You are on page 1of 13
© Warship 6571 (Tannery Laat) John McKenna Symbol and Reality: Some Anthropological! rations ‘Ne mult tgs before we could speak, reads the slogan in ‘it fl. sigunake’s shop in Boynton Beach, Rosse ta ha corn pty way it epresies& given in human experienc, Signs and symbol are part and pace four being. ie have dace You love me anymore” may not be nagging. She may sense that ‘what is not expressed is on its war to not being. The husbend so responds, “I may not say it but I show it in many ways,” ‘ay also be on to something. We don't always need words, We ‘4m woe other symbols or symbolic ations. But the fac remaina, Wig must express deep realities or risk losing them. We shall see Inter that any being must express itself in order to ‘Hfow tell, tobe. Symbois enable we to do just that. They are ‘Pasi to our knowing, our loving, cuz very being. That is why the ‘Busstion (probably rhetorical) which Romano Guardini, the great ‘German thinker and liturgical commentator, poved in an open let- {fo the Linugical Congress at Mainz in 1964 was co startling: jbo McKeroa, a Vincenti priest, teaches ingle t St Joa’ ‘nie, Jamaica, New Yor We use th term here notin Whe sense of a tural anteopology, al {Fe09> tts hasbeen moat hep tte, but inthe see of “eene of pes,” eepecialy « metaphycal or phenomenological ene. The a emp te enlarge oe uncereni ex enlarged “=o experience. ‘ee ath “Do you really think that modern ing to symbols ‘symbottahig’)?"3 Th subsequent answer, from peychologist, philosophers, theologians and Litwpists © pal Ricoeur remarks that “tis quite noteworthy thet before all theology and all ‘even before any miythicat sod sno on the realty of Chiat’ presen inthe eharat bat on the fre Ci, #8) and de Jone 9. Poe that presence, nay, the matraing ofthe comeruly, EGE Heron, ore Meera, 83 and de Jorg, “CE Megier, ote, SCE Mager ot, a 7G de jon Ta TB Soe Ch Power. 3 zo. 9536; Herons roe and de Or Meivtes tot, ee em The laporan of How Doct Understood,” Origine Sioa ae soley May 3) mrs John Mekenna Symbol and Reality SLmETy, This orced thes to lok elewhere than to synbo! to ac crea eyes eal foreftin eeting the frm of reasoning as ‘oUnt fOr the reality of the euchatit, rely Physical and as failing to do justice t the merce sn eomes increasingly evident in the case of Berengar of ‘Chsia’s presence, CE A ta) Reacting to a ove physical approeer ere annabtence of healthy sense of symbolic realty coupled with Stanek he taunted his opponents with tenching at we ee cacremiation o preserve the realty of Chs's previ ire (itl Pieces of Chast's flesh” camis Chiat”), Em ‘Siebari ed to search for alternate ways of explaining thas tei a be thought tobe Asgintine’s (and Rasmanns) at fence. In this regard, i i to compare the Fourth Late. tion, he rightly returned to sacraments 28 symbols. The an Council (123) with the Counell of (444-1418). The lfculty was that the possibility of a symbol thar makes Fer Lateran in speaking ofthe eucharistic waneiormeton de Find He uality i symbolizes never seems to have crosed hie {Re.body and blood of Jens Chit are really ("vertter"V ees Tai He ends up viewing the sacraments as repreceninineg boon nace epecies of bread and wine, the Bread having cree etal content and thon enic the realy of Chet’ ree Bory tmoubetanited ("tansubstanatis) into the body othe fence in the eucharist Tree the Blood by the divine power (potetae dvi} sic TRON, apparently unable to appeal to a nation of eyme Jramas would have been at home with this because it alowed bolic reality, foun Yu to keep substance on the metaphysical level where oe rma a a tt fled ook othe ance notion tian lturgy, paralle to the Greek mystery religions, somehow ide the saving even present. Dept sift cong Sreegmeane like Zivngl (55) could acknowiedge hat he ‘Ns posits at tines, he tenaciously beld tha in the spect oe cuchtit was Sting srmiol bot “ely'" a oe tion there sa real presence ( Realgepenwart”) of tone ounver Reformation approch wat generly ts ook eure the Meanwhile, a Reon theslgiin, Cots Yan de Lene Lymbel for a way of enabling the realty ef the anche, A- History of Religions profewor at the Univeray of csc, sult was numerous theones on how the “waned” and noel TESEEES Sa wm ns js 6c Pe So etn intmele mamma Sorencimuca nemrgemace Saat ning na tn ea Sot eh ‘explanations of Case, van der Leeuw and Vonier which still needed to be worked out Nevertheless, a revised reading of Thomas Aquinas and a redis- ‘covery ofthe ancient understanding of the relationship between symbol and realty has led toa rehabilitation of the notion of sym= ‘olin current theology. Berard Lonergan, John Macquarie, Kar! ehner, Edward Schillebeeckx and Paul Tilich, to name a few, have made extensive use ofthis motion in their thealogy. ‘To examine each of these theologians would go beyond the scope ofthis study. A survey of Karl Rahner's treatment of symbol, however, should offer a basis fr further development.” Rahner admite thatthe term “‘symbo!” itself is much more obscure, diffe ‘ult and ambiguous than is usually thought. Its not surprising, therefore, that there are many diferent understandings of the term. This fact is rooted in the richness of the Greek words (dos, ‘morph which can mean sign, figure, expression, image, aspect, appearance, and so on.” The basic word which concerns us comes from “sym-billein,” to throw together, compare, For example, if ‘you and I make @ pact or covenant, we might cut or break a ring,

You might also like