SUFFERING, What Eucharist Is
St Paul speaks of the “groaning” of Earth under life’s constant strain of transformation, even as it ever self-renews in cycles of pro-creation. The very person of every woman, and of every man by association, is to be in concert with nature (groaning) to self-fulfill life, to sustain the human species and other species.
The processes of sustaining Earth/ Life are about the pro-creation of all life (each its own kind), processes of perpetual renewal and terminal transformation, in which the human self, in the iterations of birth, prevision/ provision, and death, transforms from self-identity into Other, on and on, and on — and — by which transformation, the individual self is subsumed by and into other, what is “the process of evolution”.
The process of self-transformation into Other (what the Mass celebrates), by instance of Divine Presence and Purpose, is the “Process of Eucharist”, in which life-potentials of Divine In-tension/ Intention come to be revealed in the perfecting processes of evolutionary unfolding by way of communication, consciousness and conscience.
The process of Eucharist, of physical/ conscious perfecting, is the process by which all individuality “suffers” change into Other, both to the “advantage” of Other and the “disadvantage” of self. Eucharist is “suffering self-disadvantage to the advantage of Other”.
To the Purposes of Eucharist, all are born; all live and change and die in the giving over of self to Other; what is “suffering”; what is “Eucharist”; what is the Sign and Destiny of the “Naturalis Sacramentum Ordinis”.
Eucharist is Destiny, over and above all other petty and ephemeral ideologies, whether of institutions or hierarchies or the arrogations of self-serving purposes. All priesthood, all female/ male mutuality, complementarity, and subsidiarity are of a kind, that is, about the universal transformation of self into Other. The People is Eucharist; the People is Church transformed in Eucharist, in Suffering.
Where do you see yourself, your church, in this picture?
Philipjohn, just keep tuned
Philipjohn, just keep tuned to what is going on in the world. I hope you live long. There may yet be something you might learn. I apologize for saying this, but it is my sense that you are telling me, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind." Peace.
"The process of
"The process of self-transformation into Other (what the Mass celebrates), by instance of Divine Presence and Purpose, is the “Process of Eucharist”, in which life-potentials of Divine In-tension/ Intention come to be revealed in the perfecting processes of evolutionary unfolding by way of communication, consciousness and conscience.
"The process of Eucharist, of physical/ conscious perfecting, is the process by which all individuality “suffers” change into Other, both to the “advantage” of Other and the “disadvantage” of self. Eucharist is “suffering self-disadvantage to the advantage of Other”.
Is the "Other" here God, neighbor or what? And whatever can "process of Eucharist" mean? It's amusing, this kind of theological gibberish which seems allergic to clarity and which makes NCR less interesting than other publications. If you wish to denounce traditional theology, please at least do so in English.
On the subject matter of
On the subject matter of "suffering", of "self-transformation into Other", a new schism within institutional Roman Catholicism may be in the offing. That wouldn't be good.
In terms of Ecclesiology (how Church understands itself), "exclusivity" is the theological consciousness of dominion, of institutional infallibilism. On the other hand, "inclusivity" is the theological consciousness that supports ecclesial structures and processes of conciliarism, collegiality.
Exclusivity is the mind of Pre-Vatican II Catholicism, whereas, inclusivity is the mind of Vatican II Church. Since early Church history, until the Second Vatican Council, Church hierarchy has held to the side of exclusivity and infallibilism, contra, inclusivity and conciliarism. The Great Papal Schism (between Rome and Avignon) was over the unsettled matter of infallibilism vs. conciliarism. [See the history of the popes in "RELIGION & CIVILITY, the Primacy of Conscience"] The First Vatican Council, under insistence of Pope Pius X, put forth the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Currents within the Church today are very strong toward past instincts, that is, toward dominion theology, patriarchal politics, centrism, infallibilism (as premised in the science-philosophy of Aristotelianism, Scholasticism). These currents definitely oppose whole church inclusivity, evolutionary science and quantum-relativity.
Certainly, The People Church of Vatican II will not return to the theology/ ecclesiology of centrism, dominionism and exclusiionism, notwithstanding patriarchal, hierarchical habits/ instincts to the contrary; nevertheless, institutional Roman Catholicism may be entering a new era of "schism" over its divided mind of ecclesiology — yet again. What is different now, however, is historical, scientific knowledge and global ecological/ economic experience, whose tides are against the colonial/ imperial model/ culture of top-down exploitation.
Messy as it may be to institutional tidyness, Church will have to get used to "bottom-up" thinking, also clerics, notwithstanding atavistic instincts to the contrary. Finally, I'm sorry, but English is a complex (but rich) language. [For more on Eucharist see TABLE: "Church Leadership", TOPIC: "Exclusionism vs. Inclusionism".]
