Another interesting citation from C. B. Moss in re Transubstantiation as a 
form of Monophysitism:  "Bishop [Charles] Gore [Worcester, Birmingham, 
Oxford] pointed out that even according to the strict interpretation of 
Transubstantiation, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine...since 
only the accidents of bread and wine remain; and...this theory corresponds 
to the Christological theory of the Monophysites, that our Lord's human 
nature  was not really human when united to His Godhead, but only apparently 
so.  ...Transubstantiation is a form of the heresy of Eutyches, who taught 
that the Manhood of our Lord was absorbed by His Godhead."  Regards.  X 
KnoxDuncan@...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Knox Duncan" <knoxduncan@...>
To: <faithandlife@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: [FaithandLife] Dialogue with Rome?


> An excellent discourse, Dean Scott!   Thanks for posting it.  Father 
> McBrien spotlights hierarchical diminution of the counter-Reformation 
> allowed by Vatican II.  One need only read "The Opus Dei Code"--the cover 
> story of the 24 April 2006 issue of Time Magazine--to elaborate on 
> McBrien's thesis.  [Or go to www.odan.org  , the "Opus Dei Awareness 
> Network."] The problem, I fear, is  Rome's insistence of its "infallible 
> Magesterium"--a stubborn proclivity of "monarchial hierarchs"... 
> historically exemplified by many doctrinal excesses:  Transubstantion (the 
> Real Objective Presence),  "ex opere operato," and "sub-deification of 
> Mary and other saints, "inter alia." (Veneration of Mary, IMHO,  far more 
> "latria" that "hyper-dulia.")
>
> Such "excesses" require pages of rhetorical circumlocution in futile 
> attempts--again, IMHO-- to accommodate ancient church dogma to 
> contemporary understanding.  As C. B. Moss writes:  "Latin Christians in 
> the Dark Ages, who could not understand philosophical distinctions, took 
> our Lord's words ["This is my body...This is my blood.."] quite 
> literally...Hence arose the legends of bleeding Hosts, Hosts which turned 
> into a Child in the priest's hand, etc. [and] ...to get rid of this 
> materialist doctrine without rejecting the traditional belief of the 
> Church, [medieval thinkers] devised the theory of 
> Transubstantiation...which was based upon Aristotle...that everything 
> ...is composed of 'substance' and 'accidents'...a very brilliant 
> theory...defined as a dogma by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).  ...it 
> is not a dogma of the Orthodox Communion. Transubstantiation is rejected 
> by the Anglican Communion...'and hath given occasion to many 
> superstitions' (Article 28).  ...Transubstantiation requires us to accept 
> the medieval theory of 'substance'' and 'accident'...not part of the 
> Christian faith...and most modern philosophers ... maintain that there is 
> no such thing as 'substance' in this sense...but the Roman Communion 
> requires the phbilosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas to be taught in all its 
> colleges, and disapproves of any other, from which it seems that those who 
> accept Transubstantiation can hardly avoid the medieval philosophy."
>
> Dean Scott, in a second post, you mention the Coptic Orthodox Church, a 
> fascinating group indeed, the chief representation of Christianity in 
> Muslim Egypt. (Before the Arab conquest in the 7th Century, the people of 
> Egypt identified themselves and their language in Greek as "Aigyptios," 
> (Arabic "gibt," Westernized as Copt).  From the 5th Century on, they 
> became "Monophysite."  In 1741, Athanasius, a Coptic Monophysite  bishop, 
> converted to Roman Catholicism, and in 1895, Pope Leo XIII divided the 
> 5,000 Catholic Copts into three dioeceses of the Alexandrian Rite.  The 
> Coptic Church came to call themselves "Coptic Orthodox" to distinguish 
> themselves from Copts who had become RCs and from Egyptian Eastern 
> Orthodox, who were mostly Greek.  The Ethiopian, Armenian, and Syrian 
> Orthodox Churches are in communion with the Coptic Church, whose 
> "patriarch of Alexandria and all Egypt" resides in Cairo.  (By the way, my 
> favorite cross is a large "James Avery" Coptic cross...an "ankh"...a 
> choice that nothing to do with theology...I just like its design! ) 
> Regards.  KnoxDuncan@...
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "charles scott" <crscottblu@...>
> To: "faith life" <faithandlife@...>
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:23 PM
> Subject: [FaithandLife] Dialogue? among the RCs
>
>
>> Published: Friday, September 15, 2006
>> Dialogue in the Church
>> By Father Richard P. McBrien
>>
>> The promotion of dialogue within and beyond the
>> Catholic Church was
>> one of the highest priorities of the Second Vatican
>> Council. In recent
>> years, a few commentators have been bemoaning the
>> absence of dialogue
>> in the Church, insisting that it is the only antidote
>> to what they see
>> as a growing polarization within the Church.
