Promotion for “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth”

I was going to post something about the adulteress Jesus saved from stoning in the Bible, but it’s a post I wrote a few years back and I feel I have to re-edit it a bit, and I don’t have time today. So, I’m just going to post this notice that I am running a promotion for my first philosophical dialogue, “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth.” From now until Easter (March 31st, 2024) the book will be available at no charge. If you are interested in the concept of truth, it may be worth a read. It’s 18k-ish words and takes about 2 hours to read. You can find it here: Universal Book Link: https://books2read.com/athinkersguidetotruth . Happy Lent everyone!

In the Antechamber of Catholicism (part III)

Well, well, well … I’ve made it to the third post on this topic. I’ve discussed Confession/Reconciliation … now, I think I’ll discuss Communion … a.k.a. the Eucharist.

For those that don’t know, Communion is the name of the ritual in which Catholic churchgoers receive the Host. Basically, it happens at the end of the Mass. Everyone, who, up to this point, had been sitting, kneeling, and occasionally standing in their pews (a kind of bench on which the faithful sit), stand once again.

They form a line (or two … or four, for that matter) and proceed one by one from their pew to the front of the church where the priest waits. When they reach the priest (or deacon), the priest/deacon holds out a piece of unleavened bread called “The Host” and says, “The body of Christ.” The parishioner replies, “Amen,” and then receives the Host on either their tongue or in their hand.

If placed in their hand, they take it and put it in their own mouth. For many people, that’s the end of it. Some, however, approach a second individual (priest, deacon, or …. I’ve forgotten the name given to individuals permitted to hand out Communion) who holds a small chalice filled with wine.

As the parishioner approaches, the … we’ll say priest … says “The blood of Christ,” to which the parishioner again replies, “Amen.” The priest holds up the chalice, the parishioner takes it in their hands and then takes a small sip, then returns it to the priest (the priests wipes the rim of the chalice between every recipient).

Anyway, the unleavened bread – a.k.a. the Host – and the wine are supposed to be representative of the body and blood of Christ, respectively (hence, the words spoken). Ok, to be fair, there is dispute about what the Host and the Wine are.

In fact, this is a sticking point between the Catholic Faith and some of the Protestant Sects. The Catholics claim the Host and the Wine are the true body and blood of Christ. They become such in the Mass through a process called Transubstantiation (I think). Whereas, the Protestants (at least the ones I’m thinking of) claim that the Host and the Wine are merely symbols of Christ’s actual body and blood.

My First Heretical Understanding

Back when I first started this quasi-Catholic journey, I kind of looked at the whole Communion thing as, at the very least, a clever subterfuge to de-religify (yeah, I know that’s not a word) violence. Basically, of course, I wasn’t alive at the time, so I can’t know for sure, but I believe that 2000 years ago, human sacrifice (or even animal sacrifice) was a fairly common practice throughout the religions of the ancient world.

Where implemented, they were pretty much the high point of whatever religious service they occurred in. I think both the Aztecs and the Mayans (although they, and pretty much everyone else, deny it now) performed ritual human sacrifice on a regular basis.

I have no idea if they actually did so – or if that is just a perversion of true history by their respective conquerors (Europeans), but I kind of think, someone … probably a lot of someones performed human sacrifice in the past.

Anyway, with that in mind, consider Jesus. He comes on the scene and starts a religion in which the apex of the rituals involved consists in eating bread and drinking wine. No humans killed. Not even animals killed. I call that a plus. Of course, that’s not the justification any Christian anywhere would present (like I said, it’s kind of heretical). But, regardless, it is a plus. And, in the beginning of my journey, I at least noted it, although I didn’t run around exclaiming that or anything.

I had read enough at this point to know that the Catholic Faith adopted the doctrine of Transubstantiation. And the Protestants did not. To be clear, the Catholics did not believe that the Host was the physical body and the wine the physical blood of Jesus, but rather, the spiritual body and spiritual blood of Jesus – if you can make sense of that.

And Protestants just think they are Symbols. The Catholic interpretation is more mystical/spiritual/magical (pick a word), and the Protestant more pragmatic. In any event, I understood enough about the different viewpoints that I knew the Catholics were not practicing physical cannibalism. They were consuming the “spiritual” body and blood. Anyway ….

My Second Heretical Understanding

After a while, through my ruminations, I started wondering if I should stop taking Communion, in light of the fact that I knew what it was supposed to be and mean, at least intellectually, and I could honestly say, I wasn’t convinced it was true (either the Catholic view or the Protestant).

I mean, a non-believer taking Communion is, to some degree, disrespectful, I suppose, but I was somewhat apathetic. Plus, 1) I like the taste of the Host, and, for that matter, the Eucharistic Wine as well. And 2) it was, physically speaking, harmless. But I went back and forth on it, for some time.

Then, I decided that, basically, if God was omnipotent, and if He wanted to make a little piece of bread and a little drop of wine special in some way that was either a) difficult to observe or b) impossible to observe … He had the power to do that.

When I figured that out, I decided to keep taking Communion with that understanding. Again, that’s not quite the Catholic understanding – at least, not in the particular. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is basically the idea that the “substance” of the Host and the “substance” of the wine are changed in the ceremony.

Having studied Aristotle in college, I had a semi-decent idea of what that’s supposed to mean, but, again, not enough to say that I really believed that. I pretty much stayed at the point – “An omnipotent God could change the bread and wine into something special” and I’d worry about the details of that “specialness” later.

My Current Understanding

I’m still not quite there at the Transubstantiation bit, yet, but my understanding has developed some. Maybe it was obvious to everyone else, but there is a key component here and that is love. Communion is inextricably linked to Christ’s Crucifixion.

