EUCHARIST AS MEANING: CRITICAL METAPHYSICS AND CONTEMPORARY SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Joseph C. Mudd | 270 pages | 26 Jun 2014 | Liturgical Press | 9780814682210 | English | Collegeville, MN, United States Eucharist as Meaning - Syndicate

He underscores its value, warns that it must always correspond to the ineffable mystery of the Eucharist, and advises "careful review on the part of the competent ecclesiastical authorities", specifically the Holy See. He condemns "a misguided sense of creativity" and "unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate". He promises a document on norms for Eucharistic celebrations will be forthcoming. John Paul considers the relationship of Mary to the Eucharist and considers her role as a model of Eucharistic faith. In Eucharist as Meaning , Joseph C. Mudd was questioning the notion of an objectivity that "can be attained without minds". Considering the implications of Ecclesia for the relationship between the Catholic Church and evangelicals, Mark Noll wrote that it would resonate with those Protestants who adhere to the idea of the real presence rather than communion as a memorial, though all would welcome its reliance on Scripture. He believed that "It is obvious that John Paul II teaches a Eucharist doctrine closer to what the Protestant reformers [Luther, Melancthon] themselves advocated than to what they condemned in the sixteenth century", including even his discussion of transubstantiation. He nevertheless concluded that "it is nevertheless evident that the institutional life of the Catholic Church enjoys a prominence in defining a foundational Christian reality that evangelicals do not allow for any human institution. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Solar monstrance of the Eucharist. In Perry, Tim ed. Retrieved 11 May Anglican Communion News Service. La Vie in French. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. Pope John Paul II. Eastern Orthodox Church Judaism. Bibliography Teachings. Eponymous places In popular culture. The Planet Is Alive Let It Live! Hidden categories: CS1 French-language sources fr. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Download as PDF Printable version. In Latin In English. Part of a series on. Sheen Mary Therese Vicente. Joseph holds a Ph. A native of Montana, he received a B. She teaches at the intersection of Systematic Theology and issues of diversity religious diversity, Christian cultural diversity, race and gender. She serves as board member for the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, a multi-racial, multi- religious, inter-generational grass roots organization for social change. Jeannine was a speaker at the World Wisdoms Project in 7. Her first book, Monopoly on Salvation? A Feminist Response to Religious Pluralism , puts Karl Rahner and George Lindbeck in conversation with feminist theories of identity for a theology of religious pluralism. After obtaining her undergraduate degree at the University of Illinois , she spent a year with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, then went on to earn a Master s and Doctorate in Theology from Harvard Divinity School. For ten years she was the faculty director of the Service-Learning Program for undergraduates of Fordham. Ecclesia de Eucharistia - Wikipedia

She serves as board member for the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, a multi-racial, multi-religious, inter-generational grass roots organization for social change. Jeannine was a speaker at the World Wisdoms Project in 7. Her first book, Monopoly on Salvation? A Feminist Response to Religious Pluralism , puts Karl Rahner and George Lindbeck in conversation with feminist theories of identity for a theology of religious pluralism. After obtaining her undergraduate degree at the University of Illinois , she spent a year with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, then went on to earn a Master s and Doctorate in Theology from Harvard Divinity School. For ten years she was the faculty director of the Service-Learning Program for undergraduates of Fordham. The sacrament of Penance allows the faithful to prepare themselves for the Eucharist by unburdening their consciences of sin. Communion must be denied to those who visibly persist in grave sin, and it is only available to the baptized who accept fully the true faith of the Eucharist. A community that celebrates the Eucharist must be in harmony with its bishop and the pope, and Sunday Mass is of fundamental importance to our expression of community. Following norms demonstrates love for the Eucharist and the Church. For all these reasons, concelebration or "Eucharistic sharing" with non-Catholic Christians is completely unacceptable, though communion maybe administered to non-Catholics in certain circumstances, to those who—and here John Paul quotes his earlier encyclical Ut Unum Sint —"greatly desire to receive these sacraments [Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick], freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes". These are norms "from which no dispensation can be given". The celebration of the Eucharist requires "outward forms' that correspond to its internal, spiritual significance. John Paul cites architecture, "designs of altars and tabernacle, and music. Turning from the arts in "lands of ancient Christian heritage", John Paul discusses the work of adaptation to other cultures known as "inculturation". He underscores its value, warns that it must always correspond to the ineffable mystery of the Eucharist, and advises "careful review on the part of the competent ecclesiastical authorities", specifically the Holy See. He condemns "a misguided sense of creativity" and "unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate". He promises a document on norms for Eucharistic celebrations will be forthcoming. John Paul considers the relationship of Mary to the Eucharist and considers her role as a model of Eucharistic faith. In Eucharist as Meaning , Joseph C. Mudd was questioning the notion of an objectivity that "can be attained without minds". Considering the implications of Ecclesia for the relationship between the Catholic Church and evangelicals, Mark Noll wrote that it would resonate with those Protestants who adhere to the idea of the real presence rather than communion as a memorial, though all would welcome its reliance on Scripture. He believed that "It is obvious that John Paul II teaches a Eucharist doctrine closer to what the Protestant reformers [Luther, Melancthon] themselves advocated than to what they condemned in the sixteenth century", including even his discussion of transubstantiation. He nevertheless concluded that "it is nevertheless evident that the institutional life of the Catholic Church enjoys a prominence in defining a foundational Christian reality that evangelicals do not allow for any human institution. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Solar monstrance of the Eucharist. The Eucharist in the New Testament. And God Said What? The Five Megilloth and Jonah. Related Products. Chris Padgett. John Mark Hicks. Pope John Paul II. Clifford M. Morrill, SJ, Vanderbilt University. Doran, Marquette University. Kollar, Catholic Books Review. Baldovin, SJ, Worship. Have a question about this product? Ask us here. Ask a Question What would you like to know about this product? Dimensions: 9. Eucharist in Contemporary Catholic Tradition | The earliest intercession in the Didache was simply a prayer for the Church that it may be true to its eschatological call. This was expanded to a naming of many persons, or groups of persons, living and dead, all of whom are remembered at the altar because all are one with the Church that makes memorial. It is within eucharistic prayers too that a development of sacrificial language is to be found. The Roman Canon is couched primarily in terms of sacrifice, but all texts, east and west, include some sacrificial language. In the first place, the eucharistic prayer is itself a sacrifice of thanksgiving offered by the Church. In the second place, the gifts of bread and wine, the offerings