Hygine: Thats why we now take the Eucharist in our hands and have 300 sip from one cup with me at the end of the line getting more backwash than Blood.
And that's one reason I rarely receive the cup, even if it is available.
Oddly enough, my "low church" Protestant reading of this passage would conclude the same thing: both the act of eating the bread and the act of drinking the wine each constitute being "guilty of the body and blood of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" if done in an "unworthy manner." Of course, I see the context as being that each "species" represents one's union with other believers provided by the sacrifice of Christ. We are "one body" in Christ, and this is what we represent (and do) when we come together in eucharistic communion. The context of this passage is Paul's chastizing of the Corinthians for divisions within the body of Christ (the church), so believers who are in strife with others yet partake in the communion meal are mocking the Lord and his sacrifice which enacts our communion together with Him as our head. This mocking engenders the condemnation of God, including sickness and death (not unlike Ananias and Sapphira contemning our Lord by holding back money for his body, the church, and receiving death).
Of course, Dave reads this passage in accord with Roman Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, and that's perfectly understandable; but, I thought I'd offer an "Evangelical" reading of the passage for those interested.
In the chapter previous to the one Dave quoted Paul says, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" (I Cor 10:16) Paul specifically relates the "cup" to the blood and the bread to the body. And Matt 26:26-28 says, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Matt 26:26-2
Why would Jesus and Paul both make a direct connection and distinction between the cup and blood and the bread and body if bread really represents both? Or why would Jesus command us to eat AND drink in remembrance of Him if eating alone was enough? I believe that the cup and bread represent the blood and body and aren't actually the blood and body of Christ, but both Jesus and Paul told us to both eat and drink in remembrance of what Jesus did for us. Why not obey their command?
Our church fills tiny, plastic cups and hands them out to the congregation. Isn't that a good alternative to the one cup that 300 people drink from? What do y'all think?
Yeah, I agree in large part with Grubb. I think there's a further problem with Dave's exegetical work here. Paul is saying that in each case (the eating of the bread/body or the drinking of the wine/blood), the profaning of the body and blood takes place because in each instance the covenantal sacrifice of Christ (i.e., the giving of both his body and blood) is represented (and, for Catholics, actually there). However, this does not mean that the communion was ever given with only the reception of one element (bread or wine). In other words, there's no "biblical evidence for the distribution of one species in Holy Communion," as the title of this post claims. I think it would be inconceivable for Paul (or any other apostolic father) that the faithful only receive the bread (or just the wine, for that matter).
As for hygiene, I think the use of little cups is actually a good idea -- as long as it is wine, not grape juice!
Catholics are not legalists regarding the sacraments. Thus, we do not need "Biblical Evidence" to change this or that, nor should the faithful require it. The ordinary authority of the Church surely extends to the practice of the sacraments. Her decisions might not always be prudent, but they are always valid. When Jesus gave the keys to the apostles and promised them that what they bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, he basically meant that he would honor however the apostles chose to govern the sacramental system that he left them with.
I've never understood certain Protestant sects who insist that baptism has no actual power, but then insist that the water absolutely has to be cool and free-flowing, and the person has to be immersed. It's bizarre, but I suppose it is logical, because they do not claim to have any authority, so they must be very worried about "doing it wrong", even though they believe nothing really happens. (then they use grape juice instead of wine, and my theory is shot)
Grubb said: In the chapter previous to the one Dave quoted Paul says, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" (I Cor 10:16) Paul specifically relates the "cup" to the blood and the bread to the body.
Correct. The Host is the sign of His Body, the Chalice is the sign of His Precious Blood.
And Matt 26:26-28 says, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Matt 26:26-28 )
Yes, here the Lord institutes the sacrament of the Eucharist, declaring that the consecrated bread is His Body and the blessed chalice is His Blood.
Why would Jesus and Paul both make a direct connection and distinction between the cup and blood and the bread and body if bread really represents both?
Jesus didn't say the bread "represents" anything. He said it IS something, namely, His Body.
Anyway, Dave is not arguing that the Host is the sign of both Christ's Body and Christ's Blood. He is arguing that when we receive Communion in either kind, we are receiving Jesus -- not part of Jesus, not just His flesh, not just His blood, but ALL of Him. The Host is the sign of His Body, but the Host is Jesus whole and entire -- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The Chalice is the sign of His Blood, but the Chalice is Jesus whole and entire -- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The Host is not the sign of His Body and Blood. The Chalice is not the sign of His Blood and Body. The Host is the sign of His Body, the Chalice is the sign of His Blood, but the Eucharist is Jesus whole and entire.
Or why would Jesus command us to eat AND drink in remembrance of Him if eating alone was enough?
When you go to a banquet, you don't have to sample each and every dish to say you have eaten at the banquet. Others at the banquet can eat something that you do not eat, and you can eat something that they do not eat. At every Eucharist, both the Host and the Chalice of His Blood are consumed -- there is never a Mass in which one or the other Eucharistic species is left unconsumed. But there is no obligation that everyone receive Communion under both kinds. Indeed, some are physically incapable of receiving the Host, due to gluten allergies. When they receive from the Chalice and do not receive the Host, they are receiving Communion as Jesus commanded.
By the way, have you ever noticed that it is only the apostles whom Jesus commanded to take and eat, take and drink?
I believe that the cup and bread represent the blood and body and aren't actually the blood and body of Christ,
That's a topic for another da
I believe that the cup and bread represent the blood and body and aren't actually the blood and body of Christ,
That's a topic for another day, not relevant to the question at hand, which is whether or not the Bible's teachings permit a Christian to receive Communion under one kind, or rather require the reception under both kinds.
but both Jesus and Paul told us to both eat and drink in remembrance of what Jesus did for us. Why not obey their command?
Yes, both Jesus and St. Paul told us to both eat and drink. But that doesn't mean we all must always eat AND drink every time we go to Communion. As long as there is both eating and drinking going on during the Eucharist, Christ's commandment is fulfilled.
Our church fills tiny, plastic cups and hands them out to the congregation. Isn't that a good alternative to the one cup that 300 people drink from? What do y'all think?
That would be fine, if the Eucharist were not really a sacramental encounter with Jesus. But if the Eucharist is really Jesus and not just a typological shadow, then multiplying cups increases the likelihood of accidental spillage and sacrilege. The fewer cups the better.
Kevin D. said: However, this does not mean that the communion was ever given with only the reception of one element (bread or wine). In other words, there's no "biblical evidence for the distribution of one species in Holy Communion," as the title of this post claims. I think it would be inconceivable for Paul (or any other apostolic father) that the faithful only receive the bread (or just the wine, for that matter).
It is quite possible that in St. Paul's day, the usual practice was Communion under both kinds. But that doesn't weaken Dave's argument in the least. Dave isn't making and argument about what was actually done back in the days of the apostles. He is making an argument about what the Bible authorises and permits.
Our church fills tiny, plastic cups and hands them out to the congregation. Isn't that a good alternative to the one cup that 300 people drink from? What do y'all think?
Hi Grubb,
Why would Jesus and Paul both make a direct connection and distinction between the cup and blood and the bread and body if bread really represents both?
Because one must distinguish between symbol or sign, as Jordan aptly put it, and metaphysics or essence. That's why I wrote, "The 'division' is only symbolic or conceptual (with the cup representing blood)." Then I went on to the "supernatural metaphysics" of transubstantiation.
Or why would Jesus command us to eat AND drink in remembrance of Him if eating alone was enough?
To do that is fine. But to partake of one is also fine.
I believe that the cup and bread represent the blood and body and aren't actually the blood and body of Christ,
Then obviously the notion that God cannot be divided would have no relevance to you pertaining to this question. With your view, it would indeed make less sense, but you have to take into account the premise of our theology to understand why we would argue in this way.
but both Jesus and Paul told us to both eat and drink in remembrance of what Jesus did for us. Why not obey their command?
We do, but it is not required every time. No one has yet overcome the straightforward biblical argument I gave. Reality vs. symbolism is a separate argument, but the Bible clearly teaches in that passage that either species becomes the Body and Blood. You can't overcome the logic of the plain Scripture verse; you can only
redefine the Eucharist altogether as symbolic, contrary to all the Fathers of the Church (and I would say, Jesus and Paul).
problem with hygiene could be eliminated very easily. Every time I received under both species, we didn't drink directly from the cup, but priest dipped the host in the wine and put it on our tongues. Once I was recieving at the byzantine rite mass, and we received the bread already dipped in the wine.
So "hygiene" is very weak excuse for not distributing both species. There must be another reason for that.
Dave isn't making and argument about what was actually done back in the days of the apostles.
Okay, fine. Then Dave needs to better select the titles for his posts. Further, it can very well be the case (given Catholic views on substantial change) that each species fully contains all of Christ, and thus nothing of Christ is received in one and not the other. However, this does not mean that the intention of Christ was that only one species be received by the faithful. This is a separate point that would need to be argued.
Finally, an explanation of that RCC practice.
Seems silly and illogical and un-biblical with lots of mental gymnastics over the word "or". Goofy!
At the last supper in Matthew 26 and Luke 22, Jesus is standing there in His physical body, so "this is My body" and "this is My blood" surely means, "these things represent My body and blood".
And he gives both the cup (wine or grape juice; doesn't matter) and the bread to all the disciples.
Further proof of RCC bad exegesis.
Grubb is right; for large groups, just put in in little plastic cups, etc.
Your view actually seems to divide Jesus by not allowing the believer to partake of all of Him in the same way the original disciples did -- spiritual communion.
lol. You are funny Ken.
That last sentence reminds me of the of something, an old heretical sect used to argue against the Church. I just cant remember which one.
Dear Ken,
Your view actually seems to divide Jesus by not allowing the believer to partake of all of Him in the same way the original disciples did -- spiritual communion.
If I partake of something I take a part of it, not all of it? How can you 'partake' of 'all'?
continued
How can you partake of all of Him? To say that you partake of ALL of Him doesn't make sense.
We catholics take ALL of Him; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. We catholics have ALL of Him. We don't partake.
In Christ
Then Dave needs to better select the titles for his posts.
No, Kevin needs to understand the meaning of the titles I give. If you've followed this blog much at all (and note its title) then you know that I often use the phrase "biblical evidence". That is a big theme of mine. It derived originally from Josh McDowell: "Evidence That Demands a Verdict."
So, now, in the present post title: "Biblical Evidence for the Distribution of One Species in Holy Communion," does this necessarily imply that I was arguing that this was the practice and norm in the early Church. No.
What I intended by the title and the post was to show that there is biblical rationale and indication of distribution of one species only, by virtue of the premise of Jesus being entirely present in either species having been taught by St. Paul.
Doctrines develop. We shouldn't expect to see absolutely every jot and tittle of every doctrine and practice in Scripture. There is very little about, e.g., original sin or the Virgin Birth. Original sin isn't even included in the Nicene Creed, and the Fathers talk far more about purgatory than original sin.
Other doctrines are only taught by deduction and indirect indication (such as the Two Natures of Christ). They aren't laid out explicitly in Scripture.
Infant baptism would be another example. It is the majority position of Christianity, but it isn't explicitly laid out in Holy Scripture.
As one example of many that could be produced of implicit Scripture indication, how about Church buildings? As far as I know, these aren't mentioned in the New Testament. The early Christians continued to worship at the Temple, and in their own homes. So why do we have our own church buildings when it is not a NT concept?