When I recently returned to posting on this blog again, I had decided that I was going to move on from all the Satan stuff. Unfortunately, I have to return to it here, because it plays a role.

The Braveheart Theory of the Crucifixion.

Basically, my understanding of the Crucifixion is significantly different from the official teachings of the Catholic Church. Basically, I kind of see it somewhat like the final scenes in the movie Braveheart (directed by Mel Gibson).

Towards the end, William Wallace is imprisoned by Edward the Long Shanks. The princess offers him some drug so he doesn’t need to feel the full pain of his imminent brutal death and he spits it out. The drug doesn’t fit in, but his words do to me. Something along the lines of “For if I wail or if I cry out, then Edward the Long Shanks will have broken me…”

Basically, substitute Jesus into William Wallace’s place and Satan into Edward the Long Shanks. Jesus went toe to toe with “The Ruler of this World” enduring his ultimate power – not just death, but a cruel and hideous death.

Of course, typical Christianity says He was offering Himself over as a sacrifice to God. It may change, but currently, that is not my position. Anyway, the thing that gave Jesus the strength to willingly walk into probably the worst death any human being has ever experienced (beating, scourging, and crucifixion – not to mention the emotional side – abandonment, betrayal, and whatever) – was love.

Love for his circle – i.e. his 12 Apostles/Best Friends and his Mother – all of whom were kind of representative of the rest of the human race. So, with the primacy of Christ’s Love in mind, I look at Communion as follows:

1) if you are consuming the Host and Wine, you are acknowledging and accepting Christ’s love. It was Christ’s love that gave Him the strength to offer over his flesh and spill his blood for us.

For us?

Yeah, because if He hadn’t, if Satan had won, we’d all be stuck in an Eternity with the monster that tried to break Him with the beating, scourging, etc… A monster that would gladly do the same to us, for its own amusement.

Okay, now that I’m surely on the path to ex-Communication, I think I’ll call it a night.

In the Antechamber of Catholicism (part II)

Okay, a week got away from me because I had to advertise my new book and I forgot all about posting last Sunday. But I’ll return to my discussion of being “in the antechamber of Catholicism” tonight. I previously mentioned two of the Sacraments in the Catholic Faith. Specifically, I mentioned Confession and Communion.

I’ll discuss Confession tonight and leave Communion to next week.

Confession a.k.a. Reconciliation a.k.a. Penance

Okay, for those who don’t know, in Catholicism Confession consists of, basically, sitting down or kneeling in a small cubicle (called the Confessional) with a priest and confessing your sins to the priest. Well, it’s a little more involved than that. There’s a bit of ritual to it. You begin by making the sign of the cross and saying, “Bless me Father for I have signed. It’s been “X” weeks/months/whatever since my last confession” etc… Then you list your sins. The priest says a few words and absolves you of your sin and gives you a penance (something to do to “make up” for your sin – it’s usually just a couple prayers or so). Then, you leave with your sins forgiven, or so it is believed.

I don’t want to waste too much time on whether or not your sins are actually forgiven or not. I mean, how could I as a human really know God had forgiven me? I assume so. That’s the understanding that comes from the whole ritual of the thing. But … for all I know, God doesn’t exist or, maybe He’s particularly grumpy or something and He doesn’t want to forgive you.

So … why go?

Cathartic Conversation

First, I want to point out that even if God doesn’t exist, going to Confession is worthwhile simply because of the cathartic nature of the whole experience. It’s really kind of like the religious version of therapy … although it’s been around much longer, I suspect (going on 2000 years, now, I think?). As such, you get to unload a lot of emotional guck tied to your personal failings.

Next, I want to point out that there is some debate between different Christian sects about whether or not a priest is necessary for Confession. I would say, that if God exists, He doesn’t need the priest. He can forgive anyone He wants in any way or manner He desires. Yet, I think, for me the mortal sinner, confessing my sins audibly to another human being instead of the (usually) silent thought of God in my head would be more cathartic.

It takes more courage and more humility to confess your sins out loud to another living human being than it does to just run over your sins in your mind. In either case, you will walk away believing you have been forgiven, but having a conversation with someone is more substantial and meaningful than imagining to have a conversation with someone. Still, I think either method is as likely to “work” as the other. The important thing is that you are acknowledging your sins to God. Regardless of which one you use, it’s up to God whether or not He’ll forgive you or not.

I think the only way to improve upon the Catholic Confessional (in my view) would be to maybe throw a few more people into the mix. That is, confess your sins to a half-dozen people at the same time. That would probably be much more difficult, requiring more courage and more humility. Of course, the people are not the ones that truly forgive your sin (unless, maybe, if the sin committed was against them in particular) – no, that aspect of the whole thing still belongs to God.

And that comes to the point of the whole thing. Forgiveness. Can we really know that God has forgiven us? I think you actually have to take that on faith. Perhaps others feel some sense of connection with God during Confession, but I never have. I’ve heard God’s voice in my head a couple times in other situations, and Jesus’s voice in my heart a couple times or so (of course, I’m on psychiatric meds – so take that for what it is), but hardly regularly enough that I can be sure that I’m being forgiven every time I go to Confession.

I will say this much, though, I don’t think an insincere confession would be very efficacious. God knows what’s in your heart. I don’t know why someone would confess a sin they were not feeling guilty about, but if they did, they might be able to fool the priest, but not God.

Regardless, I can see the benefit of Confession whether God exists or not. If He doesn’t, you walk away having expunged your horrible sins and feeling forgiven and free. It may not be true, but it is a happy fiction. But, if true … all the better.

Conclusion

Anyway, that’s what I got on Confession. I’ll cover Communion in my next post. For the record, I do believe in God. I find it far more likely that God is a kind and forgiving Deity than not. And I think going to Confession is an excellent habit to take up and practice – whichever form you select.