brought for the life of the community and for the poor, are rendered sacrificial by the inclusion of their offering in the prayer. In the third place, through this eucharistic commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ and through the sharing in his body and blood, the Church is taken into the sacrifice of Christ so that in this sacramental action it is shown forth as itself a living sacrifice and a royal priesthood. For these reasons and in these multiple ways, the Eucharist, as such, came to be called a sacrifice. To highlight that the whole action is done as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice and as a participation in it, it was called the sacramental representation of Christ's own sacrifice. As a result it came about in later times that when the Eucharist was called a sacrifice, this was taken to mean that it is the sacrifice of Christ himself, now however sacramentally offered as it was offered once and for all in the flesh upon the Cross. The full significance of such a theology is clear, however, only in the context of the other uses of sacrificial language within the eucharistic prayers of the Church. As a result of attention to this liturgical history, and as a result of attention to the mystagogical catechesis of the Fathers of the Church, contemporary writers have retrieved the vocabulary of mystery, sacrament, memorial, anamnesis and epiclesis in elaborating theologies that depart from the rigorously definitional vocabulary of scholastic and of manual theologies. This kind of language too has been taken up in ecumenical dialogues as a way of overcoming past controversies within a retrieval of the larger tradition. For a long time, Catholic doctrine and theology were dominated by the concern with presence and sacrifice, while Protestant theology was dominated by a theology of the Word and its proclamation. What these systems meant then, and what they mean now, can be understood only by placing them in their proper historical context, seeing them as integral to the attempt to express eucharistic faith in the midst of controversies and disputes. Three historical moments in the development of eucharistic thought are here addressed. The first is that of scholastic theology as the systematic resolution of disputes over the truth of Christ's presence in the sacrament that had gone on for some centuries. The second is that of the failed attempt to forge union between East and West at the Council of florence. The third is that of the 16th-century disputes between Reformers and the Roman Church, with their corresponding formulations of doctrine. Scholasticism in context. At two different moments of its development, scholastic theology formulated explanations of Christ's eucharistic presence and of the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice that have prevailed in Catholic doctrine and theology until the present. The teaching on Christ's eucharistic presence reached its zenith in the theology and doctrine of transubstantiation of high scholasticism. The teaching on the sacrifice of the Mass owed its final formulation largely to later scholasticism, as is expounded on the practice of the Mass, almost on the eve of the Protestant reformation. To understand scholastic thought on Christ's presence in the sacrament, one has to take account of several of its concerns. The first was to meet practical questions such as those that arose from eucharistic devotion and Mass offerings and which had been highlighted by discussions over the manner of Christ's presence. The second was to meet new currents of philosophical thought, especially those marked by the retrieval of the texts of Aristotle. The third was to provide a systematic or scientific presentation as required by the standards of learning at the new universities, and one that would harmonize faith and reason in the presentation of the eucharistic sacrament. These disputes date back to the ninth-century divergence between the monks ratramnus and paschasius radbertus and reached some kind of peak in the 11th century-opposition to the ideas of Berengar of Tours. Leaving a presentation of these controversies to others, the issues of scholastic theology may be best understood by seeing what were the questions that were asked when these issues arose. From the time of Radbertus and Ratramnus, we can list three distinct questions: a what do communicants receive under the sign of the bread and wine; b how do the faithful participate in the mystery of Christ's passion, in sign and in truth or reality; c what is offered in the eucharistic sacrifice. The point that divided Ratramnus and Radbertus had to do with communion in the mystery of Christ's passion and communion in the Church, the body of Christ. The issue on which they divided was that of the relation of the sacrament and of what was received to the historical reality of Jesus. Ratramnus wished to stress that the mystery has to do with the communion between Christ and his members in the Eucharist that followed when his earthly or "historical" body had been transformed through the resurrection and now enjoys a glorified state of existence. This body cannot be present on earth as was the body in which he was born, lived and died, but whatever is said about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist has to be related to his communion with the Church as his Body. Radbertus for his part was also primarily concerned with communion through the Eucharist in the mystery of the passion. In the first place, he said that the passion is present in sign in signo and in mystery in mysterio so that all could partake of its fruits and join with Christ in the spiritual offerings through which they imitate it. On the presence of Christ's body, he said that it was present in sign and in reality in veritate. He wished to stress that what is present in the sacrament is indeed the same body in which Christ was born, lived, suffered and died, so that communicants are united with him in the mystery of his passion through communion with this body, in sign and in reality. To stress this reality, he failed to attend to the implications for presence of the glorification and transformation of Christ's body through the resurrection and so to the specific sacramental modality of this presence. In the debate between berengar and lanfranc et alii there was a twofold practical issue: a how do the faithful have communion in the passion of Christ, through the bread and wine, and b what reverence is to be shown to the reserved sacrament and how may it be itself the object of cult. This latter question sprang from the emergence, at first within the liturgy and later also outside it, of various devotions surrounding the Sacrament, when it was treated in much the same fashion as the relics of the Cross of Calvary and the relics of saints. Berengar, citing Augustine, stressed that Christ is present in the Sacrament through sign so that all explanation has to be related to what the sign signifies. However, he posed the question in terms of the disjunction: aut in signo aut in veritate either in sign or in reality , without any third term. He thought that he could use the newly discovered logic of Aristotle to affirm that reality follows appearance, so that what appears is what is present. Hence, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, both the bread and the passion of Christ in which communicants share, are present, the former because of the appearances, the latter because of the sign value, to which Berengar attributed some, unspecified, reality other than subjective. Whatever Berengar's intentions, he was understood to say that bread and wine are present in reality, and the body and passion of Christ in sign only, even though the sign offers a real communion with Christ in his passion. In response, Lanfranc suggested that some difference can be made between primary substance and secondary substance to explain how bread could appear and serve as sign, not however being present in its primary substance of food, and the body of Christ could be present in its primary substance, but not in its secondary substance of corporeal