Quote:
Originally Posted by dekeguy
As usual, semantics and terminology get in the way. I think we are pretty much on the same sheet of music but we both probably could have phrased ourselves to reflect the closeness of our positions.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
|
Do I fully understand this - no - but I expect that some day I will . . . .
|
Taking this and running a little bit in a slightly different direction for yet another semi-tangent:
It often seems to me that there is a component in much of Western Christianity (certainly in my particular strand of Western Christianity) to want to explain and understand everything. It's as though if we can't explain it and understand it, we can't believe it. For example, "I don't understand how all three Persons of the Trinity can be God, be distinct from each other and yet there is only one God, therefore I have trouble accepting it."
Or we try too hard to explain and understand that which is unexplainable (this side of the grave, as you note). For example, transubstantiation vs. transignification vs. consubstantation vs. Sacramental union vs. pneumatic/dynamic presence as ways to understand or explain the Real Presence (assuming, of course, one accepts the idea of the Real Presence to begin with).
It often seems to me that Eastern Christianity does a better job of simply "letting the mystery be" rather than trying to explain everything.
Hybrid Mode
