From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 22:38:51 GMT
Dear Sam,
I had quite another passage from chapter 30 in mind when I wrote 'it ...
illuminates ... maybe even the [discussion] about the value of the
eucharist' (-:
'If you ask a Catholic priest if the wafer he holds at mass is really the
flesh of Jesus Christ, he will say yes. If you ask, "Do you mean
symbolically?" he will answer, "No, I mean actually."
Similarly if you ask Lila whether the doll she holds is a dead baby she will
say yes. If you ask, "Do you mean symbolically?" she would also answer, "No,
I mean actually."
It is considered correct to say that until you understand that the wafer is
really the body of Christ you will not understand the Mass. With equal force
it is possible to say that until you understand that this doll is really a
baby you will never understand Lila.'
Would it be considered correct among Anglicans to say, that even if you
understand that the wafer is really the body of Christ, you will only
understand the Eucharist partially, because 'the Eucharist is bigger than we
can understand'?
Where you wrote:
'the meaning of the Eucharist is inexhaustible, you can always go deeper
into it'
a Quaker could write:
'the meaning of the Silence is inexhaustible, you can always go deeper into
it'.
And another Quaker will correct him, asking him to substitute 'silence' for
'Silence'...
And another Quaker will shrug and will turn his thoughts on more practical
concerns.
The ritual words my father, like other ministers in the Reformed Churches in
the Netherlands in which I grew up, used when offering the bread and the
wine at Holy Communion still ring in my ears and still seem to suggest more
meaning than can be ascribed to the words: 'En terwijl zij aten, nam Jezus
een brood, sprak de zegen uit, brak het en gaf het aan zijn discipelen en
zeide: Neemt, eet, dit is mijn lichaam. En hij nam een beker, sprak de
dankzegging uit en gaf hun die en zeide: Drinkt allen daaruit. Want dit is
het bloed van mijn verbond, dat voor velen vergoten wordt tot vergeving van
zonden.'
(And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it,
and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he
took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of
it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for
the remission of sins.)
I now take this to be the effect of repetition and of a large congregation
all focused on the same -hoped for- experience. I can associate
that -remembered- experience with other experiences of feeling connected
with others through the ages and worldwide. I now know that these words and
that setting are not the only ways to evoke that kind of experience. I chose
for a religious tradition that minimizes and never formalizes these 'ways',
not wanting them ever to stand in the way of feeling connected with others
that have chosen another way.
'Those who seek God in ways will find ways and not God.' as you quoted
Eckhart.
Is it the doll that evokes the experience of the dead baby, the
mass/eucharist/communion that evokes the experience of renewed
connectedness, the silence that makes us hear God in a few spoken words?
Repetition and sharing, the choice of stepping in a tradition, are necessary
preconditions for mysticism, for DQ to 'evolve' the patterns. Using peyote
outside the context of a native American church is just drug abuse. A mystic
outside his tradition is just insane.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 02 2002 - 22:39:28 GMT