Well (as in the present case) it is a straightforward deduction from what we know. One could argue it as follows:
"Biblical Evidence for Church Buildings"
1) The Jews, from whom Christianity derived, worshiped in synagogues.
2) The Jews, from whom Christianity derived, worshiped in the Temple.
3) The early Christians worshiped in their homes, and clandestinely in caves or catacombs, as the case may be.
4) These are not buildings expressly constructed for Christian worship.
5) However, it stands to reason (by analogy) that Christians, whose belief-system developed from Judaism, would also eventually (especially after official persecution ceased) have buildings of worship, just as the Jews did.
6) Therefore, deductively and analogically, the Bible sanctions Christian church buildings, and the "biblical evidence" for same is the above.
Something else just occurred to me.
If Protestants are so big on a symbolic Eucharist only (a la Zwingli and the Anabaptists), and a bare remembrance, then they get that at every Mass, since the priest always consecrates both bread and wine.
In other words, if the thing is simply to meditate and remember (an abstract concept in one's head), then anyone at Mass can do that during the consecration (when the priest raises the bread and the cup and they transform by the miracle of transubstantiation into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ).
Follow the (erroneous) reasoning for a second: it's only symbolic. We're remembering only. It's merely an abstract, non-physical thing, not concrete and real. Therefore, why does it matter if we partake of only one species? Why does it particularly matter at all if we receive anything, since it is only symbolic?
The mere ritual of drinking some grape juice (itself implemented only due to the temperance movement of the 19th century and not biblical at all, since wine was used in the biblical Eucharist) and taking some leavened bread (in the Bible it was unleavened in the Passover: the precursor to the Eucharist) does not make a thing any more real if it is only symbolic in the first place. One can just as well think about Jesus in their heads and receive the same spiritual benefit.
If a Protestant receives because he is commanded to, yet Jesus is not there, is this not an empty ritual, as opposed to Protestant spirituality as much as any of the many rituals of Catholicism that are so despised? What good is it if Jesus isn't there? A sacrament conveys something real.
Perhaps this explains why the Eucharist is obviously of only secondary importance in much of Protestant worship (in Reformed circles it is often performed only once a month, or even quarterly). If it were so supremely important, then why wouldn't it be every week? Instead, Protestants will place a mere sermon by a man in the place of central importance in their worship.
If they were so extremely concerned about being "biblical," then they would have the Eucharist every time they met to worship, since that is what the Bible teaches us about what the early Christians did (Acts 20:7 and implied in 1 Cor 10:14-22).
So we see that Protestants (many, anyway) are unbiblical in many respects:
1) They don't receive the Eucharist every Sunday, as the Bible says early Christians did.
2) They don't use wine, which is the biblical norm.
3) They don't use unleavened bread, which was the norm in the Passover, in the context of which Jesus instituted the Eucharist.
4) They don't believe Jesus is substantially, physically present, as Jesus and Paul repeatedly taught (and the fathers, unanimously).
5) Thus, receiving Holy Communion becomes an empty ritual of the sort that is routinely condemned in Catholicism, since Jesus isn't there in the first place, and the ritual has become devoid of all meaning and power. If someone wants to meditate on Jesus' death, they can do it anywhere and at any time. Why go to church to do it?
6) Protestants (in non-eucharistic services) place the mere homilies of a man (often centered on unbiblical traditions of men, to the extent that various false doctrines of Protestantism are promulgated) in the central place in the worship service, rather than Jesus Christ coming to us in the Holy Eucharist. And they claim that WE are so man-centered?
7) Some Protestants are so unsacramental and unbiblical that they do not believe in either the Eucharist or baptism (Salvation Army and Quakers).
I hasten to note that there are Protestants who have the Eucharist every week: e.g., Lutherans and Anglicans.
Dave,
I'm not a strict "biblicist" who believes if it is not in scripture, then it is not allowed -- and no one here is arguing for this. However, just because the Bible does not condemn such-and-such explicitly, does not mean that the Bible "sanctions" such-and-such. You need positive arguments for the practice of receiving just the bread -- just because you receive all of Christ in the bread is not an argument for why you can obstain from the wine. Afterall: "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you" (Mt. 26:27). It seems odd that Jesus would institute this sacrament and give both the bread and wine to be eaten and drunk, yet he presumably would be fine if some of them just ate the bread!? We receive both the bread and wine just as he gave both his body and poured out his blood.
Dave,
First, the switch to grape juice was a stupid idea (of course, this was pretty much an Anglo-American phenomenon among low church Protestants), and I am ashamed of its stupidity (but there's much worse scandalous things done by the RCC, and all Protestants as well).
As for weekly communion, I agree. However, the Acts 20:7 passage is not a mandate to do the eucharist on every Sunday, and the 1 Cor. 10:14-22 passage "implies" neither the practice nor the mandate of such.
As for your main objection, Protestants do not believe the eucharist to be merely a symbol to be observed. As I stated in my first comment, "We are 'one body' in Christ, and this is what we represent (and do) when we come together in eucharistic communion." In other words, the doing of communion is decisive, so much so that the receiving of the bread and wine (as it represents the enacting of our communion together with Christ) in an unworthy manner (being in strife with fellow believers) is grounds for condemnation. Once again, all this is in my first comment on this thread. Furthermore, most Protestants, including the "low church," do believe that graces are conferred in the sacraments, so it is not strictly memorialist, even if they don't believe in a localized presence of Christ in the elements themselves.
And the unleavened bread statements are amusing, since the East uses leavened bread and Rome considers E.O. eucharists as valid. And, by the way, most Protestants use unleavened bread anyway (including the Baptist church I was raised in).
Dave, you're painting with an overly large brush now.
I've only read about Protestants using unleavened bread. I've never seen it or heard of it. Obviously, the host should call to mind the heavenly manna, which was flour and oil, ie. unleavened. In any case, as Kevin mentioned, leavened bread is still valid, just not legal.
One must keep in mind in all of this that the distribution of the elements is not the main reason we celebrate Communion, or at least, it's half the reason. We also participate in the unbloody presentation of the Christ's sacrafice to the Father, which is, as I believe Pope Pius X said, the highest form of worship a Christian can offer. And there can be no doubt that both bread and wine are always used then.
And also, the priest often acts and speaks on the behalf of the people during the Mass and the priest always takes the bread and wine, so in a sense, the laity do always receive the wine, just sometimes the priest drinks it on their behalf.
Claven said: Dave, you're painting with an overly large brush now.
No he's not. In each of the cases Dave cites, you can find large numbers of Protestants who do what he says they do.
I've only read about Protestants using unleavened bread. I've never seen it or heard of it.
I've seen and heard of Protestants using both unleavened bread and leavened bread. One church in my town actually started using Saltine crackers. Before my conversion, I belonged to a sect that used only Jewish Passover matzot.
Obviously, the host should call to mind the heavenly manna, which was flour and oil, ie. unleavened. In any case, as Kevin mentioned, leavened bread is still valid, just not legal.
On the contrary, leavened bread is quite legal -- in the Eastern Catholic Churches. In fact, in the Eastern Churches, not only is leavened bread legal, but unleavened bread is illegal.
Kevin D. said: It seems odd that Jesus would institute this sacrament and give both the bread and wine to be eaten and drunk, yet he presumably would be fine if some of them just ate the bread!?
He only commanded the apostles to "take and drink all of you." He never gave that command to His other disciples.
Anyway, is it really your contention that Jesus requires people with gluten allergies to receive the Host even though it will make them gravely ill?
We need to keep in mind the biblical use of the word "all." It doesn't mean literally, numerically "all." St. Paul said "all have sinned." Protestants admit that Jesus is exempt, and Catholics says Mary also is exempt from "all have sinned." St. Paul said, "It is appointed unto all men once to die," and yet the Bible speaks of Enoch and Elijah being assumed into heaven deathlessly.
4) They don't believe Jesus is substantially, physically present, as Jesus and Paul repeatedly taught (and the fathers, unanimously).
Jesus and Paul definitely did not teach this.
Augustine wrote: "believe and you have already eaten."
I am wondering at that moment when he was still in His earthly existence, at The Last Supper, ,was it His blood in the cup, His body in the bread?
Did transubstantiation take place I wonder?
He hadn't been crucified yet. So that was symbolic?
In Christ
Anyway, is it really your contention that Jesus requires people with gluten allergies to receive the Host even though it will make them gravely ill?
Of course not. We're all familiar with the distinction between norms and exceptions; those with such allergies (or some other legitimate reason) can be exempt from the bread or wine, but the norm stands for all others. Ask a Catholic about salvation outside the Church, and you'll see this use of "normativity" readily at play.
James Morris,
If you keep up with this sort of questioning, you may actually realize that the whole attempt to define Real Presence, especially according to "Transubstantiation," is nonsensical.
As this article shows, the Catholic Church does allow low-gluten hosts and and mustum to be substituted when medically necessary: http://www.saint-mike.org/
Librar...lutenBread.html.
As far as whether "transubstantiation" is nonsensical, one must understand that it is just a word to explain what Catholics believe when it comes to the Real Presence. We are talking about a miracle here, something that we refer to as a "Sacred Mystery". I believe in it because Christ says, "This is My Body" and my Church, established by Christ Himself proclaims that is what those words mean. The notion that Catholics dreamed up the "nonsensical" doctrine of transubstantiation in 1215 is like saying that giraffes didn't exist when God created them, but only after Adam named them in Genesis.
The truth of the matter is this~Protestants object to the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence, not because it is against the plain word of Scripture, but because it seems to go against reason and common sense. Then again, the notion of God becoming man, suffering and dying on a cross for the sins of His creation seems nonsensical, too, if one is going to use that as the defining criterion of doctrinal belief.
If reason and sense are the criteria for the validity of a doctrine, why didn't our all-powerful, sovereign God just "snap" his fingers (figuratively of course) and just fix things? Why go through the charade of dying on the cross? Why did God have to die on the cross for the sins of man? Why not just impute forgiveness to man without all that incarnation, suffering and dying part? If you believe what Protestants believe, making God out to be some sort of glorified accountant, God could have divined up a really big eraser and "cooked the books" up there in heaven when doing all that reckoning. For that matter, why even have a Bible at all. Why not fix things without going through all this rigamorale of covenants, revelation, sacrifice and all that sort of nonsensical twaddle. If God predestined the fate of each individual person, having a Bible makes no sense. In my mind, having a Bible only makes sense if man has some level of free will to accept what it says (another topic for another day). Heck, if God is truly God, why did He even allow His creation to be marred by sin at all? To the disbeliever, it all seems "nonsensical".
Of course, as Christians, we do not believe that these things are nonsensical twaddle. We take it on faith that God became man, suffered and died on the cross because it was part of His design for His own inestimable purposes, just as a Catholic, I believe that God gave us the sacraments as His means to confer grace. It comes down to this. Once one begins down the slippery slope of skepticism, one tends not to stop sliding until one gets all the way to the bottom and once there, there is no point in believing in anything at all.
Well said, Paul. Anyone who can believe in the Incarnation should have no trouble at all believing in transubstantion, which is a far less wonderful work of God than the Incarnation.
Believing in "transubstantiation," that is.
James said: I am wondering at that moment when he was still in His earthly existence, at The Last Supper, was it His blood in the cup, His body in the bread?