"Is the "Other" here God,
"Is the "Other" here God, neighbor or what?"
All the above.
Thank you for this post.
Thank you for this post. It's a lot to think about. I'm not much of a writer, so please bear with me.
Receiving the Eucharist helps us to purify our hearts and gain a perfect and eternal union with God. In the Eucharistic union, the notions of self and other sublimate; the union is complete, absolute. There is no self. There is no other. We are all one body, and we acknowledge that God is the head. Is that what you mean when you speak of the transformation into Other?
As a priest reminded us at mass, "We are the Church." The Eucharist is a gift. To understand the Eucharist is to understand the profound nature of God's love for all creation. The New Testament helps people develop a greater understanding of God. The "Bread of Life" has been broken down and given to us, that we might truly understand God and what it means to be children of God. Jesus suffered because suffering was required in order to reach out and show us the way, the truth and the life. Jesus chose to be crucified rather than strike out against those who rejected Him. Sometimes this message gets lost.
The Eucharist is referred to as a feast. It is NOT a call to suffer. However, it is better to suffer than to give up on following the teachings of Christ. When it comes to moments when someone feels forced to make a choice between the two, that person might say, "Bring it (suffering) on!" rather than give up on the teachings of Christ. This sentiment is expressed using more eloquent words in some of the writings of the saints, particularly the mystics. This doesn't mean we are called to suffer. Seek and ye shall find; in other words seek peace, love and true joy. When it comes to human suffering, I have only found one answer that is consistent with the teachings of Christ: we, and by we I mean mankind, have not yet perfected the way in which we follow the teachings of Christ.
Sometimes people are tempted to blame God for the suffering that occurs on earth. I see this most often when it comes to natural disasters. Yet in the New Testament it is Jesus who calms the storms. It is Jesus who brings people peace. It is Jesus that heals the wounds: physical, emotional and spiritual. Just because Jesus prepared the apostles for the situations they would face doesn't mean those situations were in accord with the will of God. We can't lose sight of the fact that the teachings of Christ will end human suffering.
It takes a great deal of faith, to believe that we will receive whatever we ask for in prayer, and it requires a commitment to follow God. The bottom line is: we have got to believe. Will someone ever ask God for the ability to suffer? I hope not. No matter what happens we have to hold on to the Love, which God gives us so freely.
"Will someone ever ask God
"Will someone ever ask God for the ability to suffer?" I ask God a lot to help me when I am suffering. I ask Him for the ability to suffer with humility and to give me the strength to carry the cross I am given. That cross could be spiritual or physical or in both realms, each affecting the other. I could not get through one day without asking God for the ability to suffer with grace. You are right to say that "we have to hold onto the Love." That is what can get us through anything.
What I suggest here is that
What I suggest here is that the ecological/ cultural crises of Postmodernity require a radical departure from the cultured beliefs and practices of the past. The case I make is that Old Covenant "science" does not well serve the quantum leap needed from the staticism of class culture (patriarchal politics and dominion theology) to the culture of transformational Eucharist in which individual life universally participates in and contributes to evolutionary consciousness {theology) and political holism (egalitarianism).
The question I see is "how to move from the status-quo-ante (patriarchy/ dominion) to the status-post-factum of evolution, participatory politics and Eucharistic holism?" My thesis is that the status-quo-ante of dominion theology advances the politics of patriarchal culture, and that they, dominion and patriarchy, cannot lead us from the "kingdom" culture to the "kindom" culture.
PROPOSITION: from the beginning, Old Covenant consciousness lacked developmental competence by which to conclude to Eucharistic participation in Evolution, what is the New Covenant Revelation of Christic Consciousness. New Covenant Consciousness has now come to understand the physical/ rational necessity of mutuality, complementarity, and subsidiarity, the reality of Intentional Eucharist and the politics of the real. This proposition rests on two premises:
1. Patriarchal culture, which presumes theological dominionism, and which imposes dominion (exploitation) by means of the traumatic impositions of guilt and fear, is ill equipped to advance the "kindom of love" [that supposes the compassionate and conserving mind of love and harmony] from its "kingdom" of oppression, suppression, repression and depression.
2. The "kingdom theology" of Creationism, which supposes original, created perfection and The Fall and continung departure from "perfection", is not a theological supposition that is naturally open to accept the transformational worldview of evolution that supposes progression from the less perfected (less complex) to the greater perfection of complexity-consciousness, what is the process understanding of Eucharistic Participation.