>>
>> It should go without saying that dialogue is a good
>> thing. Its
>> opposite is monologue. No one likes to be subjected to
>> a one-way
>> conversation or to be a student in a course that does
>> not permit
>> questions, much less one where the raising of
>> questions is considered
>> a punishable offense.
>>
>> That said, some recent calls for more dialogue in the
>> Church have a
>> troubling side. Oddly enough, these calls have come
>> mainly from the
>> more conservative side of the Catholic community.
>>
>> These advocates of dialogue make two assumptions:
>> first, that there
>> are two roughly co-equal groups in conflict with one
>> another in the
>> Catholic Church --- liberals and ultra-conservatives
>> --- while the
>> broad center (in which they implicitly place
>> themselves) is blessedly
>> free of polarizing tendencies; and, second, that both
>> sides are
>> equally at fault because they are more interested in
>> stereotyping the
>> other than in entering into constructive conversation.
>>
>> Both assumptions are subject to challenge. There are
>> not two co-equal
>> groups at logger-heads in the Catholic Church today,
>> the one liberal
>> and the other ultra-conservative. Liberal Catholics
>> (by whatever name)
>> constitute the great majority of today's most active
>> Catholics. Many
>> were formed by Vatican II and others have grown up in
>> a Church shaped
>> by it.
>>
>> Like the council itself, they hold that the Church is
>> the People of
>> God and that they --- women and men alike --- have an
>> integral role to
>> play in its mission and ministries. They are generally
>> happy with the
>> liturgy as renewed and reformed by the council, except
>> perhaps for
>> some of the homilies and music. But they would not
>> want to return to
>> the Latin Mass or to a style of worship focused on the
>> priest rather
>> than the whole congregation.
>>
>> Significantly, ultra-conservative Catholics, who have
>> never been
>> comfortable with the changes brought about by Vatican
>> II, are a small,
>> if often vocal, minority in the Church. This group has
>> no numerical
>> equivalency with the broad cross-section of Catholics
>> who have been
>> generally supportive of the council and its reforms.
>>
>> While it is unfortunately the case that
>> ultra-conservative Catholics
>> sometimes create a hostile atmosphere in parishes and
>> dioceses,
>> directing their fire at pastors who do not observe the
>> rubrics of the
>> Mass in every detail or who support religious
>> education programs that
>> reflect modern theological, biblical and pedagogical
>> scholarship, the
>> same is generally not true of the broad cross-section
>> of Catholics
>> formed by Vatican II.
>>
>> They may become exasperated and even angered by the
>> various forms of
>> harassment they receive from fellow Catholics on the
>> far right, but
>> they have no wish to drive them out of the Church ---
>> nor to fight
>> with them, for that matter.
>>
>> The second assumption of today's pro-dialogue
>> commentators is that
>> dialogue between these two groups would be possible if
>> both would just
>> lay down their arms and agree to talk with one another
>> in a mutually
>> respectful way.
>>
>> But if polarization occurs, as they say, in the
>> absence of dialogue,
>> dialogue, in turn, presupposes some measure of
>> equality. Dialogue
>> cannot happen if one side controls the agenda, the
>> invitation list and
>> the microphones, and also has the power to reward or
>> punish
>> participants. Dialogue requires a level playing field.
>>
>> The unequal distribution of power in the Church today
>> makes dialogue
>> difficult, if not impossible. It came about because of
>> the pattern of
>> episcopal appointments and promotions that was
>> operative during the
>> previous pontificate.
>>
>> The laity, who once had a say even in the election of
>> popes, have long
>> since been consigned to the lowest level of the
>> ecclesiastical pyramid
>> --- passive recipients of spiritual benefits and moral
>> direction from
>> on high.
>>
>> This pyramidal system was reformed in principle by the
>> Second Vatican
>> Council, particularly with its doctrine of
>> collegiality, but
>> collegiality gave way in the previous pontificate to a
>> restoration of
>> centralized papal authority.
>>
>> Today's internal conflicts are the result, in large
>> part, of a
>> deliberate pattern of episcopal appointments that has
>> not only shifted
>> the balance of power disproportionately in favor of
>> one small faction
>> in the Church, but has at the same time deliberately
>> withheld pastoral
>> authority from those in the Church's broad center ---
>> pastorally adept
>> moderates, of left and right alike, who could promote
>> real dialogue in
>> the Church.
>>
>> Many look to Pope Benedict XVI in hope.
>>
>> Father Richard P. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien
>> Professor of Theology
>> at the University of Notre Dame.
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: 
>> faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
>>
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: 
> faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
>
>