That is what I have been taught that the Church says -- the bread and wine were transubstantiated at the Last Supper into His glorified Body and Blood. Yes, even before the resurrection (remember the Transfiguration, where the disciples saw Jesus in the glory of His Kingdom, though He had not yet suffered, dead, and rose again). It is no more difficult for Jesus to hold His sacramental presence in His hands than it is for the Logos to be made flesh and set up His tabernacle in our midst.
Thank you for clarifying Jordan. And, of course, The Transfuguration. Yes, I understand. I just wanted to know.
In Christ
James Morris,
If you keep up with this sort of questioning, you may actually realize that the whole attempt to define Real Presence, especially according to "Transubstantiation," is nonsensical.
I am trying to think of a quote. As a riposte to the above.
'I.........in order to believe, I believe in order to........ understand is it?' Does anyone know that quote?
In Christ
The gist of it is anyway would be I question to more deeply understand my belief , not out of a spirit of skepticism
Not exactly what I intended to say....I need that quote
In Christ
Good points, Jordan. And thank you for the correction regarding my misconceptions about leavened hosts. I cede your points.
One could make just as much a mockery of the Incarnation, if one were so inclined. For example, one could joke "When Jesus got a haircut, were pieces of God strewn about the barbershop floor?" It's easy to make a joke and hard to answer every joker.
And yet, Jesus makes Transubstantiation much more clear and undeniable than he does the Incarnation, for all some might deny this fact. For instance, he said "This is my body" but never something as clear as "I am God". He said "If you don't eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have not life in you." but never "If you don't believe I'm God, you're going to Hell."
Furthermore, if Jesus were to have said "I am God", as plain as day, would anyone interpret him as meaning "I represent God" or "I cause you to think of God"? Of course not - we'd take him at his word. Bill Clinton aside, we all know what the word "is" means. So why not when he says "This is my body"?
James:
St.Augustine: "Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."
James,
Upon reflection, my comment about "nonsensical" was snide. Of course, I do think it is nonsensical, but it was not a constructive remark.
Clavem (and everyone),
Do you really believe that the "is" in the "This is my body" settles it? It baffles me when Catholics say, "Oh, but Jesus said the bread is his body, so what's the problem?" Then listen to the explanation of what this "is" is: "Well, the host retains all of its physico-chemical properties, i.e. that which makes it bread, but it is no longer bread...truly bread...even though it retains everything that bread has...oh except its "substance" which is not all that stuff that makes it bread but something else...invisible...and now, instead of the substance of the bread, is the body of Christ...well, actually all of Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity...but not his physical, carnal body, but the "substance" of this body...and it is "located" in the elements but not like a thing is located in a place...or something like that." Sure. I'll stick with, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" (John 6:63).
Sure. I'll stick with, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" (John 6:63).
Than I am most anxious to hear how you would reply to the following, from Bertrand Conway, a catholic apologist (I cited this in Biblical Defense):
------------
The words flesh and spirit, when opposed to each other in the New Testament, never mean literal and figurative, but always the corrupted dispositions of sinful human nature (flesh) contrasted with human nature enriched by the grace of God (spirit) . . . 29 Christ's meaning, therefore, is clear: My words are such as the mere carnal man cannot receive, but only the man endowed with grace. St. Chrysostom says: "Why, therefore did He say: The flesh profiteth nothing? Not of His flesh does He mean this. Far from it; but of those who would understand what He said in a carnal sense . . . You see, there is question not of His flesh, but of the fleshly way of hearing" (In Joan., 47, 2).30
29 See Mt 26:41, Rom 7:5-6,25, 8:1-14, 1 Cor 5:5, 2 Cor 7:1, Gal 3:3, 4:29, 5:13-26, 1 Pet 3:18, 4:6.
From: The Question Box, New York: Paulist Press, 1929, 248-249, 251.
"Well, the host retains all of its physico-chemical properties, i.e. that which makes it bread, but it is no longer bread...truly bread...even though it retains everything that bread has...
That doesn't even remotely resemble what Catholics say and believe about the Real Presence. Anyway, your words are philosophical gibberish. "Physico-chemical properties of bread" are NOT that which makes it bread. Those are accidents, not substance. It does not retain everything that bread has, as the substance of the bread is not there.
oh except its "substance" which is not all that stuff that makes it bread but something else...invisible...
Actually the substance IS all that stuff that makes it bread. The accidents of bread aren't what make it bread, anymore than the physical and chemical properties of your human body are what make you "you," or what make you a human person.
and now, instead of the substance of the bread, is the body of Christ...well, actually all of Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity...but not his physical, carnal body, but the "substance" of this body...
If it is the substance of His flesh, then it IS His flesh, even though the accidents of His flesh is not accessible to the human senses.
and it is "located" in the elements but not like a thing is located in a place...or something like that."
No, it is not "located" in the elements. The Real Presence is not a locally circumscribed presence.
I'll stick with, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" (John 6:63).
Jesus spoke those words because many of His disciples could not or would not believe what He was teaching about the Real Presence. Those who look at this matter in a fleshly way, as you are -- thinking the reality of a thing is in its passing accidents rather than its substance -- are the ones who need to hear what Jesus said.
Hello Kevin, It is always interesting to see how one goes about picking and choosing which articles of faith to believe in. Here you wish to deny the explicit meaning of the Word of God in favor of your personal prejudice (N.B. this is not meant in a polemic sense). What is it about the Gospel that fills you with such skepticism? Do you believe that God is not capable of such a miracle as the Eucharist? Isn't it easier to believe in miracle of the sacrament of the Eucharist than the notion of the Trinity, Three Persons in One God (which I also believe in)?
Should our faith be limited by the superficiality of our senses? Example: When Jesus said that where two or three are gathered in His name, there He would be in the midst of them (Mt. 18:20), was He talking metaphorically, allegorically or actually? When you gather with two or three other Christians in His name, do you not believe that Jesus is actually there with you despite the fact your senses do not perceive Him there? When Catholics gather for the celebration of the Mass, we believe that Jesus comes more fully, more truly into our midst through the Eucharist.
As for "bafflement", I find that the fact that I am not able to fully perceive the reality and truth of God's Word is not an hinderance to my faith, but instead, it serves as the beginning of my faith. True faith is believing that something is true even though it can't be proven or even fully understood.
BTW, since seeing is believing for you, you might want to read "Eucharistic Miracles" by Joan Carroll Cruz published by TAN Books, 1987. It comes with plenty of photos to satisfy even a doubting Thomas to help overcome his unbelief.
BTW Dave, to expand further on one of your posts above, there is no place in the OT or NT which states that we should worship on Sunday instead of the Sabbath which is Saturday. So Sunday worship is not biblical either, but most Protestants worship on Sunday just like Catholics do.
Kevin:
I believe the best and simplest way to explain it is to say that the host turns into a new object which is God but looks and tastes like bread. (Zero metaphysics!) A child can understand that (and they often do, better than adults)
You mock but can you explain your own beliefs regarding an invisible soul and hosts of invisible angels up in Heaven, which is not a location, but a spiritual place, with God who is actually three persons. I don't think you or anyone can explain these things with less conceptual complexity than the explanation of transubstantiation I gave above.
Dave,
I do recognize the NT usage of "fleshly" subjectivity, i.e. a fallen vision and a fallen will. I believe the objections to Jesus' discourse in John 6 are twofold: those who objected to the carnality perceived in Jesus' statements and those who objected to his rather strong messianic and divine claims in such statements. Even if you believe the first objection is the only one operative in John 6, it is still a failure to perceive Jesus' teachings in a "spiritual" manner, i.e., that he is giving spirit and life. In other words, to take his words to indicate that he means to give his actual body and blood for food and drink is an error by which many disciples used as an excuse for departing from him. Jesus does not correct them but lets them go their own way, for they were lacking trust/faith in Christ and subject to a sinful, non-spiritual vision. For those who surely did not fully understand but trusted Christ and stayed, he explains, "It is the Spirit who gives life...."
Jordan,
Actually the substance IS all that stuff that makes it bread. The accidents of bread aren't what make it bread....
Well, at some deep metaphysical level it may be what makes it bread, but Catholic theologians recognize that at the physical level, all that makes the bread bread remains, such that a microscope could analyze a consecrated host and find all the requisite properties to make it bread as a non-consecrated host. My description of RC eucharistic change was accurate; trust me, I think it is "philosophical gibberish" too.
Paul,
I especially appreciate your comments here. It is very true that I/we have to be careful that it is not our own prejudices and fallen desires that obstruct us from receiving truth. However, I do not find Catholic explications of eucharistic bodily presence to be "explicit" in the gospels nor my lack of belief in this regard due to a sinful, fleshly disposition. As for the full deity of Jesus Christ and his sending of the Holy Spirit for our conversion and entrance into the new creation, and the Father to which the Son is in obedience unto death -- this is my faith -- my faith is nothing else. It is life and death to me. The physics/metaphysics of the eucharist is not.
Clavem,
Your "childlike" simplification of eucharistic change is certainly how I would go about it, if I felt committed to believe that God is there after the consecration (indeed, if I were Roman Catholic I would be committed to such). However, the RCC has committed itself to at least some metaphysics; e.g., that the entirety of the bread is Christ such that Luther, who believed in the "is" literally as much as Catholics, is condemned for not holding to a "transubstantiation" that says no bread remains (except the accidents, of course). As for my beliefs in an invisible soul, the alternative is a materialism and physical determinism wholly incapatible with the Christian confession in an immortal and redeemed
My post got cut off. Here's the rest:
As for my beliefs in an invisible soul, the alternative is a materialism and physical determinism wholly incapatible with the Christian confession in an immortal and redeemed soul to be, in the eschaton, united with a new body. Of course, I cannot "explain it" (ditto for angels and the Trinity) insofar as it is not a physical datum subject to our observation and analysis. My problem with eucharistic "substantial change" is that it is an attempt to explain, to some degree, what obviously cannot. Of couse, I do not believe that the gospels teach that the host becomes "a new object which is God," but, if I did, I think the East's refusal to say anything more about it is all you can do.
Kevin D. said: My description of RC eucharistic change was accurate; trust me, I think it is "philosophical gibberish" too.
Trust you? No thanks. As I already showed, your characterisation of Catholic doctrine regarding transubstantiation bear no resemblance to the actual Catholic doctrine. Your description is philosophical gibberish, because you have reversed accidents and substance.
My problem with eucharistic "substantial change" is that it is an attempt to explain, to some degree, what obviously cannot. Of couse, I do not believe that the gospels teach that the host becomes "a new object which is God," but, if I did, I think the East's refusal to say anything more about it is all you can do.
Are you referring to the East in which the concept of "metaousia" was and is believed?
Really, if you've got a problem with transubstantiation because it allegedly attempts to explain what cannot be explained, then you will have to reject the Nicene-Constantinopolitan definitions of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian and post-Chalcedonian definitions of the Two Natures and Two Wills. If you were to apply your approach to Christian doctrine consistently, you would have to abandon the Christian faith altogether.
In other words, to take his words to indicate that he means to give his actual body and blood for food and drink is an error by which many disciples used as an excuse for departing from him. Jesus does not correct them but lets them go their own way, for they were lacking trust/faith in Christ and subject to a sinful, non-spiritual vision.
Christ wasn't a very good teacher, then. Throughout John 6, He had numerous opportunities to clarify that He didn't really mean what it souned like He meant, but each time He reiterated what He's said, or even cranked it up a notch, using even clearer and stronger language to say that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
"Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."