attributes or appearances. Apart from these disputes a third element that had to be taken into account by scholastic theology was the inclusion of an article on transubstantiation in the profession of faith imposed by the Fourth lateran council a. What was at issue in the profession was the power of the priest to consecrate bread and wine, changing them into the body and blood of Christ. To define this active agency, the Council used the word transubstantiate , which was later taken by scholastic theology to indicate the manner whereby Christ becomes present in the Eucharist and not only the fact of that presence. In discussing the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, scholastic theologians from peter lombard onward did not concern themselves much with eucharistic devotions. Their intention was rather to uphold the truth or reality of the gift of Christ's body and blood if the chalice was still given in sacramental Communion, as this was expressed in the words "this is my body" and "this is my blood. What needed to be avoided was either a crude physicalism or a reduction of the Sacrament to a sign with referent but no inner reality. It is important to note that the theories of presence were put in the broader context of the meaning of the Sacrament. In this vein, the fruits of sacramental participation were said to be spiritual nourishment and increase of faith in the passion, communion in love, protection against sin, and the building up of the Church as a community in love. Explanations of Christ's presence and of the manner in which the bread and wine were changed were couched in ways that showed an appreciation of workings of sign and signification, with due attention given to the reality which appears and is given through the sign. What happened, however, was that the larger biblical signification of the paschal background, of the gift of food and drink and of the common table was gradually lost to view. Since these words were taken to point to Christ's body and blood as distinct material realities, what was sought was a philosophical analogy that would allow for the particularity of this unique sacramental presence and the reality of the gift offered to those who approach in faith. In keeping with the use of logic asserted by Berengar, Thomas said that in logic one has to assert a spiritual, not a physical presence, since Christ is physically present in heaven and by all evidence of the senses clearly not physically present in the Eucharist. On the other hand, logic, that is, the meaning of words and sentences in context, is the first and basic indication of what is being offered in this Sacrament, which is truly the body and blood of Christ. The logic of these words points directly to the body and the blood as such, but in virtue of the logic of concomitance, where the body is present, the whole Christ is present, body and blood, soul and divinity. In short, logic indicates a true presence, which is more than presence by sign, but a spiritual presence, which is unlike physical presence. What Aquinas did was to distinguish this from physical presence per modum loci and from presence purely through recall of the story tantum in signo , neither of which could uphold the truth of the Sacrament. He also refused to accept the theory that affirmed the annihilation of the substance of bread and the substitution under its appearances of the substance of Christ's body, since he found this metaphysically absurd. The analogy then which he offered in the Summa theologiae was that of instant substantial change exclusion of process by some natural means and substantial presence. This change is possible because the substance and accident of bread are not totally identifiable and the substantial reality of Christ's body and blood can take on a sacramental and signifying external appearance that is not its own. The negations of this analogy are as important as the affirmations. The analogy has to do with what is present and offered and received in the order of faith, not that of direct physical perception as though Christ's body and blood in the sacrament could be seen if unveiled or of reason as though the object were comprehensible by reason. He declared that it is simply impossible to offer an explanation. In line with his thinking of the distinction between God's potentia absoluta what he could do if he so wished and his potentia ordinata what he did in fact do within his salvific design he said that God might have brought about the eucharistic change in several ways, some of which would have seemed more reasonable, but that in fact he chose the more mysterious way of transubstantiation. Thus later theology was caught between the positions of Aquinas and Scotus, and it is in its latter form that the doctrine appears to have been known to the 16th-century Reformers. Eucharistic sacrifice. If the nature of eucharistic sacrifice as an offering emerged as a question distinct from sacramental Communion, this was because of infrequent Communion and of the spreading practice of having priests offer the Mass for specific intentions determined by those who gave stipends to have Masses said. It did not in fact much preoccupy earlier scholastic theologians such as hugh of saint victor, nor even Thomas Aquinas himself, though he clearly knew of the custom. His theory of sacramental representation in Summa theologiae III, q. In this text, Thomas responded to the question of whether the immolation of Christ is present in the rite of the Mass. He said that the sacrifice of the Cross is made present through representation and through an efficacious communion of its fruits given in reception of the Sacrament. The action in which the sacrifice is represented and the action by which the bread and wine are changed into Christ's body and blood coincide. This is the priest's utterance, speaking in the person of Christ, of the words of Christ over the gifts of bread and wine offered by the faithful. Thus, it is the priest who consummates the sacrifice as it is he, who as instrument of Christ, effects transubstantiation. Through Communion, all present can then benefit from the fruits of the sacrifice represented. The latter show that his interest was spurred by the fact that many of them did indeed offer Mass for stipends and with little participation of the faithful. Why should this be important and how does it affect priestly spirituality? In approaching this question, Bonaventure distinguished between sacrifice and sacrament. When Christ becomes present through the signifying words of the priest, his flesh and blood may be offered as a sacrifice of propitiation, and they may be consumed in sacramental reception in a communion of faith, love and devotion. This sacerdotal explanation of the offering of sacrifice gained great weight and was strongly proposed by Scotus and by Gabriel biel. Following Scotus, Biel elaborated on this in discussing the fruits of this offering and their application, since now one had to explain why the priest offered the Mass for specific intentions Expositio in Canonem Missae , lectio As representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Mass is of infinite value but its fruits have to be applied, and this is done through the Mass according to a more restricted measure. In various writers, this was said to have to do with the merits of the Church in its currently living members, the merits of the one who offers the stipend or the merits of the priest. This sort of explanation could even give the impression that the Mass is a distinct offering from that of the Cross, though it is done entirely in dependence on it. When current theology looks back to scholastic theology, it puts its explanations into historical context. It relates them clearly to the kind of issue that was at stake and to the ways of thinking that were then available. This means that questions about presence and sacrifice may be addressed in new contexts which change the questions and through new ways of thinking, even while respect is shown for what was said at that time. Even in scholastic theology, the question of presence was related to what Christ offered