Saturday, 15 March 2008

The Key Difference: 'World view'


From the exchange below concerning the question of how we are to understand a sacramental worldview, I think Fr. Alexander Schmemann is most helpful in his work For the Life of the World. I understood the sermon below from Professor Brown to be an important reminder actually about the way we in the West have abused and narrowed the word symbol. What is driving the uninformed protest of someone like Mr. Johnson at Reformed catholicism is the result of his own doubt about the reality of symbol and its ability to communicate reality.

Symbol is the means of participation in that reality. That is what symbolon is all about. Rites express the faith and mind of the Church regarding the saving effects of the sacraments. It is not magical powers as Mr. Johnson would so wrongly see it but liturgical actions and gestures rooted in a New Testament worldview embody the new life in the Church, confirm the real presence of Christ and communicate salvation and sanctification to the community of faith. Priests are ordained to conduct these prescribed rites, not as magical powers as I've said, but as the rites of the Church which communicate reality and move us into participation in this reality. It is in that sense that Prof. Brown speaks of mediation of a priest at the altar. Until Christ returns, that is simply the means by which God calls us to experience his reality and love and the means by which we participate in his love.

Comments on "The Key Difference: 'World view'"

 

Anonymous Kevin Davis said ... (15 March 2008 11:36) : 

I wonder how much of this is about semantics? I can't speak for Kevin Johnson, but for myself I'm not terribly impressed by Catholics talking about how they believe the symbol communicates "reality." What does this mean? Christ's real body and blood is really there where the elements are? You say yes and no, and ultimately resort to the bare particular of "substance" of which nothing can be predicated. Not impressed. I'm very big on the redemption of materiality in the new creation won by Christ and secured by his bodily Resurrection, so if we're going to talk about Christ's "real" body and blood, I'm talking about that piece of flesh that hung on the Cross and to which Thomas put his hands -- in other words, the "accidents" make all the difference.

 

Blogger Fr. Jeffrey Steel said ... (15 March 2008 12:41) : 

Dear Kevin,

Thanks for your comments and welcome. I looked into your site and I look forward to visiting more.

I am not convinced this is about semantics. I think it is about how we receive the very body and blood you speak about--the one on the cross. All that Christ's death and resurrection accomplished is communicated to us through the instrumental agency of the sacraments. The only way we receive Christ is through his sacramental means given through the life and ministry of his Church. The Church being the sacrament par excellance.

What Professor Brown of St. Andrews University communicated was just that. His whole point and mine is that reality is communicated by gestures, rites, ceremony as well as words. Therefore, what we do in our rites is very important because they define what we believe about reality. I don't think it is semantics because Mr. Johnson couldn't protest enough he said.

 

Blogger Matthew N. Petersen said ... (16 March 2008 22:55) : 

I can't help but notice that whatever the "priesthood of all believers" once meant, it now means "priesthood of no believers". We all have access to God. Fine. But a priest has an office, and comes before God in behalf of others. If we are priests after the order of Melchizedek, that is, if we are priests in the image of Christ, our office is to offer ourselves to Christ, and our flesh as bread and wine to our fellow Christians. (See for instance, 2 Corinthians 1, I Peter 2, St. Francis' Stigmatta, and St. Therese's desire to be a grape to comfort the thirst of her dying Lord.)

If anyone is a priest after the order of St. Peter, it certianly does not contradict the Melchizedekian priesthood of all believers--for the great saints, St. Therese or St. Francis or the Mother of God, were not priests after the order of St. Peter. And priesthood after the order of St. Peter is actually a diminished symbol of the universal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

It is Pr. Johnson who denies priesthood of all believers, and the Catholic Church, with its doctrine of the treasury of merits, and prayers to the saints, that affirms priesthood of all believers.

 

post a comment