Thanks Clavem.
Kevin D, maybe the above dictum applies to you?
Try this; 'take it and eat it, this is my body'
Take that statement as it is and try to believe it. Then you may understand?
In Christ,
Try this; 'take it and eat it, this is my body'
Take that statement and simply believe it. Then you may understand?
Kevin,
You believe in The Incarnation; God became a human being, was under the authority of a human being? The supreme power in the universe was helpless? Seems extreme. You believe in The Crucifixion? God died. Man killed God. Once again it seems extreme. But they are not seemingly extreme they are extreme. These things are stupendoulsy, 'unbelievably' extreme. What am I trying to say? Only what Paul Hoffer said above. That if these things are to be believed then the teaching on the Eucharist is not incongruous in such a setting. It fits. It fits because it is absolutely extreme. If Christ had said 'Take this and eat it; this is a symbolic of my body' it wouldn't have fitted. Don't you see?
In Christ
I mean it has the character of the Divine.
Dave wrote:
“The words flesh and spirit, when opposed to each other in the New Testament, never mean literal and figurative, but always the corrupted dispositions of sinful human nature (flesh) contrasted with human nature enriched by the grace of God (spirit) . . . 29
29 See Mt 26:41, Rom 7:5-6,25, 8:1-14, 1 Cor 5:5, 2 Cor 7:1, Gal 3:3, 4:29, 5:13-26, 1 Pet 3:18, 4:6.”
Better – “physical” (seen, material, outer) vs. “spiritual” (unseen, soul, mind, inner). This is the contrast in John 6:63. He is not contrasting “literal” vs. “figurative” but “physical” vs. spiritual (unseen in the Spiritual realm). The words that He spoke are not merely phonetic sounds, and so He did not mean to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, but spiritual truths; to believe in His incarnation (being the true bread that came from heaven) and His death on the cross (flesh and blood that was crucified and poured out for sin). As Augustine said, “He who believes has already eaten.” (Tractates on John 25:12)
See also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z...h?
v=ZkUlRR1pIEo
see also, Augustine, Tractates on John 50, 92, 102, 118
Furthermore, the quote you give is not always true and not all your examples prove this. Sometimes it is just “body” (physical) vs. Spirit (unseen part of man, mind, will, emotions)
Gal. 4:29 is contrasting Ishmael born in the normal, natural way, vs. Supernatural, (by the miracle of God) Isaac, and applying it to us as believers in Christ as born again by the Spirit.
Matthew 26:41 is a contrast between the weakness of the human body (needing sleep) vs. the spiritual desire to keep watch and pray (mind, emotions, desire to pray and be courageous with Jesus)
2 Cor. 7:1 seems to be saying we must cleanse ourselves of sins of the body (gluttony, sexual lusts, laziness, drunkenness, materialism) and sins of the spirit (thought sins, unseen, attitudes, pride, jealousy, un-forgiveness, hatred, anger, bitterness, etc.)
I Peter 3:18 cannot be what your definition says; because it is about Jesus – He was put to death in the flesh (body, physically), but “made alive in the Spirit”. (God cannot die Spiritually). It is a contrast between physical and Spiritual. This one is the strongest of your examples against your theory.
John 3:5-6 proves this statement(your quote) wrong. It is clearly a contrast between physical birth vs. spiritual birth. That which is born of flesh is flesh (physical, human birth), that which is born of the spirit is spirit”. (spiritual re-birth when we repent and trust Christ)
Galatians 3:3 is contrasting the Judaizers who said circumcision and obeying the law of Moses was going to “perfect” them vs. spiritual growth and life as a result of being born by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit perfects us, not our own outward physical works and ceremonies and religious duties.
I Peter 4:6 is talking about believers who have died and had the gospel preached to them in the past. They are judged as men in the flesh (died physically, we all still die physically, as God promised in Genesis); but because they had the gospel preached to them and believed, they will live in the spirit according to God.
Most of the other examples do fall into that principle that your quotes speaks of, but it is not a hard and fast rule; as you try to make it out to be. Focus on purely physical things, rather than spiritual things, leads to corruption and sin; but by itself, it just means a focus on this world, or physical or seen things; vs. unseen spiritual things.
Ephesians 6:12 “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” (human beings, each other, physical warfare) . . . but . . . “against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Augustine, Tractates (Homilies, lectures) on John, 25:12: (chapter VI, 15-24; I don’t understand the different ways they are organizing the chapters and paragraphs, etc.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
...7.iii.xxvi.html
12. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.
Matthew 26:41 is a contrast between...
Galatians 3:3 is contrasting the Judaizers...
John 3:5-6 proves....
Dear Ken,
The way you assert your position on these Bible texts one could almost say that you had an infallible understanding?
James Morris,
Using the word "is" indicates infallibility? Is that the only substantive rebuttal that you can make? "Well, you're not infallible, so there." Seriously? Protestants could say something as benign as, "Genesis 1:1 indicates that God created the universe," and Catholics would come out of the woodworks demanding, "Well are you infallible? Huh? Huh??"
It's not even a good point anymore; it's just annoying and implies that you don't want to seriously interact with the texts in question.
Nick T.
As Augustine said, “He who believes has already eaten.”
That, of course, was spoken by someone who believed that "eat my flesh, drink my blood" means the Eucharist is really Jesus and not just a symbol. Out-of-context prooftexting is bad whether you do it with the Bible or with the Fathers.
[Warning: This is the beginning of another really long comment]
To All Concerned:
RE: Does What James White Says about What St. Augustine Believed Concerning the Doctrine of Real Presence Trump What St. Augustine Himself Says He Believes About the Doctrine of the Real Presence?
Alternate Title: Is St. Augustine really an Early Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church or Merely a “Protestant” Step-Daddy?
Second Alternate Title: Does James White really believe that noone in the Catholic Church actually read the works of St. Augustine before he was made a saint and a Doctor of the Church?
While a link has been offered to Mr. White's attempt to prove that St. Augustine of Hippo did not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and bases this belief on one sentence found in one of Augustine’s Tractates (Commentary) on the Gospel of St. John taken wholly out of context, Mr. White could have saved us the trouble of forcing us to watch another of his YouTube clips had he but read Tractate XXVI on the selfsame Gospel where he would have found Augustine explaining what the sacrament of Eucharist in a Catholic Church means spiritually, and then explain how it is manifested materially. See here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
1701026.htm .
Here are a just a few snippets to leave no doubt that Augustine is talking about the sacrament of the Eucharist (but you should really read it for yourselves rather than take my word for it) :
The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord's table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord's table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof. (Tractate 26:16).
This is the bread that comes down from heaven;" that by eating it we may live, since we cannot have eternal life from ourselves. "Not," says He, "as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats this bread shall live forever." That those fathers are dead, He would have to be understood as meaning, that they do not live forever. For even they who eat Christ shall certainly die temporally; but they live forever, because Christ is eternal life. (Tractate 26:20).
Comment continued:
And lest anyone say that I am misunderstanding St. Augustine’s words here or that he is merely talking allegorically, figuratively, metaphysically, hyperbolically or comically, instead of actually, here are a few more of Augustine’s passages explaining his belief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist:
The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice . . . From St. Augustine’s City of God Chapter 10:5.
Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him. From St. Augustine’s City of God Chapter 10:20.
And in the history of the New Testament by that so great and so wonderful forbearance of our Lord; in that He bore so long with him as if good, when He was not ignorant of his thoughts; in that He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood[.] St. Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms III, trans. Philip Schaff.
“With Thee is My praise” (ver. 25). For I seek not Mine own praise, for Thou art My praise, who dwellest in the holy place; and, praise of Israel, Thou hearest The Holy One now beseeching Thee. “In the great Church I will confess Thee.” In the Church of the whole world “I will confess Thee.” “I will offer My vows in the sight of them that fear Him.” I will offer the sacraments of My Body and Blood in the sight of them that fear Him. St. Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms XXII, trans. Philip Schaff
Comment continued some more:
Because there was there a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, and afterwards He of His Own Body and Blood appointed a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedek; He changed then His Countenance in the Priesthood, and sent away the kingdom of the Jews, and came to the Gentiles. What then is, “He affected”? He was full of affection. For what is so full of affection as the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, seeing our infirmity, that He might deliver us from everlasting death, underwent temporal death with such great injury and contumely? “And He drummed:” because a drum is not made, except when a skin is extended on wood; and David drummed, to signify that Christ should be crucified. But, “He drummed upon the doors of the city:” what are “the doors of the city,” but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross hath opened the hearts of mortal men? “And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.” St. Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms XXXIV, trans, Philip Schaff.
'He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer 'Amen'. From St. Augustine’s Second Discourse on Psalm 32. Ch. 4.
But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf. From St. Augustine’s Sermons No. 172:2. (This one is a twofer-both advocacy for prayer for the dead and the belief in the Real Presence)
End of comment:
You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. From St. Augustine’s Sermons No. 227:21.
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body." From St. Augustine’s Sermons 234:2.
What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice the blood of Christ. From St. Augustine’s Sermons 272.
Nor should it be denied that the souls of the dead are supported by the piety of their loved ones who are alive when the sacrifice of the mediator is offered for them or alms are given in the Church. From St. Augustine’s The Augustine Catechism: The Enchiridon on Faith, Hope and Love 29:110, Boniface Ramsey, trans. (Another twofer).
Please also see: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
In the immortal words of Stan Lee, “‘Nuff said!”
In short, the Roman Catholic Church made St. Augustine one of its saints for a reason, the first of which was because he was a ROMAN CATHOLIC who believed and taught what the Roman Catholic Church believed and taught and what it still believes and teaches today. Argue that he was wrong, argue that he must have screwed up because he didn't know Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, argue anything, but please quit implying that Roman Catholics must be really, really, really stupid because we made him a saint and he didn't even believe in Catholic stuff.
P.S. Multiple Choice: Who would accuse Augustine of engaging in "slash and burn" apologetics in the service of "Mother Church" through his writings?
A. An Arian
B. A Donatist
C. A Manichee
D. James White
Dear Anonymous,
It's the way he asserts everything, never-'one could argue...','here is evidence to suggest...'or simply-'I believe ....'
in Christ
Adding to Paul’s already excellent post, a couple more comments from Augustine. These certainly don't sound very “Protestant.”
“Let Christ be eaten; when eaten he lives, because when slain he rose again.” - Sermon 132A:1:1, p. 329.
“He came in the flesh, in order that human beings might eat him;” - Sermon 132A:1:3, p. 329.
Translators note 3, to sermon 132A reads:
“….In fact, I recollect that in one of his writings, possibly in one of his letters, possibly in a treatise against the Pelagians, Augustine remarks that among Punic-speaking Christians (in the country districts, I suppose), the eucharist was known as ‘grace.’”
I think the translator actually meant to say “life” rather than “grace” here, unless he was thinking of a reference different from the ones which I managed to track down below.
“The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than "salvation," and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than "life." Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition…”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...thers/
15011.htm
And here, in a somewhat more modern translation:
“Punic Christians are perfectly correct in calling baptism ‘salvation’ and in calling the sacrament of Christ’s body ‘life.’ What is their basis for doing this, if it is not, as I believe, the ancient and apostolic tradition?”
