rome these days: It doesn't sound right, but I feel like I need a PhD in Theology to explain why. And I especially can't fathom why transubstantiation distracts from God's presence in the reading of the Word or Jesus' present in the assembly. Marty Haughan does that.
I guess I'll have to leave it to the experts to hash out. I'm lucky enough that our parish priest is encouraging Eucharistic Adoration because Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and graces will flow to the adorer (adorator?) and the parish when we spend an hour with the Lord.
Post a Comment