Seven theses on the Real Presence

I’m not a liturgical theologian, but I will admit to being interested (at least on some occasions) by what they have to say. I’m in the middle of a week long seminar in Chicago, on “theologies of religious pluralism and comparative theologies.” Some of the more interesting, but difficult, papers/cases we’ve talked about had to do with instances in which leaders of differing faiths engaged in practices that could be seen as approaching or even transgressing particular identity boundaries. I think some of the unease — at least for me — in discussing the examples had to do with trying to find ways to speak with humility and respect while still stating a specific, particular identity.

For example, how might I, as a Roman Catholic woman, talk about why I think it might be inappropriate for a Jewish chaplain to accede to a midnight hospital request by a Roman Catholic laywoman whose child has just been stillborn, to baptize the child? I have all sorts of things I might offer -- how to care for that family, how to recognize that the lay woman herself can baptize, how to talk about the oxymoron of baptizing a dead child, how to speak of the painful dilemma the chaplain might find herself in, etc. etc.

But I think the challenge is bigger than the specifics, and has to do with finding mutually respectful ways to engage. As I was pondering that just now, in the midst of a brief break, I came across these "seven theses on current discussions of the Real Presence" offered by Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB at the PrayTell blog. They're not in any way principles for cross-faith engagement, but I think they're worth sharing because they model what I might call "epistemic humility":

• Because the doctrine of the Real Presence is a mystery, all human explanations of it are inadequate. This includes those explanations falling under the larger umbrella of ‘transubstantiation.’
• Contemporary theologians who point out the inadequacies of ‘transubstantiation’ and attempt other explanations are almost never (if ever) denying the doctrine of the Real Presence.
• Those who criticize contemporary theologians and defend ‘transubstantiation’ (as they understand it) sometimes show that they do not understand what contemporary theologians are saying.
• A spiritually fruitful attitude toward various proposed explanations of the Real Presence, including contemporary ones, would be to draw inspiration from them all, though they are all inadequate.
• Overly strong personal attachment to any doctrine and any explanation of it, including Real Presence and ‘transubstantiation,’ is a form of idolatry. The best antidote to this is the Real Presence itself, which draws us out of human constructs and into the abiding, mysterious presence of God in Christ.
• The magisterium of the Church offers guidance which is helpful but may well be superseded in subsequent eras. Radbertus’ understanding of the Real Presence was affirmed by church officials, for example, only to be roundly rejected by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’ theology was condemned by church officials, only to be later rehabilitated and affirmed.
• The conditions for an intellectually and spiritually fruitful discussion of the doctrine of the Real Presence all too often do not exist in the contemporary Catholic Church. Suspicion and misunderstanding are holding us back. </ul></blockquote>