Source: Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century, (1997), I/23, Answer to the Pelagians, Book One, Ch. 34 (24), p. 53. ISBN 1565480929
http://books.google.com/books?id...=1565480929&
lr=
See also note 66, p. 158, here:
http://books.google.com/books?id...PdRNWvSZS-
OY4_Q
Hey Guys,
Sorry I've been away so much lately. I had a horrible case of the flu about 6 weeks ago and have just been busy since my last comment here. I'll try to be more consistent when I join a conversation since it can be annoying to start a conversation with someone only to have them cease without any comment. Sometimes it's best to just stop a conversation, but I had intended to continue this one and just got busy. I apologize.
Dave,
The mere ritual of drinking some grape juice (itself implemented only due to the temperance movement of the 19th century and not biblical at all, since wine was used in the biblical Eucharist)
You said there's no Biblical support for using grape juice as opposed to actual wine. First of all, we don't know that every bit of "wine" they used was fermented. If it wasn't, that would be equivalent to grape juice and it would be Biblical support for using grape juice.
Furthermore, I've argued against prayer to heavenly saints based (in part) on the fact that it's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and your and many other RCs' reply is, "The Bible doesn't forbid it, so it's ok." Can you really use "It's not in the Bible" as an argument against using grape juice when you completely dismiss that argument when applied to praying to heavenly saints? Seems contradictory.
(Note: the fact that it's not anywhere in the OT or NT isn't my only point or even my main point when arguing against prayer to heavenly saints; so I'm not building my entire defense against prayer to heavenly saints on "It's not in the Bible." It did seem that was your primary defense against using grape juice.)
.
You said there's no Biblical support for using grape juice as opposed to actual wine. First of all, we don't know that every bit of "wine" they used was fermented. If it wasn't, that would be equivalent to grape juice and it would be Biblical support for using grape juice.
Was wine ever referred to as anything other than fermented drink in the Bible or outside of it during the times in which it was written? I would think it would have had a different word for it had it been merely juice to differentiate it.
Kim,
I've never done an in-depth study on it, and I'm not convinced that any wine mentioned in the Bible is anything but fermented wine. But I've had discussions with people who believe that there are different types of wine in the Bible. My father-in-law who is a tea-totaler (doesn't drink at all) read something from a doctor (PhD in Bible studies) who claims the Bible distinguishes in some respects between fermented (strong wine) & unfermented (sweet) wine.
My brother (who's a Methodist Minister with a Masters of Divinity and NOT a tea-totaler...by any stretch of the imagination
) told me in that time period water wasn't always plentiful, so sometimes wine was potentially a substitute for water. If that's true, one wouldn't want fermented wine but rather something more like grape juice. If you're dehydrated, and all you got is fermented wine, you're going to get drunk which is against God's will.
So here's two guys who, whether we agree with them or not, have done far more Biblical studies than most of us; and each believes for different reasons that wine in Biblical times wasn't necessarily always fermented.
I would think it would have had a different word for it had it been merely juice to differentiate it.
I agree with you, but then again I didn't create the Aramaic language. Plus between Aramaic --> Greek/Hebrew --> Latin --> English something may have been lost in the translation, and someone may have thought, "Wine is wine, everyone will know the difference" or "Fermented wine? Unfermented wine? It's all the same."
As I said, this is just a theory I've heard. I haven't been convinced one way or the other. If Dave, Ken, or one of you other geniuses can show me why this definitely is or isn't true, I'd be glad to fall on that side of the fence. Otherwise I'll just assume it's possible some "wine" was unfermented but not be emphatic in that assumption.
.
Hi Grubb,
I found this comment at Jimmy Akin’s blog from April 2006.
“The Jewish encyclopedia is an EXCELLENT site. I used its many entries on the topic of "wine" to convince an Evangelical (married to a Mormon) that the imbibing of wine is not a sin, and in many cases, good, proper, and even recommended. By showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jews drank wine, and by drawing from instances in the gospel connecting Jesus and wine (wedding at Cana, Passover, accused of being a drunkard), I was able to convince her it was NOT ‘grape juice.’”
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/
def...hencyclope.html
Accordingly, here’s the link to the Jewish encyclopedia article on ‘wine’.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.co...01&
letter=W#600 (be advised, sometimes the JE can be a bit slow loading. If that turns out to be the case, you can always do what I do, and just try for the cached version).
You may also want to search “wine” in the Syrian Christ.
Rihbany, who was born in Shweir, Mount Lebanon, was raised in the Greek Orthodox Tradition, but later became a well know Presbyterian minister in this country. I believe you'll find he provides some interesting insights into the Oriental way of life.
http://books.google.com/books?
hl...cx0afKC0aIrlJY8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Abr..._Mitrie_Rihbany
Hi Grubb! I for one missed your comments.
While I am reading your links, I thought I would share some cites too. According to my Interpreter's Bible Dictionary, the juce from pressed grapes would start to ferment within 6 hours of being pressed given the climate in the day. So there would not be a lot of time to drink fresh juice as opposed to wine. The on-line Jewish Encylopedia also states that there was a word for juice which differed from the words for wine and beer. Daniel-Rops in his book, "Daily Life in the Time of Jesus", pp. 203-205 suggests that if someone did not want to drink wine, he would need to drink water or goats milk.
Jesus' drinking wine at the Last Supper is an interesting concept because my Interpreter's Bible Dictionary suggests that offering wine at the Passover meal is non-biblical under the OT and was not a part of the Passover meal until after the Intertestmental Hellenist period. In researching this a bit, I found that drinking wine at the Passover meal is in fact one of the so-called "traditions of the elders". See, http://www.wlsessays.net/
authors...einPassover.pdf.
Thus, in no less of an example as the Last Supper, we find Jesus following an extra-biblical tradition the elders which some well-known Protestant e-apologists and authors claim He denounced and condemned at Mt. 15:1-9. This seems to set a precedent that Jesus permitted us to follow traditions so long as they are not specifically prohibitted by Scripture. So much for the spurious corban rule.
Hi Ben, you beat me to it! I need to refresh more often. lol!
Thanks for the info, guys!
Not to worry, Paul, I know the feeling! My only concern now is what to do about poor Grubb who, I’m pretty sure, is headed for a relapse after learning that “drinking wine at the Passover meal is in fact one of the so-called ‘traditions of the elders!’" 
Paul said: Jesus' drinking wine at the Last Supper is an interesting concept because my Interpreter's Bible Dictionary suggests that offering wine at the Passover meal is non-biblical under the OT and was not a part of the Passover meal until after the Intertestmental Hellenist period.
That's an interesting theory that they proposed. My response is, if they didn't drink wine at Passover, what did they drink? We know it wasn't safe to drink water, and we know that wine at the dinner table was as common in the ancient Near East as drinking soda pop in modern America. I rather suspect they drank wine at the first Passover, and at every subsequent Passover. Let's hear it for extrabiblical tradition!
Anonymous,
Who art thou?
Very mysterious.
I suppose you will answer anon.
Grubb (and everyone else),
As someone who enjoys wine I subscribe to a page that provides various commentary on it. Interestingly enough there is a recent article called "WWJD: What would Jesus Drink?" that is insightful, speculative, but entertaining. See it here: http://www.wineloverspage.com/ox...ord/
wwj08.phtml
Paul,
Thanks.
Ben, Paul, and Jordan,
There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus drank fermented wine or that he had wine at the Last Supper. I wasn't suggesting that wine of Jesus' day was all grape juice or too weak to be called alcohol, but rather suggesting (based on what I've heard from people who have studied the Bible and church history more than most of us have) that some "wine" may have been unfermented or too weak to be considered alcohol. And if that's true, then there would be a Biblical precedent for using grape juice.
Extra biblical traditions? Have at them...as long as they don't violate scripture. You want a statue of Mary? I don't have a huge issue with that. You want to bow down in front of the statue? That violates Lev 26:1-2. One may not actually be worshipping the statue, but at the minimum it can give the appearance of that. Praying to heavenly saints? That violates I Tim 2:5. I know we differ on these issues (and I'm not trying to reopen the discussion on these topics), but these are extra-biblical traditions that I believe violate scripture.
I have many extra biblical traditions. I don't recall the Bible commanding us to give thanks before every meal (it may in a general way), but the Grubbs do. The Bible doesn't require us to meet for Bible study every Thursday night, but the Grubbs have for 14 years. The Bible doesn't mention going to pray every Tuesday morning, but Grubb has for nearly a decade. There's no biblical mandate to take one's children out to dinner every Tuesday night, but that's what Grubb has done for 12 years (it gives Mrs. Grubb a break from the kids and cooking one night a week). These are all extra biblical traditions my family and I partake in. Nothing wrong with extra biblical traditions as long as they don't violate scripture or cause one to worship something other than God.
.
Hi Grubb, I appreciate the distinction that you make about traditions. The Catholic Church has made that same distinction since its founding. There is nothing wrong with extra biblical traditions so long as they don't violate scripture nor cause one to worship something other than God. You have succinctly restated a fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church. The point of my comment was directed to those Protestant apologists out there (note the qualifier) that do not recognize such a distinction and decry reliance on traditions not found explicitly in the Bible whatsoever. Witness for example how Mr. White distorted St. Basil the Great's words in his debate with Mr. Matatics to oppose the notion of an authoritative tradition that I refuted some time in my paper that Dave published here. I recently read where a Presbyterian Church will not sing hymns in Church because hymns are unbiblical.
As you rightly point out, people can disagree as to whether something is an appropriate tradition or not and debate those issues, but they should not prohibit resort to tradition all together. While I do recognize the legitimacy of veneration of Mary and prayer to saints, I also recognize the potential for abuse in doing those things just like there is potential for abuse in misinterpreting the Bible, misunderstanding the difference between redemption and salvation, denial of the efficacy of water baptism, etc. But I do not believe that a teaching should be barred because there are some people who misunderstand, abuse or misuse the import of that teaching. Instead, the Church has an obligation to carefully teach doctrines so that doctrines are not abused or misused just as we as Christians should not abuse or misuse them. I think that St. Paul says the same thing at 1 Cor. 3:2 and 1 Cor. 8.
Grubb,
Nothing wrong with extra biblical traditions as long as they don't violate scripture or cause one to worship something other than God.
I couldn't agree more! But certainly the “tradition” of perpetual disunity which has ever defined Protestantism qualifies as a massive violation of scripture! Don't you think?
But for the moment, to even more primary concerns. Who has the authority for example, to determine what is and is not scripture? Protestants, for example, reject the book of Wisdom. But on the basis of what? By whose authority? And how might that rejection to be squared with these comments from Augustine (note that Augustine is here giving us a glimpse into the actual history and practice of Christendom, not merely his personal whims!)?
“And since these things are so, the judgment of the book of Wisdom ought not to be repudiated, since for so long a course of years that book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ from the station of the readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops downwards, even to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and catechumens, with the veneration paid to divine authority.” - On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I: ch. 27
“But if any wish to be instructed in the opinions of those who have handled the subject, it behooves them to prefer to all commentators the book of Wisdom…” - Ibid. ch. 28.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...thers/
15121.htm
Btw, elsewhere, Augustine shows that the notion of scripture alone as sufficient for the practice of religion is inconsistent with the way in which God himself ordained religion should be practiced.
