Hi Bard,
...still others of us might be mystified that such a vast number of
> "mainstream Christians" profess their belief in a Dionysian-based
sacrament
> that bread and wine transubstantiates into the actual body and blood of
their
> Galileean teacher. Well, that practise certainly mystifies me, but I would
> venture to guess that many of them are prone to bandy around the word
"mystic"
> to describe those that they don't understand - but not themselves. Aye,
> there's the rub.
One of the key changes in the high medieval period in the Latin West was the
transition in understanding of the Eucharist from a 'mystic' understanding
to an 'actual' understanding. It all hinges on what was meant by "the body
of Christ" (Corpus Christi). Before c1200 Christians believed that Jesus was
present 'mystically' (ie to the faithful) in the consecrated host, but not
actually (the *actual* body of Christ was the church). After 1200 or so the
senses swapped, so that Christ was seen as *actually* present in the host,
and not just present to the faithful. Hence the development of the feast of
Corpus Christi in Western Europe after that time. (And various other things,
like the Inquisition and the Reformation, but that's a whole other story).
IMHO the people who subscribe to the view about that "bread and wine
transubstantiates into the actual body and blood of their Galileean teacher"
are conservative Roman Catholic theologians, and a minority of practising
Catholics (judging from the admittedly anecdotal experience I have had).
One more thing: similarity with Dionysian rites doesn't imply causation.
There are all sorts of influences on the Eucharist (most obviously passover)
but I would say it is fundamentally sui generis.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:02 BST