Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David B's avatar

Daniel - I'm appreciating your posts because the theme is a good way to help us understand how you've been thinking. Your comments here about Dr. Hahn carrying his reformed attitude with him into the Roman church reminds me of how I am sometimes aware that my Anglicanism and my interaction with the Roman church (e.g., frustration over Mary's Assumption) have that reformed shape to them. I was a Bible reader before I found out I was reformed, btw, which is why my first reaction to things is not what some reformed confession or theologian says about anything, but what the Bible says. And while I want to have as much respect for and listen to the traditions of the Church, if I hear or read something that I know the Bible does not go along with - I'm sorry, but I just can't go along with it. I don't like the individualism inherent in that; I want to be as catholic as I can, I believe I do avoid private interpretation, but there it is. Blessings.

Expand full comment
David B's avatar

Ha! I actually have a harder time with the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and the Assumption than with transubstantiation! :-) At least there's something in the Bible that you can argue from: "This is my Body; This is my Blood." I'll have to check out Pitre. I've no problems giving honour to Mary; but we don't have to make her another pre-lapsarian Eve in order for Christ to be perfectly sinless. See St. Thomas on that. And there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. etc. I think the idea of her being rewarded as other women like her were rewarded in the past (e.g. Hannah), with a large happy family, has a wholesome beauty about it. There's also biblical indication in that direction. So! Yep. Give me transubstantiation any day. :-)

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts