I must thank Todd for providing an anecdotal example of the post-Cartesianism to which I referred in my post. Perhaps a post on Christian symbolism is in order.

It’s another to suggest that all other Catholics must adhere to my particular symbols and only mine.

Surely you jest. Are you unaware of the deep Judeo-Christian tradition of Bridegroom and Bride symbolism for YHWH’s relationship with His Church that goes back to the Prophets and which is a symbol reserved for God as Redeemer? As Shawn pointed out, have you not read Eph 5 where St. Paul expresses this symbolism as an ontological Great Mystery in which sacramental marriage is shown to be a participation in Christ’s marriage to His Church? Did you not read the first comment by a well informed Seminarian who reminded us of the Church’s long tradition of reserving service at the altar to men, and which only in recent years has been impinged upon by the widespread abuse of what is supposed to be an exception? Are you unaware of the immemorial Christian tradition, based upon Scripture, that understands the Church to be the Bride and the Blessed Virgin as the proleptic fulfillment of the Church in the eschaton? Perhaps I should have gone over this in my post but I mistakenly assumed all this would be well known to those who might respond.

We are talking here about sacramental symbolism, in which the earthly symbol derives its existence as a symbol in the heavenly reality that it symbolizes. Todd - your response mirrors the anti-sacramental response of many Protestant-Catholics who use this Protestant canard to reduce the Eucharist to nothing more than a psychological experience rather than an ontological reality in which God is present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. I do not believe you follow them that far do you? Rather, I assume you are employing their faulty argument selectively in order to attempt to counter a conclusion you do not like. If you do recognize sacramental realism I would like to suggest that you ought not follow this faulty line of reasoning at all. I would like to recommend that you look into the ontological realism of symbolism in the Christian tradition more deeply. Johann Adam Möller, one of the 19th century Tubingen school progenitors of the 20th century Ressourcement, wrote an excellent book on the topic entitled appropriately enough, Symbolism. It’s still in print.

For example, we rightly honor Jesus through animal metaphors. However, mainstream Christianity doesn’t accord any particular honors to lambs or lions or hens or pelicans. When we see them depicted in art, or sung of in hymns, we make the connection and the meaning of sacrifice, strength, or motherly care is deepened through a single image.

The problem with extrapolating the image of bride and groom in everything is similar to the problem with a person who might insist that every encounter with a young sheep or a hen is sacred, and that Christians shouldn’t eat chicken or lamb.

This so-called “clash” of symbols happens when we latch on too tightly to our favorite few symbols, thereby missing more revelation about God that other symbols might give us.

On one level, it’s good enough for us to say, “I like bride-and-groom and women in habits giving Communion does nothing for me.” It’s another to suggest that all other Catholics must adhere to my particular symbols and only mine.