What can be logically concluded is that Old Covenant Consciousness (patriarchy/ creationism) is insufficiently informed in, is defectively connected to reality and is not able to lead to Eucharistic Evolution, i.e., intensional and Intentional Participation in the Ascendency of evolving Life. The connectedness of consciousness (soul/ body unity) is by Eucharistic Providence, the New Covenant, Christian Insight (of Self-Donation) in the reality of the divine/ human hypostasis and the God/ Man — Mind/ Body Connection.
Sylvester, I read this as
Sylvester, I read this as part of an attempt to get that better understanding of the Suffering is, Eucharits what Love does idea that you previously espoused in a response to my Liberation Theology thread.
I'm not at all a biologist but my husband is. He says that in a biological sense evolution is not always logical. It may be accidental and the organism tends to "keep" things that are more functional. So my (limited) understanding of evolution does not purely point me towards an idea of greater perfection of complexity and consciousness. But a "slogan" of Buddhism that my husband has heard if that imperfection is part of the perfection of things. The ordinary first idea that comes out of this is the notion that in accepting your own imperfection you can accept and embrace imperfection of others and something higher comes out of that. Such as an ability to work with people who at first blush you do not agree with.
Humans egoism has led it to be believe that we are God's highest creation, regardless of the mechanism by which our presence in this universe came about. But if we are really just no more than a link in a biological chain envisioned and allowed by God the creations force, isn't it still our job to the best we can in that moment of creation.
Our egoism also leads us to believe that we should not suffer. And we tend, in this time, to talk about unnecessary suffering. OR maybe we don't but we did in my Philosophy of Health Care class! At any rate, given that not all suffering can be obliterated, we look at someone with the terrible pain of metastatic bone cancer and say that unlimited suffering for this individual is not inherently good. So a crux issue is suffering, how much is "good for us", when is suffering unnecessary, what are the insights of suffering, how does it bring us together. How ultimately does it lead us to God, love, solidarity with others. I heard the Passion with as if new ears the Easter after I sat at my father's death bed. I think there is something in the Passion we don't ordinarily "get". God love him, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ movie seemed to ascribe to a maxim of "more blood, more love". But is that really all that is there?
Tell me your thoughts on that.
"Suffer" means more than
"Suffer" means more than pain; it means transformational relationship, what happens to everybody all the time. Eucharistic grace is intentionality, the purposeful giving of self in "com-passion" with others, what happens in nature, whether we like it or not.
I use "perfecting" in the sense of what "succeeds", that is, what comes to be programmed into the strategies of the evolution of life and is encoded in DNA, for example.
Sylvester your are on a
Sylvester your are on a role. Suffering as tranformational relationship is something I will be thinking long and hard on. My Native buddies talk about the same thing. The winters of our lives are always followed by springs in which we are transformed in the way we relate to ourselves, and our past. That automatically means we relate to others and our futures differently. From suffering comes transformation---that is unless it kills you.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
Thank you, Colkoch.
Thank you, Colkoch. "Suffering as tranformational relationship" is precisely what I mean by the word "suffering" here. While there is a lot of pain in life, Eucharist is about intentional conformity to creative transformation, when we suffer pain and when we exuberate in ecstatic experience.
Jesus gives us Himself in Eucharistic consciousness as a means to self-transformation into divine likeness. In the instance of divinity, the creative cosmos is about Eucharist even as Jesus is Eucharistic leaven in bread consciousness.
Interesting Sylvester. It is
Interesting Sylvester. It is ironic and mysterious to me that the older I become, and maybe humbler, the more I become conscious of how little I am, what a miniscule bit of creation I am, and the more conscious of being a part, however tiny and freed of wish for personal significance...the more I feel like a person. Strange.There is great truth in your statement and satisfaction in its acknowledgement.
Dear Sylvester L Steffen:
Dear Sylvester L Steffen: Your June 3 posting says: "What is different now, however, is historical, scientific knowledge and global ecological/ economic experience". I don't trust evolutionist/eco-fanatic point of view anymore because it appears they do not have a sincere drive for truth.
You need to get up to speed on the evolution issue. The field of biochemistry has driven the final nail into evolutionism's coffin. We have come a long way since Darwin's speculation of some 150 yrs ago. Today, there is absolutey no one who can defend macro-evolution; biochemical research shows us that individual cells are horrendously complex with millions of interactive parts. What's more,is that genetic entropy is a fact; no new genetic knowledge is being produced with each succeeding generation, instead the opposite is occuring,-- genetic information is being lost/corrupted.
As to global ecology and the Al Gore 'global warming' hype; the latest oceanic data from sattelite Jason is showing we are entering a global cooling cycle. Oceans determine global climate; not man-generated carbon dioxide.
As to the Galileo- heliocentric vs geocentric incident, I am glad the Church told Galileo to 'knock it off'. Today, the preponderance of scientific data supports the geocentric-non relativistic view.