Re: Is Jesus honored when people make a lie in His honor?

            Friday, the 28th of November, 2003

I said:
   There are of course many takes on the meaning of the
   eucharist, starting with the basic division between
   transubstantiation and consubstantiation
Scott:
   and transignification and other views.

OK.

I said: 
    which I do
    not see that this text, or any other biblical text,
    determines.
Scott:
   Jesus never bothered to debate the issue and neither did Paul.
Although
   I don't hold to the Eastern Orthodox view, their explanation of "It
is a
   mystery" is probably as good a theology as any.

Agreed.

I said: 
    Once one permits one's self "con", as Protestants
    do,
Scott: 
    I think most protestants hold a view closer to transignification.

OK.

I said:
    I'm not convinced that I, as an unbeliever, cannot
    treat it respectfully as a symbol of something
    perfectly worthy of respect.
Scott:
    You certainly can.

Scott continues:
  In light of 1 cor 10:16 and the passage I cited in 
  the earlier post, and the fact that Jesus Himself 
  only shared it with His closest followers, it can 
  be argued that the eucharist, or communion, is 
  intended for those who are in an intimate relationship 
  with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. That is why I 
  suggest that your decision not to participate
  shows more respect.

I guess it just seems to me that there are many things that can be
argued. In particular, as I understand the Catholic view, it is
simply a mockery to do the whole thing without a priest who, by
direct transmission of laying on of hands in the apostolic succession
in the church has the authority and real power to transubstantiate the 
host. Likewise, in a Catholic church, only the fully confessed (and 
therefore Catholic) need apply.

In terms of the distinction between *showing respect and being
inwardly respectful*, it seems to me that is part of the issue
here. If one is quiet about one's (different) beliefs as a guest
and just participates in whatever everybody else is doing, then 
this seems to me to *show* nothing, and hence doesn't put a 
conscious mark in anyone's mind along the lines of "Oh, that person
over there is an unbeliever," which might be a psychological disruption
of his experience of his religious worship. 

Scott:
  Similarly, you would be showing more respect for my 
  wife if you did not participate in our love making. But 
  not being married to her does not in any way show that 
  you are disrespectful of her or our marriage.

This strikes me as a little more inflammatory analogy,
Scott. But, anyway, if I were a guest in your house, I would not
expect you to invite me to participate in your love making.
So, if you did, in this culture at this time, I would find
it pretty strange. In fact, I would be bound for all sorts of 
ethical reasons (even were I not married myself) to decline 
such an invitation, howsomever lovely you and your wife no doubt
are. It's a place where I think what I think is right
ethically (and inwardly personal---what I mean is the ethical
considerations would have to do more about me than any
consideration for any consequences to the two of you) would 
have to override the general rule of being an agreeable and 
pliant guest. But, I would certainly have zero qualms about
partaking in dinner in your household were I your guest and 
offered dinner. Does this mean respect lovemaking more than
eating? I don't quite buy that. I know you are saying there 
is something sacred about the eucharist that is analogous to 
what is sacred between a man and wife. But, my point is that 
different churches seem to me to burden communion with different 
levels of significance, and they do not always say exactly what 
that level is to their guests.

              Mike Morris
        ([EMAIL PROTECTED])