to his disciples and now offers to the Church through the elements of bread and wine, as it was also related to the sign value of offering under the appearances of bread and wine and with the invitation to eat and drink. The question of sacrifice is altered through the retrieval of a patristic perspective, that is, the sacramental representation of Christ's sacrifice is located in the act of giving gift and taking in Communion, not solely in the words spoken by the priest. The issue about the value of the Mass arose from what can only be considered an aberration in eucharistic practice, namely, the celebration of the Eucharist wherein only the priest took Communion. The first doctrinal controversy to be taken into account is the formulation of differences between Catholic and Orthodox approaches to the mystery of the Eucharist at the Council of Florence, where attempts at reunion effectively failed see Christian Unity: The Council of Florence , ed. Giuseppe Alberigo. Leuven As far as sacraments were concerned, the Greeks noted the absence of an epiclesis for the Spirit in the Latin eucharistic prayer, as well as the use of leavened bread by the East and of unleavened by the West. The question of purgatory was, likewise, a matter of dispute, and this involved differences over the western practice of offering the Mass for the deceased. In the definition of the synod aimed at union, Greeks and Latins agreed to differ on these practical points, without imposing any uniform procedure. These points of debate, however, involve the pneumatological and eschatological understanding of the Church and of its sacraments, and are connected with the difference over the inclusion of the filioque in the creed. In confessing the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, Latins took this as the foundation of an ecclesiology which saw a direct relation of the ordained to the Son, both in sacrament and in jurisdiction. At the Mass, the priest was said to speak the words of Christ in Christ's own person in persona Christi , thus effecting consecration and sacrifice. There was no inclusion of the Spirit in the Roman Canon, but if pressed Latin theologians would say that the gift of the Spirit was one of the effects of Mass and sacrament. In including an invocation for the sending of the Spirit in the Eucharist and in other sacramental prayers, the Eastern Church expressed the belief that Christ operated in the Church, and was united with it, through the action of the Holy Spirit. The Byzantine liturgical commentator, Nicholas cabasilas, had offered an irenic resolution to the dispute between Greeks and Latins. He attributed the consecration of the bread and wine to the joint action of Word and Holy Spirit, through the words of Christ and the invocation of the Spirit A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy , trans. McNulty [London ] 69 — The difference however remained. For Latins, the sanctification of gifts and the sanctification of the people are two distinct actions. Greek formulations expressed the view that the people are sanctified with and through the sanctification of their gifts. The invocation of the Spirit, moreover, reflects an ecclesiology which is centered in the Eucharist, where the Spirit is operative, and through which it is formed in the sacrament as the Body of Christ. Communion between Churches could not be attributed, as in the West, to the common submission to the one primatial jurisdiction. It has to come about as a communion between eucharistic communities, so that in some sense each local Church has its own independent, pneumatological and sacramental, center. The question of eschatology that surfaced in the dispute about making suffrages for the dead is also involved with a sacramental ecclesiology. To offer Mass for the dead is to attribute its efficacy for those departed this life to the power of the Church, and to extend ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in some manner, beyond life on this earth. For the East, however, the Communion between the living and the dead has to be seen as sacramental. When the departed are remembered in the Eucharist, it is as members of the communion in the Spirit which binds both the living and the dead, and the sacramental communion of the Body of Christ includes them. If there were disagreements between the Greeks and the Latins over purgatory as a place or state of existence, it had very much to do with this conception of the extension of the authority and power of Church and priesthood. The document presents the eucharistic celebration as that which makes present the Trinitarian mystery of the Church, or that which draws the Church into the communion between Father, Son and Spirit. It takes due note of the traditional terms of anamnesis, epiclesis and koinonia to express this active presence of the Trinity in the Eucharist and to show that the Church is nothing other than a visible and earthly participation in their communion. It speaks of how the communion of members in the Church is expressed in the Eucharist. It locates the manifestation of the universal Church in the eucharistic synaxis of the local Church, thus highlighting the importance of the local Church in the mystery of the Eucharist, even while addressing the apostolic communion that needs to exist between local Churches. Sixteenth Century disputes and teachings. While not wanting to disregard the role of other Churches of the Reformation, attention is given here to the figures of Martin luther and John calvin, since it was primarily their teaching that engaged the attention of the Council of Trent. Martin Luther on the Lord's Supper. In Martin Luther 's theology of the Lord's Supper and in his reform of its liturgy one has to keep in mind the fundamental role of doctrine of justification by faith and not by works, and of the importance he gave to preaching and hearing the Word of God. Already in the work, The Sacrament of the True Body and Blood of Christ and the Brotherhoods LW 35, 49 — 73 , he had underlined the link between sign, significance and faith. Fidelity to the sign would require restoration of the chalice to laity. The truth of significance is in the fellowship of communicants and incorporation with Christ and the saints, with serious consequences for the way in which the brotherhoods behave. Faith is no mere assent to doctrine but is found in desire, love and trust, attending to the connection between the gift of Christ's body in the flesh and the spiritual body of which recipients are members. From early in his career as a reformer, Luther found some eucharistic practices abominable. These were the secret Mass, wherein the words of Christ are not proclaimed to the people, the exclusive use of Latin in the Mass, what he called the Private Mass, or the offering of a Mass at which the faithful do not receive communion. Along with this, there went the denial of the chalice to the laity and the acceptance of stipends. The Mass as instituted by Christ is a sacrament, not a sacrifice. In the words and signs of Jesus in the Supper Narrative, there is the sign and promise of the forgiveness of sins, to be received in faith, since this alone justifies and not works. This is summed up by Luther in the notion of a testament in which there is testator, heirs, testament, seal or sacrament, bequeathing of blessing of forgiveness of sins, and a command to keep memorial or proclaim the testament. He sharpened his criticism of Roman practices in The Babylonian Captivity LW 36, 11 — 57 , finding in the Roman Mass as offered by a priest, a typical example of works righteousness. He excoriated the Church for the denial of the chalice to the laity which amounts to a denial of their priesthood and is against the Lord's command. While Luther strongly affirmed the presence of Christ in the sacrament, he found that the doctrine of transubstantiation treats the body and blood of Christ as a thing, destroys the signs of bread and wine and encourages devotions centered on thing, divorced from faith in the promise. As both scholars and faculty they have unique insights into the intersections of spirituality, religion and