Aquinas, Sacraments & Wormholes

[Hovannes]

Whew! My reading group has almost completed the Summa Theologica, and I'm mulling over what I learned from the experience.
So I thought I'd share something profound, since it's nearly Christmastime.
You can run this by your companions next time you get into a discussion about "What is Christmas?"
Christmas is a wormhole(in Science fiction parlance---I don't know the word Theologians would use) that takes us back in time to Bethlehem on that holy night and all that it implies.
The entrance to the wormhole is nearly blocked with material stuff and kitschy sentiments, but if we're predisposed to finding our way past it the wormhole will suck us in, right up to the stable, right up to the manger and there we'll be.
Sacraments are way beyond being memorials of the birth of Christ(Christmas) the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ(Easter) nor are they reenactments (Christ is not crucified every year) but the real deals we mystically participate in somehow.
At least that's what I've got for now.
Tell me what you think Aquinas meant.

[sweetandsour]

Interesting. I need to read Aquinas.

[Del]

I like this "wormhole" analogy. It's a great way to explain the mysteries to teenagers.

It gets a little wonky trying to explain how Symbols and Sacraments work. "It does not merely 'represent' the reality. It 're-presents' the reality. It makes the reality 'present' for us. The veil of eternity is pulled back, and we are 'present' at the Last Supper, at the foot of the Cross, at the Resurrection."

Yes, if one is a fan of science fiction literature..... Sacraments are like a spiritual time machine or wormhole. You are here and now, and you are also there and then.

[Hovannes]

I like this "wormhole" analogy. It's a great way to explain the mysteries to teenagers.

It gets a little wonky trying to explain how Symbols and Sacraments work. "It does not merely 'represent' the reality. It 're-presents' the reality. It makes the reality 'present' for us. The veil of eternity is pulled back, and we are 'present' at the Last Supper, at the foot of the Cross, at the Resurrection."

Yes, if one is a fan of science fiction literature..... Sacraments are like a spiritual time machine or wormhole. You are here and now, and you are also there and then.

This jives precisely with Aquinas' commentary on the Eucharist.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Interesting. I need to read Aquinas.

If yer considering dippin' yer toe into the water, might I recommend:

Knowing the Love of Christ: An Introduction to the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas by Matthew Levering



Though I've not read this in particular and though I'm no expert on Aquinas, I've read enough Levering to confidently say that he brings Thomism to modern readers without the gross simplifications and anachronisms often found in Thomistic popularizations.

[Hovannes]

+JMJ+

Interesting. I need to read Aquinas.

If yer considering dippin' yer toe into the water, might I recommend:

Knowing the Love of Christ: An Introduction to the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas by Matthew Levering



Though I've not read this in particular and though I'm no expert on Aquinas, I've read enough Levering to confidently say that he brings Thomism to modern readers without the gross simplifications and anachronisms often found in Thomistic popularizations.

You can read about what Aquinas wrote, or you can read what Aquinas wrote.
Even in translation there is a lot to get through, linguistically. Impotence doesn't mean the same as what the Viagra commercials represent LOL!
Our reading group had the advantage of having an 89 year old graduate of the prewar Hungarian Gymnasium with both an MD and PhD (he studied under Mortimer Adler) to linguistically guide us through the first three volumes of the Summa before he sadly passed away.

Peter Kreeft's The Summa of The Summa simplifies some of Aquinas nicely, but as Wos suggests, any popularization is going to be limited. The Summa Theologica is too massive a task for a thorough treatment.
Of course there's the Summa contra Gentiles written by the old boy himself, considered by some as Aquinas' commentaries on his own Summa Theologica

[tuttle]

Very honestly asking here. No calvinist tricks. Really just thinking through this and would like yer help.

Sacraments are way beyond being memorials of the birth of Christ(Christmas) the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ(Easter) nor are they reenactments (Christ is not crucified every year) but the real deals we mystically participate in somehow.

"It does not merely 'represent' the reality. It 're-presents' the reality. It makes the reality 'present' for us. The veil of eternity is pulled back, and we are 'present' at the Last Supper, at the foot of the Cross, at the Resurrection."

Speaking as one who also affirms that the Eucharist is more than a mere memorial, so I'm not trying to defend that position, how does one make jive the idea of being both here and there (ie at the cross) with our Lord commanding us to "do this in remembrance of me". That is to say, how do we remember, as we're commanded, if we are truly present?

It would seem 'being truly present' would by it's very nature discount remembering. Remembering seems to be the very thing one would do when not present, but it's the very thing we're told to do.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Speaking as one who also affirms that the Eucharist is more than a mere memorial, so I'm not trying to defend that position, how does one make jive the idea of being both here and there (ie at the cross) with our Lord commanding us to "do this in remembrance of me". That is to say, how do we remember, as we're commanded, if we are truly present?

It would seem 'being truly present' would by it's very nature discount remembering. Remembering seems to be the very thing one would do when not present, but it's the very thing we're told to do.

But what if "Remember" meant … like … Re-Member? As in the opposite of Dis-Member. To put all the pieces of the Body together in one place, where the Eagles gather?

[tuttle]

+JMJ+

Speaking as one who also affirms that the Eucharist is more than a mere memorial, so I'm not trying to defend that position, how does one make jive the idea of being both here and there (ie at the cross) with our Lord commanding us to "do this in remembrance of me". That is to say, how do we remember, as we're commanded, if we are truly present?

It would seem 'being truly present' would by it's very nature discount remembering. Remembering seems to be the very thing one would do when not present, but it's the very thing we're told to do.

But what if "Remember" meant … like … Re-Member? As in the opposite of Dis-Member. To put all the pieces of the Body together in one place, where the Eagles gather?

English is super cool like that.

But...anamnēsin is the word here and it doesn't work that way.

I do think we happen to participate with that reality, that the benefits of that reality are accessed by way of the 'do this' bit, and yet to describe it as an encounter of the 'going back in time' historical event seems to de-emphasize the exact thing our Lord told us to do.

I do appreciate the wormhole explanation, and I do believe in we are participating in the event (not again as new, but always as ever now) and yet it must be more than a wormhole through space and time to enter another space time, because the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Maybe it's less a time tear and more like accessing a river whose source sprung at a certain place and time. To drink from that water is to participate with the source and does not do away with remembering. I've already thought of some ways this doesn't quite work as a thorough analogy, but I think it's able to hold some of the tension of participation and remembrance.

[colton]

+JMJ+

Speaking as one who also affirms that the Eucharist is more than a mere memorial, so I'm not trying to defend that position, how does one make jive the idea of being both here and there (ie at the cross) with our Lord commanding us to "do this in remembrance of me". That is to say, how do we remember, as we're commanded, if we are truly present?

It would seem 'being truly present' would by it's very nature discount remembering. Remembering seems to be the very thing one would do when not present, but it's the very thing we're told to do.

But what if "Remember" meant … like … Re-Member? As in the opposite of Dis-Member. To put all the pieces of the Body together in one place, where the Eagles gather?

I think Revelation 13:8—where Christ's sacrifice is characterized as taking place "from the foundation of the world"—is also relevant. So, the crucifixion is an eternal reality, which was given body at a particular point in temporal human experience. It was "membered" if you will. This is also why there's no issue with Christ offering his body in present tense at the Last Supper, even though his body had not yet been broken.

(Can't believe I'm posting in the Theology room at CPS again. Weird.)