Combox for:
Why the Catholic Mass Can't Possibly be Idolatrous: Quick Proof
[15 December 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ossibly-
be.html
The nail in the coffin on this topic comes from the Council of Ephesus in 431:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/b...is/
ephesus.html
"Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches , and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving , as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood. For we must not think that it is flesh of a man like us (for how can the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?) but as having become truly the very own of him who for us both became and was called Son of Man. Besides, what the Gospels say our Saviour said of himself, we do not divide between two hypostases or persons."
This quote is from St Cyril and this writing of his is the OFFICIAL document (infallible declaration) of the Council of Ephesus (defending against Nestorianism).
Notice how St Cyril destroys Nestorianism, he turns to the Eucharist! And what St Cyril says should be utterly horrifying to Protestant ears:
1)In churches the "unbloody sacrifice" (Eucharist) is offered.
2)The ACTUAL LIFE-GIVING FLESH of Christ is eaten (transubstantiation without the technical language).
3)QUOTING JOHN 6 as a PROOFTEXT for the Eucharist/Real-Presence.
IF St Cyril is talking about the eucharist as a symbol then his whole argument collapses. The key here is that the Word was united to the flesh and deified the flesh. Thanks to my buddy Jay Dyer for pointing this out to me.
Dave, the way I see this quote is like that of the "liar, lunatic, or Lord" options. There is no MIDDLE ground for this Tradition and teaching of Ephesus at this most important ecumenical councils. EITHER Ephesus taught the pure and undefiled Truth or the Bishops and Church were totally deceived. St Cyril cannot be just seen as a 'good guy' at this Council, he was either preaching orthodoxy or was a damned heretic. Protestants cannot pick and choose here.
To brush off the teaching of Ephesus is nothing short of spitting in the faces of the defenders of orthodoxy in light of Nestorianism. Such blatant disregard and contempt for these beloved men is unthinkable for the Catholic mind.
Superb . . . thanks!
Even so, I've debated Calvinists on the question of Cyril's eucharistic views:
John Calvin and St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Comparative Eucharistic Theology
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
jerusalem.html
Reply to Joel Garver and Kevin Johnson on Calvin's Eucharistic Theology Compared to St. Cyril of Jerusalem's and the Fathers (Generally-Speaking)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...johnson-
on.html
"a matter of the heart and interior disposition."
Are you saying that *intent* is a necessary precondition for all sin? Or just explicit idolatry (not in the sense of all sin being a form of idolatry but actual deity worship)? If the former, are you then saying there is no such thing as involuntary sin or sin done in ignorance?
It seems you are saying that even if transubstantiation was false (that is what step 5a should have been in the anti-catholic logic), and RCs really were (unknowingly) adoring the elements, that there would still be no sin being committed at all there and no culpability. You could say no mortal sin, as there was not full knowledge/consent, but to say no sin at all seems odd.
Are you saying that *intent* is a necessary precondition for all sin?
No.
Or just explicit idolatry (not in the sense of all sin being a form of idolatry but actual deity worship)?
Idolatry seems to me to be a conscious act by nature or definition, yes. We're being accused of substituting bread and wine as idols for the living God.
If the former, are you then saying there is no such thing as involuntary sin or sin done in ignorance?
No. But I already stated that I think virtually no Catholic who knows anything at all about his faith would be stupid enough to consciously worship what he believes is still just a piece of bread.
It seems you are saying that even if transubstantiation was false (that is what step 5a should have been in the anti-catholic logic), and RCs really were (unknowingly) adoring the elements, that there would still be no sin being committed at all there and no culpability.
It would not be idolatry, per my argument. It may be a mistaken worship, but it is still quite pious and non-idolatrous, just as we would say that Lutheran or Anglican worship is pious and well-intentioned, but in fact lacks the Real Presence (due to ordination and apostolic succession issues). It's not idolatrous: only mistaken as to the metaphysics.
You could say no mortal sin, as there was not full knowledge/consent, but to say no sin at all seems odd.