secularism in our society. Joe co-directs the graduate program in Religious Studies. He also co- directs the Francis Youth Institute for Theology and Leadership which brings high school juniors and seniors to Gonzaga University for a week of exploring nature in the Inland Northwest, studying theology with Gonzaga faculty, and praying together in community. Joe was a speaker at the World Wisdoms Project in 7. Other areas of interest include the philosophy and theology of Bernard Lonergran , S. She has been a Consultant with World Wisdoms Program since Someone who will integrate contemporary cosmology, neuroscience and hermeneutics with the Christian experience of salvation in a spirit of celebrated cultural diversity and rational pluralism. In conclusion, do we need a metaphysics? No, but we need some kind of metanarrative. Any effective metaphysics today can learn from past traditions, but must attend to what science is learning about the brain and cognition. Does Chauvet need a metaphysics? No, but his metanarrative does contain theoretical reflection concerning the structure of knowing and his sources are a dizzying array of philosophers, linguists, social scientists, and theologians. Many of them may be in the same ballpark, but they are sitting in very different sections. Are we dealing with a psychological problem? Yes, the drive to understand is integral to the quest for a full and meaningful life. The late sociologist Peter Berger said that human beings were condemned to find meaning and this is a matter of life or death. The temptation, with us from the very beginning—think of Genesis chapter 3—is to embrace totalitarian schemes, erase ambiguity, and have certitude. We need to let go of that because reality and meaningfulness is found somewhere between determinism and chaos. So let us have both theologies with and without metaphysics. Joseph A. It was primarily a Rahnerian perspective that guided my thought in graduate school. Much of what follows is indebted to this work, particularly pp. New York: Philosophical Library, , Whether the diagnosis is applicable to theology is a matter for ongoing debate. This fits very well with the liturgical-sacramental starting point for theological reflection Chauvet takes. Clearly, God is beyond any categorization that would in any way restrict the divine initiative or that would render God as a being among beings. And theologians would be quick to affirm that certitude regarding God is idolatrous when it is the fruit of human reason alone. And yet, the Catholic tradition holds as a matter of faith that the existence of God can be know with certitude through the things that are made by human reason. There is a complementarity between reason and faith. To reason is given the full range of questions that emerge from our experience of the universe of proportionate being. Our answers which take the form of judgments regarding the adequacy of our understanding give us an account of things that allows us to navigate the world. Ambrose affirms as much when he admits that a metanarrative is a must for theology. One need not convert to Platonism before confessing faith in the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. We might call them metaphysics or metanarrative, but if we are to answer questions posed by our encounters with revelation, we will need some tools. If we opt for a new set of tools today, it is because the context in which we pose questions has changed. We ask questions just as our ancestors did and when we ask questions we seek answers, or at least, the best available account of what is the case. If there is any place where onto-theology confronts the personal otherness and mystery of God, surely it is in the sacraments. And yet theologians in the West today are given the task of mediating the meaning of this mystery to a culture that is informed by the horizon of modern scientific rationality. I hold that Lonergan authored such an approach. His theological method elicits the special categories that emerge in the horizon of religious conversion. He avoids reducing theology to a backwater of abstruse technical questions. But he is not averse to theory, because he recognizes that theory is simply an expression of the systematic exigence of human conscious intentionality. Chauvet deftly shifts the theological discussion of the sacraments from metaphysics conceived in terms of causality to a metanarrative of Christian existence conceived in terms of symbolic mediation. This is the right move to make in my view. Lonergan does it without abandoning metaphysical discourse because in the end we cannot have theologies with or without metaphysics, only theologies with implicit or explicit metaphysics. Better to be explicit. For him judgment regards whether all the relevant questions regarding some instance of contingent being have been asked. In the case of revealed realities that transcend the universe of proportionate being the judgments belong to God and we assent to them in faith. In these cases, rather than ask the question for judgment, Is it so? See, e. Robert C. Croken et al. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, , 80— Joseph Mudd in Eucharist as Meaning: Critical Metaphysics and Contemporary Sacramental Theology undertakes an important pastoral task, to offer a metaphysical approach to the Eucharist that is meaningful for our time, to overcome problematics in current doctrines that remain from classicist sacramental theology. He uses the contributions of Bernard Lonergan to construct a metaphysics of Eucharist that is meaningful and relevant to participants in the sacraments, rearticulating and elucidating the relationship between terms like real presence, relationship with Christ, and mission. He successfully demonstrates the meaningfulness of the sacraments as they are experienced by the believer, and thus reminds the church why the Eucharist is the source of Christian mission. In doing so, he also lays the groundwork for a renewed ecclesiology for our time, providing openings for conversations about the dynamic nature of doctrines of the Eucharist particularly as they impact the lives of believers , new approaches to ministry, and ecumenical and interfaith relationships. Perhaps the association between the two is evident to philosophers and some clergy, but it is less likely so for average churchgoers, catechumens, seekers, and those prohibited from receiving. Drawing upon Thomas Aquinas, Mudd states that intention, or desire, brings about the effect of the sacrament, not the rites alone. Although traditional metaphysical explanations do not preclude the meaningfulness of the sacrament or the desire for a relationship with Christ, the two too often appear dissociated. This is what brings people to church or its absence drives them away. The Eucharist as constitutive and communicative naturally elicits conversion. With great appreciation for this excellent work, I offer some reflections that may offer possibilities for continued conversation, particularly regarding ministry, interfaith and ecumenical dialogue, bias and conversion, the role of the priest, and doctrines. One must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine. If we could adapt to such a metaphysics of meaning and assimilate it into the language of the church and its ministries, I believe it could indeed mend the pastoral problem. Perhaps adding to the pastoral consequences mentioned by Mudd is the consequence of division that remains between Catholics and Protestants based on longstanding distortions and miscommunications about the Eucharist. Mudd says,. Sacramental action is not a matter of bridging the gap between humans and God with the use of sacramental intermediaries. Sacramental action occurs in the recipient of the sacrament. Consequently, the words of Christ reflect not only a change of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood but also a conversion of the one who receives those words spiritually in order to partake of their effect, which is communion with Christ and therefore a conversion of a sinful human being into an adopted son or daughter of the father. Mudd rightly points