“For not ONLY the prophecies which are contained in words, nor only the precepts for the right conduct of life, which teach morals and piety, and are contained in the sacred writings,—NOT ONLY these, BUT ALSO the rites, priesthood, tabernacle or temple, altars, sacrifices, ceremonies, and whatever else belongs to that service which is due to God, and which in Greek is properly called λατρεία,—all these signified and fore-announced those things which we who believe in Jesus Christ unto eternal life believe to have been fulfilled, or behold in process of fulfillment, or confidently believe shall yet be fulfilled.” – City of God, Book VII, ch. 32.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
120107.htm
And my final question. The NT says that God wishes to be worshiped “in spirit and in truth.” Now, if I’m not mistaken, Protestants hold that ALL our works are as “filthy rags.” So how is it possible therefore, to “worship” and to pray to God in a manner that is both fitting and pure when one’s every action is an abomination to him?
I find this truly puzzling.
One may not actually be worshipping the statue, but at the minimum it can give the appearance of that
Grubb,
(in charity) why are you so concerned about the appearance of worship? Remember it was the scribes and the phaisees who were too much concerned about appearance.
And say we were actually to worship a statue. Our prayer would HAVE to run-'Jesus I do not worhip you, I worship the stone of this image of you, not you, amen'.
Really, how can one possiblly worship a statue? Even Buddhists and hindus don't worship the images of their gods but the invisible god they beleive exists.
That protestant charge is just thrown out there the whole time and it means nothing.
What it is of course is Protestantism always having to be opposed to all things catholic.
It really is unthinking.
In Christ
Paul,
Most of the quotes you gave from Augustine just don't quite rise to the doctrine of transubstantiation. We never said that Augustine does not believe in the real presence. One can hold to a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and not transubstantiation. Augustine does believe it is some how a "sacrifice"; that is more clear. He is not infallible; and he was wrong on that emphasis; but you cannot get away from all the commentary he makes in those other sections that ends with "believe, and you have already eaten". None of the quotes you provide vitiate or change the large number of citations of emphasizing the spiritual meaning of the Eucharist. You did not really show how those quotes are taken out of context.
Augustine was catholic, but not Roman Catholic. Evangelicals/conservative protestants are also "catholic" (universal, holding to the early church creeds, the Trinity); but not Roman Catholic.
Paul,
Sounds like we have the same view on extra Biblical traditions. Now if we could just work out which ones are extra biblical and which ones are anti biblical.
James Morris,
Really, how can one possiblly worship a statue?
What did God say to Moses?
Lev 19:4, " 'Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves. I am the LORD your God.'"
Lev 26:1, "'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.'"
Exo 32:8, "They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'"
How can you read these and claim no one can worship a statue? If the Israelites weren't worshipping that golden calf, what was it? They said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." Doesn't one worship the "god" he believes in? They chose at that moment for their god to be a calf.
You and I agree that it's likely most RCs that bow down in front of a statue of Mary aren't saying what the Israelites said in Exo 32. But how can you fail to understand the importance of avoiding the appearance of evil? Suppose you're married and walking with your arm around the waist of an attractive woman who is neither your wife nor your sister. Assuming you were just treating her as a sister (which is how Christian men are to treat women they're not married to). Is that wise? Even if you're not tempted or lusting, would men in your church see your example and copy it? What if they DID lust or stumble as a result? Paul even refused to eat certain things in order not to cause weaker men to stumble. (I Cor 10:27-33)
Worse yet, what if a non-Christian saw you and thought, "What a hypocrite. He tells others to be faithful, then he goes and cheats on his wife." He would be wrong about you being unfaithful, but by not avoiding the appearance of evil, you've provided the opportunity for him to view you as a hypocrite and have false thoughts about you. Had you not walked that close to her, he wouldn't have had that opportunity. Each man is responsible for his own actions; but you would bear some of the guilt too for the man in your church who copied your example and did stumble.
It is both wise and biblical to avoid the appearance of evil. Don't you agree?
It really is unthinking.
I've put a lot of thought into it. So have the likes of John Wesley, Billy Graham, Gary Smally, and John Piper.
.
Ben M.,
I couldn't agree more! But certainly the “tradition” of perpetual disunity which has ever defined Protestantism qualifies as a massive violation of scripture! Don't you think?
My brother is a Methodist minister, yet he and I are unified. We disagree on when baptism should occur; does that mean we're not unified? I believe you yourself said all RCs aren't required to pray to heavenly saints, and some don't. Does that mean they're not unified with other RCs? My brother and I don't disagree on much, and I don't think we disagree on any major theological issue.
Now, if I’m not mistaken, Protestants hold that ALL our works are as “filthy rags.”
Yeah, but we only hold that position, because it's what God spoke through Isaiah. It's not like we just made it up you know. Here's the verse we get it from.
"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." (Isa 64:6)
So how is it possible therefore, to “worship” and to pray to God in a manner that is both fitting and pure when one’s every action is an abomination to him? I find this truly puzzling.
It's only by the blood of Jesus which cleanses us, makes us pure as Him, and washes our sins away that our works can be redeemed for good by God. If you don't understand this, I suppose you don't understand how the RCC believes that RCs (who can't work their way to heaven) are justified by the blood of Jesus despite their sinful state either.
.
Hi Grubb, I guess we will just have to work together to figure that one out!
Hi Ken, I appreciate the fact that you do acknowledge that St. Augustine did believe in the doctrine of Real Presence. I do wonder thought, what part of the passages I cite to disgree or contradict the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation? I see alot of people claim this but they never explain how it is impossible that St. Augustine's words to be congruent with the Roman Catholic understanding of the Real Presence especially when the form of consecration contained in the Mass that St. Augustine said as Bishop of Hippo is identical to that contained in the liturgies of the Mass as said today.
As far as running away from St. Augustine's words, I must say that the opposite is true. I do not run away from his words, I embrace them (at least what I have read) as truth. For Catholics, there is both a spiritual and physical miracle that occurs in the sacrament of the Eucharist. One can not be separated from the other, which is what St. Augustine said. Contrary to the one passage that Mr. White references, all of the passages I reference that St. Augustine's wrote clearly demonstrate that he believed what I believe too especially when he celebrated Mass and the Eucharistic mystery using substantially the same words that are still used today.
BTW, what form of the words of consecration do you use as a Reformed Baptist minister to consecrate the bread and wine to be infused with the Real Presence as you believe the doctrine to mean? Aside from various outlines of worship services and the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church by-laws containing an apparent affirmation of the use of what Catholics would call sacramentals, I could not find anything on-line that would suggest the answer to my question.
Finally, as for your comment that evangelicals/conservative protestants are also "catholic", I would go one step further. I would suggest that to the extent that you believe in the creeds you are also "Roman" Catholic and certainly a brother in Christ.
God bless you both!
Hi Grubb,
My brother is a Methodist minister, yet he and I are unified.
Nevertheless, you have separated yourselves from the Catholic peace, from that faith which has been “spread abroad throughout the world.” Besides, agreement, in and of itself, is not unity, just as disagreement, in and of itself, is not dis-unity. Heretics may agree among themselves on this or that point of doctrine, which they received from the One Church from which they have separated. But they nevertheless remain separated, they nevertheless remain outside the fold. And as Augustine warns, those who have
“placed [themselves] outside the Church and separated from the structure of unity and the bond of love, you will suffer eternal punishment even if [they] are burned alive for the name of Christ.” Letter 173:6
Now yes, this is strong language. And I certainly not for me to apply it to you, dear Grubb, or anyone else. Ultimately, God will judge. But it does serve to shoe just how strongly the Fathers felt about the necessity of being united to the One Church, and not break the bond of Catholic peace and unity.
We disagree on when baptism should occur; does that mean we're not unified?
Again, Grubb, whether you agree of disagree is not the point You have, for whatever reason (and I do not judge) chosen to remain separated from the One Church which the Lord founded and against which he promised the gates of Hell would not prevail. And you have chosen instead to listen to the false teaching of Luther and Calvin. This is a most serious matter. Furthermore, by doing so, you make the Lord a liar. For he said, “I will build my Church…” and also,
“Every one that cometh to me and heareth my words and doth them, I will shew you to whom he is like. He is like to a man building a house, who DIGGED DEEP and laid the foundation UPON A ROCK. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house: and it could not shake it: for it was founded on a rock.” Lk. 6: 47- 48
So the Lord certainly knew how to build. And yet, the so-called reformers told all who would listen, that when the Lord built His Church - HIS CHURCH - he could not finish! Indeed, they mocked him, as the scriptures foretold they would,
“after he hath laid the foundation and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, Saying: This man began to build and was not able to finish.” Luke 14: 29-30.
I believe you yourself said all RCs aren't required to pray to heavenly saints, and some don't. Does that mean they're not unified with other RCs?
Not at all! Those of us in communion with the Apostolic See, like the holy Fathers and Doctors, humbly abide by that Holy See’s teaching. In matters such as prayers to the saints, or private apparitions, the Church wisely, and like a loving mother, allows for a certain degree latitude, as long as we remain obedient to the bishop. We are indeed nevertheless, very much united in doctrine.
More...
Ultimately, unity is achieved by only one method and one method alone: attaching ourselves to the One Church which Christ founded and against which he promised the gates of hell would not prevail.
And surely you don’t deny that you follow the reformers in their accusations and criticism of this One Church?
My brother and I don't disagree on much, and I don't think we disagree on any major theological issue.
But who decides what is, and what is not, a “major doctrinal issue,” given that neither of you have such authority?
It's only by the blood of Jesus which cleanses us, makes us pure as Him, and washes our sins away that our works can be redeemed for good by God.
Well now, perhaps we actually may have something on which to build a point of common understanding. You see, you said cleanses which is the present tense! This indicates to me that you believe that the “blood of Jesus” must still be available, and therefore, despite Christ’s “once for all sacrifice” on the cross, in which that precious blood was shed, that same sacrifice must, somehow, be a perpetual reality. For scripture says, “Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.” Heb. 9:22. Now shedding, indicates a process or continuous action, and not simply a “one time” event.
That is why Augustine, speaking not of his own self, nor of his own opinion - as did the reformers - but of the belief of the Universal Church, “spread throughout the whole world,” could say,
“Don’t hold yourselves cheap, seeing that the creator of all things and of you estimates your value so high, so dear, that he pours out for you every day the most precious blood of his only-begotten Son.” – Sermon 216:3:1.
If you don't understand this, I suppose you don't understand how the RCC believes that RCs (who can't work their way to heaven) are justified by the blood of Jesus despite their sinful state either.
Grubb, we don’t “work” [our] way to heaven; Christ works in us to transform us into himself, thus making us fit inhabitants of his infinitely pure Kingdom. Listen to Father Paul, writing to the Catholics at Corinth (you claim to be a “catholic,” certainly you grant the Corinthians were too, yes?).
”but I LABORED even more than all of them, yet not I, but the GRACE OF GOD with me.” 1 Cor. 15:10. http://www.studylight.org/desk/?...on=nas&oq=&
sr=1
It might be of value to point out here that, the great dispute with Pelagius was not so much about “free will” vs “grace,” although that certainly was a part of the equation, but more about how grace helps us to perform salvific works. Grace, for the Fathers, particularly Augustine, was to help man perform the works necessary to salvation.
In other words, we are saved by grace, but grace / faith that “works through love.” Now there is a REAL participation on our part, not a passive reception. This is because grace is that which is “given,” but “to whom much has been given, much is required.” The more grace, the more demanded.
Anyway, a few Quotes from Augustine (since Protestants think he was no Catholic!).
