Gorgias:
In the engagement of their faculties of reason, and in their appeal to faith… various Episcopal communities reach a variety of conclusions with respect to the Eucharist. What can we glean from this seeming incongruity? After all, the law of non-contradiction has to kick in at some point.
As a Catholic, I conclude that the assurances of protection from error given to the Church do not apply equally to all those who call themselves by the name of ‘Christian’. Therefore, those who appeal to ‘faith and reason’ – outside the Church – have to answer to the variety of conflicting conclusions they reach.
As someone who is from your faith’s background I do understand where you’re coming from. But for me as someone who does not share your faith, I don’t find the answer all that difficult.
As someone who, like you, found himself not entirely convinced by the teachings of the Catholic Church at one point in his life, I do understand where you’re coming from. But, for me as someone who decided to rely on “faith and reason” – and for me, it had to be a heavy dose of ‘reason’, and couldn’t support itself primarily on ‘faith’ – I don’t find your answer all that convincing.
TEC has an official view on the Eucharist and I don’t know what each community may or may not conclude.
That’s the whole point, though, isn’t it? I mean, if the doctrine of the TEC were of God’s will, then would God contradict himself in the various teachings of the various TEC communities? I’m not talking about individuals with their personal individual beliefs – I’m talking about officially held doctrine of the various TEC communities. Would God
really want His Truth to be held by some, modified by others, and rejected by still others? That doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny.
But TEC is more of an open tent than the Catholic Church is. Its inclusiveness and practice of open communion are actually things I absolutely love about it and about some of the mainline-liberal denominations.
But, the question isn’t about ‘inclusiveness’, is it? It’s a question of whether you’re teaching the Truth as God intended it to be transmitted and received. You’re correct that inclusiveness is a wonderful thing; it’s great that you welcome others into your liturgical context. (In certain contexts in the Catholic Church, such openness would be awesome! But… not all contexts, if we’re to believe what’s written in the New Testament!)
I find human beings have a limited, finite capacity to understand a being as infinite as God. And we simply reason and believe differently.
I absolutely agree! That’s why we can’t rely solely on the conclusion of limited, finite, differently-reasoning-and-believing human beings – we have to rely on God and on His promises to us! If we rely on the former, we run the risk of doing things in a way that’s at odds with God’s desires for us!
So unlike faithful Catholics or those of other faiths which also have a more rigid dress code, I’m more than perfectly fine with wearing some gray and being amongst those who do and not only black and white. I do realize though for many they are not as comfortable in gray in their walks as others of us are.
Here’s the thing, though: your metaphor fails.
God
isn’t ‘gray’ – He (and the Truth He reveals to us) are black-and-white. The shades of gray are in
us – we’re the ones who have a hard time, on our own, perceiving the black-and-white, and so, we have to rely on our own fallible perceptions in order to make sense of the shades of gray we perceive! We
can be comfortable with this deficiency in us – but, to claim that ‘gray’ is what is real, since it is what we personally experience… well, that’s just incomprehensible. If I can’t read a road sign at a distance, and therefore decide it says “please drive erratically”… should I do precisely that, or should I ask someone with perfect vision (who can tell me "no, G, it says ‘please drive safely’)? If three of us in the car can’t see perfectly in black-and-white, and we have three different interpretations of the sign’s message, do we celebrate the fact that we’re (very literally) “the blind leading the blind”, or do we search someone out who
does have the gift of perfect eyesight? You seem to be celebrating the imperfect vision of the former; Catholics rely on the assurances of the latter.