out that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life because it is constitutive and communicative. So too is the church. In the final chapter of Method in Theology , Lonergan discusses the missionary and communicative function of the church as the transformative agent in the world. Insofar as the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life, Mudd places it at the heart of the theology of the church, the body which is to communicate the redemptive mission of Christ to the world. The church is a redemptive process. I have been speaking of the redemptive action of the church in the modern world. But no less important is its constructive action. In fact, the two are inseparable, for one cannot undo evil without also bringing about the good. Mudd thus demonstrates the effect of the Eucharist by uniting the metaphysical with the Christian experience of love, redemption, and mission. Chapter 8 has been the source of discussion some dispute as it opens the possibility of participation in the Eucharist to those cohabitating or divorced. Amoris Laetitia is a theology about love in the family, so the theological context pertains more to the theology of love and the sacrament of marriage than the doctrines of the Eucharist. Still, this illustrates the dynamism of doctrines and the relationship among the sacraments. Further, this document does not address every situation in which a person may be excluded from the Eucharist. If the effect of the sacrament occurs through the desire to participate in the Eucharist, provided the potential recipient has the desire, intention, and knowledge, what does this mean for those who are canonically prohibited from participating? Perhaps this new metaphysics of sacramental meaning would provide the conditions for the possibility that those now excluded would be included, since the assent to the reality of Christ-that-is and Christ-for-us is much more understandable—and authentically relational—than has been offered in traditional metaphysics. Those who may receive the sacrament must assent to the doctrine of real presence and possess the proper formation and disposition for the sacrament. Mudd asserts that misunderstandings and distortions have created a pastoral problem indicated by a lack of participation in the sacrament; by this he may mean that they do not participate at all or they do not participate consciously I suspect he means the former. In the latter case, I refer to the very common occurrence of allowing communion to people who lack knowledge about the doctrines of the Eucharist and who may or may not believe in the real presence of Christ, in spite of the teaching that one is to be properly informed, reach the age of reason, and be properly disposed to receive. Surely this would lead to greater conversion and a more transformative church. As Mudd points out, a sacrament that is received with desire, knowledge, and intention will be effective, especially compared to the sacrament received out of unconscious habit. Mudd refers to the words of Christ spoken during the Eucharist, an instrumental element to render the sacrament meaningful and effective. I would enjoy more discussion about the role of the priest and wonder if more could be said about the mediatory role of the priest in this paradigm. Further discussion could lead to the question about whether the words must necessarily be spoken by an ordained priest, or if in certain cases, the sacrament would still remain valid if the words of Christ were spoken by someone other than an ordained priest. I would also be interested in more discussion of bias, scotosis, and conversion of the recipient. Mudd discusses each of these, and sufficiently to satisfy his purpose. I would find it interesting to continue to explore bias in the disposition of the recipient of the Eucharist and its consequences for the effectiveness of the sacrament. Mudd offers an integrated metaphysics of meaning, an approach that I think could lead to more authentic liturgy and a more transformative church. He offers a sound metaphysical proposal with the use of Lonergan to resolve the pastoral problem left by previous metaphysics. This model of the Eucharist is the heart of the church that Bernard Lonergan describes, a church that communicates redemption and restoration for the world. It offers the participation in the sacraments in the spirit of Pope Francis, who urges us to be a church of mercy, a Eucharistic community that is intentional in its own communal conversion and the transformation of the world through the mission of the church. Thanks to Joseph Mudd for this much-needed approach to sacramental meaning. Each names the criteria for belief in the real presence of Christ, though the explanations vary, as does the language requiring assent. Mudd draws a clever parallel to the consciousness of the church as an agent of transformation in the world to the conscious act and transformation effected in the Eucharist. Also see Mudd, — I am very grateful to Andrea Stapleton for offering a thorough and generous reading of my work. She has communicated many of my ideas more lucidly and compactly than I did, and may understand better than I do the ramifications of my position. By way of response I will focus on the pastoral implications of the shift in theological language from metaphysical terms to the language of interiority. Technical terms, of course, have histories. Thomas was able to offer an explanatory understanding of the meaning of transubstantiation in metaphysical categories, but even in his own time opinions on metaphysics varied. In order to get some clarity on how to proceed, it might help to distinguish the transposition of technical language that is the work of systematics from the pastoral implementation that is the business of communications. First there is the issue of a transposition from the language of theory to the language of interiority characteristic of a methodical theology. Writing about the functional specialty Systematics, Lonergan notes that if the language of metaphysics is an achievement of the second stage of meaning, or theory, then a shift into the third stage of meaning will involve a transposition of metaphysical terms into the language of interiority. Robert Doran has been working at it for years. These remain technical clarifications within systematics. But Stapleton directs our attention to the pastoral situation to be addressed by the theologian operating in the functional specialty Communications. This would potentially include a change in the language of catechesis to categories of meaning that, although they retain metaphysical distinctions, do not ask the faithful to master the history of philosophy. For example, to imagine that one ought to include an extensive treatment of the history and metaphysical significance of the term transubstantiation to children preparing for first Eucharist is to blur the distinction between Systematics and Communications. This perspective seems to be reflected in the papal statements Stapleton cites, although the expression there is simply meant to secure the force of the dominical word. I do not think my position can support something like a eucharistic communion by desire for non-Christians. While spiritual eating offers a major clarification of the meaning of eucharistic presence and communion, it depends on the assent in faith of the recipient to the dominical word. There can be no anonymous eucharistic communion. I would be content to say that eucharistic communion offers supernatural satisfaction in sacramental form of a natural desire that all persons experience. Two initial thoughts might seed further conversation. Second, while the words of consecration constitute a full term of meaning, the presider who speaks those words represents a larger ecclesial and liturgical context which are not simply severable from the consecratory act. I think it would. It would distinguish between self-centeredness and God-centeredness and would attend to the fruits of those who participate in the Eucharist. The reader is encouraged to consult Bernard P. This article was published when my book was in press.