“For by their damnable arguments these heretics [the Pelagians] strive, not by defending free choice but rather by extolling it in sacrilegious pride, to leave no room for the grace of God by which we are Christians –the grace by which the very choice of our will becomes truly free when it is set free from the dominion of carnal desires. For the Lord says, If the Son sets you free, then you will be truly free (Jn 8:36). Faith in Jesus Christ our Lord obtains this help.” Augustine, Letter, 175:2, Works, p. 135
“The do not want to acknowledge that grace by which, as was said, we are Christians. The apostle preached that grace when he said, For I take delight in the law of God in terms of my inner self, but I see another law in my members that resists the law of my mind and that holds me captive under the law of sin that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from this body of death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. ( Rom 7:22-25). But they dare not attack it openly.” Letter 175:3, p. 135.
“A new and very dangerous heresy on the part of the enemies of the grace of Christ is attempting to rise up. By their impious arguments these people try to deprive us even of the Lord’s Prayer. For, though the Lord taught us to say, Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors (Mt 6:12), they say in that in this life a human being can, once the commandments are known, come to so great a perfection of righteousness by free choice of the will alone, without the help of the grace of the savior, that it is not necessary for them to say, Forgive us our debts. The claim we should not interpret the words that follow, Bring us not into temptation (Mt 6:13), in the sense that we ought to ask God’s help so that we may not fall into sin when we are tempted, but that this has been place in our power and that the human will alone suffices to carry this out.” Letter 176:2, pp. 138-139
“The authors of this most destructive heresy are said to be Pelagius and Caelestius, whom we of course prefer to be healed in the Church rather than to be cut off from the Church with no hope of salvation, if no necessity demands this.” Letter 176:4, p. 139
(I know this is a little long; this is definitely it!)
“For, whether [Pelagius] says that grace is free choice or that grace is the forgiveness of sins or that grace is the commandment of the law, he mentions none of those things that pertain to the conquest of concupiscence and of temptations by the aid of the Holy Spirit.” Letter 177:4, p143.
“For who separates us from that solid mass of perdition except him who came to seek and to save what was lost (Lk 19:1O)? For this reason the apostle asks, For who sets you apart? And if a man says, "My faith, my good will, my good work," he receives the answer, For what do you have that you have not received? But if you have received, why do you boast as if you have not received?(1 Cor 4:7) Of course he said all of this not so that a human being would not boast
but so that he who boasts would boast in the Lord (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10: 17), not on the basis of works, lest anyone perhaps be filled with pride (Eph 2:9). IT IS NOT THAT GOOD WORKS ARE RENDERED USELESS by that pious thought, for God repays each one according to his works and everyone who does good has glory, honor, peace (Rom 2:6.10). Rather it is that WORKS COME FROM GRACE, not grace from works.” Letter 186: 2:4, Works, p. 211.
In any event, Grubb, we shall all face the judgment, and we shall all have to be purged of whatever our evil works have merited. Again, the Great Doctor:
"’The fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire’ .… And this fire does in the course of this life act exactly in the way the apostle says. If it come into contact with two believers, one ‘caring for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord,’ that is, building upon Christ the foundation, gold, silver, precious stones; the other ‘caring for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,’ that is, building upon the same foundation wood, hay, stubble…” - Augustine, The Enchiridion, ch. 68.
“It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it.” – Ibid. ch. 69. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...athers/
1302.htm
One thing that came to mind about St Augustine and the other Sacraments was that it would be very odd for Augustine to take such a high view of the Sacrament of Baptism as the most essential thing for salvation that really removes all sin and to turn around and say the Eucharist is purely symbolic.
Hello Grubb,
Thanks for your response.
But my point is the god is not the statue. The ancient israelites worshipped a false god but not the physical image.Those biblical quotes are sanctions againt making false gods (not making images as such). Can you see the distiction? The sanction has nothing to do with the physical image and all to do with the false invisible god.
As to we catholic now, as I said earlier; You WOULD HAVE TO pray like this; 'I worship not you Lord, but this statue of You'. Now that would be evil. That would be not the 'appearance of evil', that would be substantial evil.
Take the crucifix. Do you really think we catholics bow down and pray;'I worship not you, but the metal and the wood that has made this crucifix'.
That's what you mean when any protestant throws out the charge' catholics worship statues'
In Christ,
And surely you don’t deny that you follow the reformers in their accusations and criticism of this One Church?
First of all, Jesus didn't establish the RCC as the One Church. Nor did Paul or any of the apostles. Secondly, I don't know all their accusations and criticism, so I can't say I agree with them all.
Now shedding, indicates a process or continuous action, and not simply a “one time” event.
Wasn't that the point of having one perfect sacrificial lamb? So that we wouldn't have to keep shedding blood. The author of Hebrews seems to agree with me on this point.
Heb 10:10-13 says, "10 And by that will [God's will], we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
Notice in verse 12 after he had offered the "one sacrifice" (not the "continual sacrifice"), He sat down at God's right hand. And He could do that, "because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." God has always known every sin His chosen ones would do, and every one of those sins was paid for at the cross with Jesus' blood. Yet the writer of Hebrews acknowledges that even though there was only one sacrifice, the faithful are still "being made holy." And if it wasn't a one time event, Jesus probably would have said, "It is started" instead of "It is finished." (John 19:30)
Your post was long, and I'm sorry I don't have time to respond to all of it, but I'm sure we'll cover some of Augustine's quotes another time.
.
James,
It's my pleasure. Thank you as well for responding.
But my point is the god is not the statue. The ancient israelites worshipped a false god but not the physical image.Those biblical quotes are sanctions againt making false gods (not making images as such). Can you see the distiction? The sanction has nothing to do with the physical image and all to do with the false invisible god.
I really do understand the distinction you're trying to make, and to some degree the Bible makes that same distinction in Deut 12, but even if the statue only represents a false god, it's still part of the equation. That's why God said, "Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it." (Lev 26:1) Even if there IS a distinction between false god and idol, God hates both and doesn't want either? Why should we tolerate idols when God doesn't.
And Aaron said in Exo 32:8, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." He didn't say "These are images or representations of your gods." So in some cases a false god and its image or idol can't be separated. And if the idols aren't really a problem, why did God say not to make idols for yourself (Lev 26:1) and command His chosen ones to "Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places" (Deut 12:3) when they entered the land He gave them?
So I see the distinction you're making and agree it can be valid sometimes, but I also see that some people do consider the statue or totem pole their actual god and believe it to have power. Regardless of which is the more common occurrence; someone claiming to be a Christian could cause an immature Christian or nonChristian to stumble if that person saw the "Christian" bowing in front of a statue.
.
Hi Grubb,
First of all, Jesus didn't establish the RCC as the One Church. Nor did Paul or any of the apostles.
Well, as the saying goes, first thing first. Would you at least agree that Christ did indeed “establish” a Church, and only ONE Church?
Wasn't that the point of having one perfect sacrificial lamb? So that we wouldn't have to keep shedding blood. The author of Hebrews seems to agree with me on this point.
In one sense, absolutely! Yet there is more to the story. But first, Augustine:
“For but very few persons are thoroughly acquainted with the law. The mass of the members of Christ, who are scattered abroad everywhere, being ignorant of the very profound and complicated contents of the law, are commended by the piety of simple faith and unfailing hope in God, and sincere love. Endowed with such gifts, they trust that by the grace of God they may be purged from their sins through our Lord Jesus Christ.” -- On the Proceedings Against Pelagius, ch. 3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...athers/
1505.htm
I’m afraid that I belong to that latter class of Christians who are “ignorant of the very profound and complicated contents of the law.” Nevertheless, I do have a few things I would like to share with you regarding the “one sacrifice for sins.” Hopefully, latter this week, I’ll have the time (on a side note: I’m currently still in the process of trying to arrange for my uncle’s cremation, and also, preparing for a possible upcoming legal battle over his estate, courtesy of my dreaded evil half-sister - from my mother’s first failed marriage - and her equally dreaded evil husband. It was as a consequence of those two’s economic exploitation of my poor Alzheimer’s stricken uncle back in ’01 which prompted me to contact Adult Protective Services, and which, ultimately - after the APS investigation into the whole sordid matter – resulted in the Harris county probate court appointing me (over the frenzied protestations of my sister!) guardian of the person and estate of my poor helpless uncle. And FYI, his assets, such as they were, were transferred, at my insistence, to a so-called “867 Trust” so that their could be no further possibility of – I may as well be blunt – theft! ). Of course, I know that all this is neither here nor there with regard to our discussion. But oh, do I know how to digress!!!
Anyway, until I can respond more fully, you may want to mull over these words from the great St. Chrysostom (or Chrysostum, c.347– c.407).
What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that [Sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by
this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also [He is] one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (says He)"do this in remembrance of Me." ( Luke xxii. 19 .) It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice.
Commentary 17 on Hebrews ch. 6. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
240217.htm
And as always, dear Grubb. I wish you peace.
Dear Grubb,
Could I just ask you-are you against all religious images?
In Christ
Dear Grubb
You see my thought is running-'what makes a holy place'?, I once taught at a Protestant school. There was a 'church' attached. But it didn't seem like a church to me, with its plush mauve carpet and fluorescent lighting. Admittedly there was a cross; a huge fluorescent thing-lit orange.
I contrasted in my mind with Pugin's Saint Giles church at Cheadle, his 'one consolation'. I visited it once-full of ornate metal work, mosaics, emblematic decoration, marble and of course STATUES. These things MAKE a place holy in my opinion.
There were no kneelers in the protestant place of worship.
in Christ
unrelated
But wow! That James White cruise does look somethunbg. Christans cruising.
Cruising for Jesus iin luxury.
Ben,
I'm awfully sorry to hear about your Uncle and all of the step sister & husband woes. I look forward to more conversation when you get that all settled and hope it's easier than you expect it to be.
.
James,
I'm against any image that detracts from the glory of Jesus and the work He did on the cross. Am I against having a picture of Mary in the hallway or even in the sanctuary? Not necessarily, unless that picture was designed to encourage others to do things the Bible prohibits -- like bowing to an image or a statue (aka a "carved stone"). We have a cross in our sanctuary, but we don't bow to it or in front of it. It's simply a symbol and reminder of Jesus' death on the cross and consequently His resurrection.
The early Christian churches were often outside or in people's homes. Were they less holy, because they didn't have statues and stained glass? Obviously not. One's surroundings can impact how he feels and may even impact his ability to worship well, but the building isn't more holy because of the statues or stained glass. It may seem more reverent, but the presence of God makes a place holy, so any place the body of Christ gathers together is holy. You may have meant reverent instead of holy, and if so this paragraph was unnecessary.
No kneelers? My church doesn't have any either. That's one area I think some Reformed churches have dropped the ball. I think most Methodist & Lutheran churches have them but most Baptist churches don't...I don't know about the Presbyterians. The position of the body often reflects the position of the heart. So if I'm mentally in a state of bowing to God, why wouldn't I do so physically? We do bow down in my church, but it's rare and uncomfortable when we do.
Cruising for Jesus? Here are my 2 opposing thoughts: 1) If you want to go on a nice cruise, just go on a nice cruise; don't use a spiritual convention as an excuse and 2) If you want to go on a nice cruise, it's better to go with a bunch of Christians who want to learn more about Jesus. I waffle.
.
Christians cruising (in more than one sense)
Some monks used to sleep in their coffins back in Ireland in the old days.
Mind you, that reformed baptist sect is cruising to heaven anyway because they are 'the elect'.