Where is the sin in worshiping Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and Redeemer: God the Son?
We think He is truly present in the consecrated elements. So did Luther. If we are idolaters, so is he. Luther was even known to bow in adoration.
To brush off the teaching of Ephesus is nothing short of spitting in the faces of the defenders of orthodoxy in light of Nestorianism. Such blatant disregard and contempt for these beloved men is unthinkable for the Catholic mind.
It is certainly unthinkable for the Catholic mind, but you also have to keep in mind that if these folks were thinking with the Catholic mind, then we wouldn't even be having these arguments! The problem is that people don't understand what is at stake with Nestorianism. St. Cyril did, but the honest truth is that Nestorianism is often viewed as not being a big deal, just a misunderstanding with Nestorius saying something that was basically orthodox in a confusing way. They don't realize that Nestorius's position is really antithetical to Cyril's. It wasn't a failure of understanding but a correct understanding of the implications that Nestorius himself didn't realize that caused Cyril to abhor Nestorius's position. While Nestorius didn't appreciate it, what he was saying entailed an absolute denial that Christ was capable of saving us, period. There is good evidence that Nestorius himself didn't understand that to his dying day, so one can understand why Protestants can be confused about it. But appealing to the authority of Ephesus won't solve that problem, because they will simply say (as Nestorius did) that their position is an orthodox one that is misunderstood by the Fathers at Ephesus. Harold O.J. Brown, a church historian with much respect among Evangelicals, fell into that pit, and lots of people followed him into it.
I recommend that you take a look at my dialogue with Eric Svendsen to see just how lost people can be:
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot....-
catholics.html
Thank you Jonathan.
Christology as a whole is not given much thought/emphasis in Protestantism. That is not to say they have no use for it, but rather they don't have the teachings of the early Ecumenical Councils as the foundation for their theology.
I'll read your link, but I have heard Svendsen is big on denying Ephesus and Mary as "Mother of God." Ever since Svendsen put his career on the line with this Mat 1:25 thesis and was thoroughly refuted a few years back I havn't seen much of him.
Look at the this Jonathan that was said at the same council. I dont see how protestism can get around the clear teaching in the Fathers that this is the Faith.
Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present....Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church."
Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431),in GILES,252
Thank you, Jerry.
Jonathan,
I read some of your Svendson stuff, but there was just too much (and too painful). He basically admitted defeat and committed intellectual suicide when he openly and unashamedly brushed off the Ecumencial Councils as if they were of the same value as yesterday's newspaper. He doesn't really understand Nestorianism, not even the basics, and went spouting off some pretty absurd and heretical stuff. It is astonishing to me someone can hold such a high degree in Christian teaching, even if it is limited to a specific field, and not know such basic theology. I like the NesToRian ministries gag.
I about fell out of my chair when I read what Svendson said later on: "In fact, Nestorius was much more orthodox than Cyril."
This is pure desperation, tossing aside any rational thought, to 'win' this argument. He clearly doesn't know what the heck he is really saying, highlighting the serious danger of Sola Scriptura's self-appointing authority principle where any layman can self-appoint themself into a pastoral position. There is no talking/discussing with this type of person, at least where he is at at that point in his theology (I'm not sure he ever changed, esp with the humiliation that it would carry).
I also got pretty sidetracked onto a bunch of your other posts. One that caught my attention was the topic of the "grammatico-historical method." I'm not exactly sure what that is and why you are opposed to it, I'd like to know more.
I know that as a Protestant I tended to withdraw from such discussions. Since I believed in the bible alone it didn't seem like there was much point unless you could draw clear lines back to scripture. Once the discussion got into deep water it seemed like there was no way to know who was right. So you punt and figure that God never meant us to know these things because he didn't put it in the bible.
This is why my interest in theology was re-energized when I became Catholic. Humans love to contemplate and discover truth. Sola Scriptura limited that to clear biblical truth. That was actually getting smaller all the time as more and more things were questioned. A body of truth that is growing, developing, and deepening is much more exciting.
Commenting by HaloScan