Our Consulting Scholars - World Wisdoms Project

It offers the participation in the sacraments in the spirit of Pope Francis, who urges us to be a church of mercy, a Eucharistic community that is intentional in its own communal conversion and the transformation of the world through the mission of the church. Thanks to Joseph Mudd for this much-needed approach to sacramental meaning. Each names the criteria for belief in the real presence of Christ, though the explanations vary, as does the language requiring assent. Mudd draws a clever parallel to the consciousness of the church as an agent of transformation in the world to the conscious act and transformation effected in the Eucharist. Also see Mudd, — I am very grateful to Andrea Stapleton for offering a thorough and generous reading of my work. She has communicated many of my ideas more lucidly and compactly than I did, and may understand better than I do the ramifications of my position. By way of response I will focus on the pastoral implications of the shift in theological language from metaphysical terms to the language of interiority. Technical terms, of course, have histories. Thomas was able to offer an explanatory understanding of the meaning of transubstantiation in metaphysical categories, but even in his own time opinions on metaphysics varied. In order to get some clarity on how to proceed, it might help to distinguish the transposition of technical language that is the work of systematics from the pastoral implementation that is the business of communications. First there is the issue of a transposition from the language of theory to the language of interiority characteristic of a methodical theology. Writing about the functional specialty Systematics, Lonergan notes that if the language of metaphysics is an achievement of the second stage of meaning, or theory, then a shift into the third stage of meaning will involve a transposition of metaphysical terms into the language of interiority. Robert Doran has been working at it for years. These remain technical clarifications within systematics. But Stapleton directs our attention to the pastoral situation to be addressed by the theologian operating in the functional specialty Communications. This would potentially include a change in the language of catechesis to categories of meaning that, although they retain metaphysical distinctions, do not ask the faithful to master the history of philosophy. For example, to imagine that one ought to include an extensive treatment of the history and metaphysical significance of the term transubstantiation to children preparing for first Eucharist is to blur the distinction between Systematics and Communications. This perspective seems to be reflected in the papal statements Stapleton cites, although the expression there is simply meant to secure the force of the dominical word. I do not think my position can support something like a eucharistic communion by desire for non-Christians. While spiritual eating offers a major clarification of the meaning of eucharistic presence and communion, it depends on the assent in faith of the recipient to the dominical word. There can be no anonymous eucharistic communion. I would be content to say that eucharistic communion offers supernatural satisfaction in sacramental form of a natural desire that all persons experience. Two initial thoughts might seed further conversation. Second, while the words of consecration constitute a full term of meaning, the presider who speaks those words represents a larger ecclesial and liturgical context which are not simply severable from the consecratory act. I think it would. It would distinguish between self-centeredness and God-centeredness and would attend to the fruits of those who participate in the Eucharist. The reader is encouraged to consult Bernard P. This article was published when my book was in press. Robert M. Doran, What Is Systematic Theology? Wilkins catalogues the responses to Doran at n For a detailed explanation of the significance of this statement, see Joseph Komonchak, Foundations in Ecclesiology , supplementary issue of the Lonergan Workshop 11, ed. Fred Lawrence Boston College, By way of illustrating the difference with an anecdote. The difference is that the seven-year-old, who is not yet preparing for first communion although he does attend a Catholic school, is able to take the statement seriously as a claim about reality, whereas the four-year-old cannot because it contradicts his sense experience. Robert J. Daly et al. Lonergan concludes Method in Theology sounding an ecumenical note, but also recognizing that the differences among Christians lie at the level of cognitive meaning. In order to resolve such disagreements and arrive at some agreement regarding the cognitive meaning of the Christian message requires that we attend to the foundational reality of theological reflection and therefore to a verifiable account of conscious intentionality. Sadly such philosophical questions rarely receive a hearing in ecumenical conversations. This book surprised me. Mudd suggests that both the underlying doctrinal affirmation of meaning in the Eucharist e. Although I admit that this assessment may be due as much to my own criteria for what constitutes a faithful rendering of eucharistic meaning which I will get to in a moment than it does to any great understanding of Lonergan on my part. In this, he is able to deftly negotiate an original path between Thomas and Chauvet without capitulating to the oblivion of either physics or semiotics. If this is where Lonergan in substance leads us, then good. On another level, I have to concede that Lonergan speaks a language somewhat foreign to me. I admit that the Lonerganian approach to meaning would not be my first choice, particularly when attempting to come to grips with a sacramental mode of meaning and presence. By the same token, neither would a scholastic or Thomistic approach to meaning and presence. Thus, I here propose a line of critical questioning born out of my own take on the best way into theological meaning. All of this seems to me to float perilously close to the epistemological standards of modernity, e. This is not to say that the subject is categorically incapable of making credible truth claims, but it is to say that the thinking subject is him or herself always already the fruit of a communal act, a diachronic act, an act always preceded by an other, an act always formed from the reception of multiple presences and multiple relations, both personal and otherwise, that envelop the thinking subject. On this basis, I question whether Lonergan and I see eye to eye on the question of what constitutes meaning. But where I also diverge from someone like Chauvet—who revels in mediation and absence to the point of fetishization, and who never truly arrives back to the rich presence of scriptural faith but instead ends up celebrating new abstractions—is in my belief that in the constitution of a baptismal relation the first truly definitive interpretation has already been performed in the baptized body of the son or daughter of the Father. This interpretation belongs neither to physics nor semiotics. On the one hand, this dasein embodies a theatre of questioning wherein the baptismal subject can never slough off or overcome the conditions within which the question is asked. They have died with Christ in the dark waters. They have risen as son or daughter of the Father. This relation constitutes them completely and utterly. They are inhabited by it. On the other hand, nor can there be a wallowing in semiotics, a reification of absence, a certain way of talking about Christ submitting himself to the human measure of that absence Chauvet. Baptismal adoption resists abstraction and a human placing of limits on the givenness of divine adoption. In this, holding fast to the integrity and credibility of the liturgical and sacramental rites themselves, we ourselves, in our new sanctified sacramental personhood, become the definitive, embodied, anthropological interpretation of the text of faith. Indeed, my sense is that any approach that begins from some point outside the baptismal form of the mystery will for that reason fail to give us the fullness of meaning that can only be received as a gift. What might then be said about eucharistic meaning specifically? Here, only that from the start it must always be allowed to speak for itself on its own terms. This means taking the dramatic staging of faith with the utmost seriousness, particularly the rites themselves as read by a believer who already bears their fruits in his or her body, who by them is able to read the Scriptures fruitfully as the text of a prior adoption. From this perspective, all that transubstantiation says is that, in the Church, Christ has truly accomplished the mission given to him from the Father. James L. Houlden Ignatius: San Francisco, , — Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity , trans. Foster San Francisco: Ignatius, , The body which it snuggles into, a