Memory Foam Matress

Neil says:

Dear Bernard and Liam,

Thanks for your responses. I don't think that I've been clear, so let me summarize:

The question is: Is it rational to celebrate Communion?

We then have to ask: Well, what makes an action rational?

Most philosophers, according to Graham, would suggest that an action can be either instrumentally or intrinsically rational. It is instrumentally rational if it serves as the means to an end. It is intrinsically rational if it is rational in and of itself – if the action is, we might say, fitting. (I do think that these two terms cover the forms of reason that Liam mentions. When deciding whether the deployment of a metaphor is rational, we would ask whether it successfully served as means to a communicative end or if it was fitting [as in a poem].)

I would say that it is problematic to say that the liturgy is instrumentally or intrinsically rational. To suggest that the purpose of the liturgy is to be an efficient means to an end would reduce it to a mechanism. To suggest that the liturgy is fitting for us human beings in and of itself threatens to reduce it to a contemplative or therapeutic aid – the equivalent of a very beautiful poem or concert.

I don't mean to deny that parts of the liturgy could serve as means for particular ends (e.g., teaching moral lessons) or be fitting for human beings (e.g., as contemplation). But to pronounce that liturgical action is rational because it is instrumentally or intrinsically so, I think, dangerously reduces the meaning of liturgical action.

So, we need another way to speak of liturgical action as rational. My answer: Liturgical action is rational because it is enactment – it brings the cosmic drama of salvation “to life.” Thus, it is a rationally assessable action, just like other forms of enactment are rationally assessable.

Is “enactment” as rich a term as anamnesis? Of course not. But does its use contradict the theological meaning of anamnesis? No. Does the language of “enactment” get us to the gateway of the language of anamnesis? Yes.

“Enactment” is a philosophical term that makes something of what we mean by anamnesis intelligible to certain other Christians and non-Christians. Furthermore, it relates liturgical action to other forms of human action, such as drama.

Thus, I think, it is a useful term for a broad discussion of rationality and liturgical action with a number of presumably diverse dialogue partners.

Is this clear?

BTW, I might be slow in answering responses since I'm not near home or office.

Thank you.

Neil