soft, warm and nourishing kiss, is a kiss of love in which it can take shelter because it has been sheltered there a priori. The awakening of its consciousness is a late occurrence, in comparison with this basic mystery of unfathomable depth. I am very grateful that he has taken the time to reflect on these questions here. As expected, Sweeney raises some trenchant further questions regarding my approach to sacramental theology from a Lonerganian perspective. Sweeney wonders whether a Lonerganian account of human subjectivity does not adequately account for the transformation of the person effected by grace. This criticism is not foreign to students of Lonergan. Frequently enough Lonergan is lumped in with transcendental Thomists and Kantianism. Indeed, the baptized exist in a relationship to the Father in Christ in a way that transforms their questions regarding meaning, but not simpliciter. Otherwise we would be compelled to say that a baptized person who was unaware they had been baptized would be making meaning in the same way as a person brought up in the faith. By beginning with cognitional structure, Lonergan intends to identify human nature in an explanatory way that provides a transcultural base while taking into account the concrete particularity of individuals. I would err on the side of the possibility that even the unbaptized could assent to the words of institution and have a real encounter with Christ in the Eucharist, and that this would be an instance wherein one might concretely identify a baptism by desire. My sense is that Sweeney disagrees with the notion of a baptism by desire. But even in the life of faith baptism alone is no guarantee of future performance. And while I would want to retain the notion of an indelible baptismal character, I would agree with Lonergan that one should distinguish between substance and subject in the life of the baptized. In an exhortation to his brother Jesuits, Lonergan makes a distinction between being in Christ Jesus at the level of substance and being in Christ Jesus at the level of subject. Sweeney adverts to something like this distinction by recognizing that concrete subjectivity is always the product of a communal and diachronic act. However, in the same passage where he invokes the image, von Balthasar goes on to suggest that consciousness develops at a later stage. Certainly the data included in the experience of infants and octogenarians are distinct. But infants and octogenarians are equally conscious even if they are not equally attentive, intelligent, reasonable, and responsible. Similarly the baptized are in Christ Jesus, but often as infants, or at the level of substance. My own way of thinking of that relation understands grace as a perfection of nature, and that sacraments relate to the kind of thing we human beings are by nature. My guess is that Sweeney takes a different approach. Perhaps further conversation could clarify the relative merits of different conceptions of the relationship between nature and grace. But it would be a long conversation over much controverted theological terrain. Sweeney also wonders whether my use of the analogy of friendship is adequate for understanding the kind of encounter eucharistic communion is. Admittedly the nuptial analogy is the preferred way into thinking about union with God for many theologians today. Perhaps this is because friendship has fallen on hard times in our time. Jesus, of course, says relatively little about marriage—not all of it good—while Paul certainly makes effective use of nuptial analogies. Peter pleads with Jesus to still regard him as a friend. What would the life of the resurrection be without friendship with Christ? Indeed what would marriage be without friendship? Friendship is the intelligibility and goal of marriage. A marriage wherein there is no sharing of wills is no marriage at all, it is an anti-marriage. When the tradition uses nuptial imagery it is clearly as an instance, perhaps the instance par excellence , of friendship that it is meaningful, not because it is contractual or, even less, transactional. Why proponents of nuptial analogy find friendship deficient I cannot say, perhaps Sweeney can clarify. On the significance of this distinction for Christian living, see Frederick G. Randall S. Rosenberg and Kevin M. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran Toronto: University of Toronto Press, , — I first read Eucharist as Meaning about three years ago. Many symbolic practices in the contemporary church have been called into question as distortions of the gospel. Such criticisms from liberation and feminist theologians are now familiar. Rereading Mudd now leads me to think instead that Chauvet posits that sacramental symbols can be corrupted but does not address how one knows that a given symbol has been corrupted. Chauvet does not employ the language of conversion with the specificity achieved by Mudd and Lonergan , but he does have this to say about receiving Christ:. Participation in sacramental worship involves constantly receiving oneself from Christ, acknowledging, again and again, dependence on God. A theme important to Lonergan and to Mudd is the retrieval of the meaning of doctrinal statements that come to us from the past. Both Sacrosanctum Concilium and Mysterium Fidei emphasize the multiple presences of Christ in the liturgy. For example, in no. Joe co-directs the graduate program in Religious Studies. He also co- directs the Francis Youth Institute for Theology and Leadership which brings high school juniors and seniors to Gonzaga University for a week of exploring nature in the Inland Northwest, studying theology with Gonzaga faculty, and praying together in community. Joe was a speaker at the World Wisdoms Project in 7. Other areas of interest include the philosophy and theology of Bernard Lonergran , S. She has been a Consultant with World Wisdoms Program since Joseph holds a Ph. The results should make for welcomed reading among Lonergan scholars and all concerned with philosophically grounding the fundamentals of Christian belief and practice. Morrill, SJ, Vanderbilt University "This book heralds a major step forward in sacramental theology and especially in the theology of the Eucharist. Mudd deftly proposes that the critical realism of Bernard Lonergan, opening on an ontology of meaning, enables an integration of the best of such hermeneutical approaches as that of Chauvet with a correct understanding of the metaphysical proposals of Aquinas. Doran, Marquette University "Mudd offers a transposition of doctrines stated in metaphysical categories into categories of meaning that allow us to retain the truth of statements while developing a fruitful analogical understanding of their meaning. He writes well and makes a good argument against Chauvet's attempt to do the same thing he is doing: claiming that the medieval categories associated with transubstantiation, sacrifice, and presence make no sense to postmodern philosophers, theologians, or people in general. Although he never says is such a claim means that the continual use of these categories are a lie to the true doctrine because no one understands them in their original meanings. If my interpretation of this statement is correct then one of the central acts of every Christian Sunday Eucharist is done without traditional meaning. There is a great deal of work to be done by theologians and catechists to argue over this traditional meaning and how to convey it to each other and the non-specialists in its original context. Kollar, Catholic Books Review "This may be the most significant work of eucharistic theology in English produced in the last twenty years. Baldovin, SJ, Worship "Mudd's challenging book, with its patient and focused scholarship deserves attention by Lonergan scholars and sacramental theologians alike. What would you like to know about this product? Please enter your name, your email and your question regarding the product in the fields below, and we'll answer you in the next hours. You can unsubscribe at any time. Enter email address. Welcome to Christianbook. Sign in or create an account. https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4640329/normal_6020809268d4f.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4640780/normal_601fe36c31a91.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9589496/UploadedFiles/DADF463F-7313-D92A-38FF-5ABAD5EA3FB1.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9586154/UploadedFiles/374C81EE-74A6-B026-F980-70D8DC5645E1.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9588960/UploadedFiles/61633186-0050-E5A6-062B-801BFEEE4EBF.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/c43f54aa-35fa-439a-b05a-99ffcf298092/ich-bin-7-und-lamatastisch-lama-mit-decke-schreibheft-mit-120- linierten-seiten-notizheft-in-ca-d-638.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9586305/UploadedFiles/DD7C9D98-FAB7-8B13-8CD4-0BE5C43108F3.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9586418/UploadedFiles/F8EDACF4-1C09-D358-7C89-67D4DDCDF584.pdf