They'll cruise straight in, get the best seats.
in Christ
Hi Grubb,
I have a feeling we're here in real time.
And an honest response. And believe me I am getting more to understand (and see the attractiveness of) that protestant quest for simple worship.
'Where two or three are gathered in my name...' Yes, would make any place holy. I do see what you mean.
For once I quote the Bible.
I've just had a nasty response from a sedavacantist email correspondence (full of anti-ecumenism), so I am very much in the mood to accept your position and reasoning and the approach you have to worship.
These seda...they never listen...I try to speak...and he just opens his mouth-'but Pope Pius lX.wrote...oh weary. What should be my attitude to him anyone? He sends me reams of documentation.
I continue
I wrote; It occurs to me that the much ridiculed 'spectacle' at Assisi, the ecumenical meeting I mean wouldn't have been so ridiculed by the famous son of Assisi, who 700 years ago made his own ecumenical efforts with the muslims.
He may even have rejoiced at the proceeding.
His reply;
that Francis challenged the Muslims to a duel of faith to see which one worshiped the true God.
He performed a miracle and won the duel, proving that he worshipped the true God and that
all the muslims should convert. The muslims were so impressed that not only did they not kill
him but they gave him free passage in the Holy Land. check your history.
Francis not only would have but is rolling over in his grave at the concessions and kowtowing
made by the VII church.
Francis was a true ecumenist in the RC sense. He reaches out to all and invites them to become
Roman Catholics which is all inclusive without compromising any of its tenents , or giving in one
iota to the diabolical paganism, and heresy. Don't forget I was in Saudi Arabia for 5 years. Islam is
the original Christian heresy of gnosticism. Go back to school
Well, fair anough. Any point in responding?
in Christ
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: jamesmo100@hotmail.com
To: johnstcd2@hotmail.com
Subject: ecumenism ok
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:32:42 +0000
In Christ
Christians cruising
My point;
Sleeping in your coffin maybe is extreme, but wouldn't a more austere environment rather than a luxury liner be more appropriate for prayerful meditation?
in Christ
James,
...but wouldn't a more austere environment rather than a luxury liner be more appropriate for prayerful meditation?
But earlier you said,
...full of ornate metal work, mosaics, emblematic decoration, marble and of course STATUES. These things MAKE a place holy in my opinion.
It seems like if an elaborate setting is ok for church it should be ok for a prayerful and meditating cruise.
I recently finished reading Randy Alcorn's The Treasure Principle, and it's very convicting. I highly recommend it to everyone. Not only is it excellent, but it's very short. He does a good job to point out what a real Biblical view of money and "stuff" should be. He doesn't condemn owning nice things and going on nice vacations, but he gently (most of the time) points out that many times our money could be "invested" better if we gave it away and invested in God's kingdom rather than using it all for ourselves.
I tend to lean towards doing things more simple anyway, and if I was "cruising for Jesus" I'd probably take a low budget cruise and go someplace that one could really enjoy God's glory (I hear the Alaskan and Canadian cruises are glorious in their scenery). But in the OT, they often had feasts to celebrate God's goodness and mercy; so I could see going on a nice cruise to celebrate that too. I went on a cruise with my wife for her birthday one year, and there's certainly some feasting going on.
So my final answer is, "I can see both sides." I would encourage a lower cost cruise in an effort to be good stewards with God's money (He's just letting us invest it for Him), but in the end I would fall back on Rom 14:1, "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters."
Regarding the "sedavacantist": to quote a famous beer commercial, "forget him, dump him, go fishing." I don't really have a good idea for a response except to be kind even if he's not.
.
Grubb,
I'm awfully sorry to hear about your Uncle and all of the step sister & husband woes. I look forward to more conversation when you get that all settled and hope it's easier than you expect it to be.
Thanks Grubb. I too hope things go smoothly. However, if past experience is any guide, it’s a sure bet that I’ll be able to ’count’ on my sister to complicate matters!
James said:
“I visited it once-full of ornate metal work, mosaics, emblematic decoration, marble and of course STATUES. These things MAKE a place holy in my opinion.”
And,
“wouldn't a more austere environment rather than a luxury liner be more appropriate for prayerful meditation?”
And you, apparently perceiving a contradiction, said:
“It seems like if an elaborate setting is ok for church it should be ok for a prayerful and meditating cruise.”
But I think James is absolutely right, and any contradiction only seeming. You see, those thing which James first mentions – “ornate metal work, mosaics…” etc, are not only not opposed to “prayerful mediation,” but indeed, are most conducive to it! Such things help elevate our minds, hearts and souls to the things of heaven. They lift us out of ourselves, out of the crass and pedestrian worldliness of the “luxury liner.” Nor do they oppose themselves to “a more austere environment.” It is not a question therefore, of either / or, but rather, of each having its own proper place and purpose - “to everything there is a season….”
I was rummaging through some my mother’s old papers just a couple of days ago, and I found this:
“The heretics are well aware that, for most people, the Catholic Faith takes its beginning and nourishment from the experience of the sacred: the reverent ceremonies of Mass and Benediction, vestments, folded hands and genuflections, the majesty of Latin, ranging of bells, incense, profound silences. This experience of the sacred is communicated, furthermore, from Catholic architecture, with its massive pillars, high ceilings and Gothic beauty, from the statues of the saints, from time-honored art and symbolism.
When the average Catholic, from childhood through adulthood, walks into a Traditional Catholic Church he senses God’s greatness, His Immensity, the souls eternal nature, the need for supernatural grace. Catholic education begins – and continues- simply by entering the Church and experiencing the sacred.
St. Thomas Aquinas defined the maxim: “There is nothing the intellect that is not first in the senses.” What we see in Church with our eyes gives rise to eventual understanding of the supernatural.” – New Jersey Catholic News, Spring, 1987.
But the Church has always been equally hated and condemned by the world regardless of what she does. Skeptics, agnostics, and heretics alike, despise her for her wealth, even as they condemn her for her austerity. They speak of the “wealth” of the V
Vatican in terms every bit as contemptuous as they do the poverty of her monks. They deride her love of virgins every bit as much they deride her love of fruitful married love.
But Chesterton, with his characteristic brilliance, makes this point far better than I. In his Orthodoxy, he writes:
For not only (as I understood) had Christianity
the most flaming vices, but it had apparently a mystical talent
for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other.
It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons.
No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far
to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it
was much too far to the west. No sooner had my indignation died
down at its angular and aggressive squareness than I was called up
again to notice and condemn its enervating and sensual roundness….
But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely
pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow
up St. Paul's Cathedral. But the extraordinary thing is this.
They did prove to me in Chapter I. (to my complete satisfaction)
that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in Chapter II.,
they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic.
One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men,
by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom
of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a
fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery.
One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough,
and why it was hard to be free. Another great agnostic objected
that Christian optimism, "the garment of make-believe woven by
pious hands," hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that
it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done
calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it
a fool's paradise…..
The very man who denounced Christianity for pessimism was himself
a pessimist. I thought there must be something wrong. And it did
for one wild moment cross my mind that, perhaps, those might not be
the very best judges of the relation of religion to happiness who,
by their own account, had neither one nor the other….
I simply deduced that Christianity must be something even weirder and wickeder
than they made out. A thing might have these two opposite vices;
but it must be a rather queer thing if it did. A man might be too fat
in one place and too thin in another; but he would be an odd shape.
At this point my thoughts were only of the odd shape of the Christian
religion; I did not allege any odd shape in the rationalistic mind.
http://www.fullbooks.com/
Orthodo...hesterton2.html
Ben,
“to everything there is a season….”
I agree with you on this point. It comes from scripture, I'm compelled to agree. I'm not even completely opposed to having a really nice church. My initial point to James wasn't that churches should be ho-hum, boring places, but rather that the ornaments and statues do not make a place holy. I trust you agree with me on that.
You say a fancy, ornate church with mosaics and statues and metal works are "not opposed to 'prayerful mediation,' but indeed, are most conducive to it!" I've been in some RC churches that had beautiful stained glass windows, marble water basins for holy water, a very pretty podium, and some fancy paintings of Jesus, Mary, and others, and I admit it seemed reverent. It didn't seem gaudy. But regarding all the decorations and fancy stuff in a church, you claimed:
Nor do they oppose themselves to 'a more austere environment.'
But by the very definition of "austere", those things disqualify the ornate church from being austere. Here's what dictionary.com says "austere" means.
1) without excess, luxury, or ease; simple; limited; severe
2) severely simple; without ornament
I'm pretty sure you can't have fancy ornaments, statues, and stained glass and be "without excess" and "without ornament". "Austere" and fancy ornaments are mutually exclusive.
While I've been in beautiful churches and worshipped well, I've also been in simple churches and worshipped equally well. While a beautiful cathedral may display some of God's glory, it can't hold a candle to an autumn sunset, an ocean sunrise, a blooming dogwood, a summer rain, a giant oak tree, a simple rose, a field of daffodils, or any of God's other wonderful, marvelous, and beautiful creations that attest to his magnificence more than any church building ever could.
Maybe we should look to nature rather than a building to see God's brilliance on earth. It's a lot cheaper too.
.
The word is 'comfortable'. That's the problem with the cruise I feel; it's too comfortable.
Maybe because it is Lent I used the word austere.
You wouldn't equate the splendours of Chartres cathedral with 'luxury"?
I must go
Ben, I would recommend you 'The Paradox of Catholicism" By Father Benson. I think you would enjoy it.
in Christ
Maybe we should look to nature rather than a building to see God's brilliance on earth. It's a lot cheaper too.
First of all, I am a virtual nature-mystic (in the Romantic, Lewis-Tolkien sense), so you need not convince me of the beauty of the natural world.
I would be a lot more inclined to accept your reasoning if indeed with all the riches we have built up, we didn't lavish them on ourselves in houses (veritable mansions for richer folks, yet few children to fill them up) and in countless wonderful, expensive structures (including automobiles, yachts, personal jets, etc.) devoted to the glory of capitalism.
Since we do that, I say it is all the more appropriate to devote some of our ingenuity and riches to building beautiful buildings devoted to God and the worship of God (rather than of mammon), and receiving Him and hearing His Word taught.
If you speak out against all buildings whatever as materialistic and unnecessary, you might have a decent point. Somehow I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. So we have a scenario where it is perfectly acceptable to build mansions to the glory of man and mammon, but not (beautiful) churches to the glory of God. We must give God our aesthetic mediocrity and worst efforts rather than our best. We can personally live in luxury in fine palaces, but must worship in a gymnasium or glorified barn. Really makes a lot of sense . . .
Nuh-uh. I don't buy it. I'm willing to tolerate men's love of money and what it results in, architecturally-speaking, but when people start going after church buildings as excessive and unnecessary, I cannot accept the glaring double standard.
And then you would have to explain away the Temple as a waste of resources too. Why did God command that? Did He not know that all that money could have gone to feeding the poor? God obviously was not a bleeding-heart liberal Democrat . . .
At least King Solomon had the sense of proportion and priority to think of building a temple for God at the same time he was building his own royal palace (2 Chronicles 2:1,12).
Likewise, King David gave graciously out of his own riches, to the Temple (1 Chronicles 29:1-5) and urged others to do the same (29:6-13) and knew from Whom all riches derived in the first place (29:12,14,16), and recognized that the Temple is at least as important as a palace: "the work is great; for the palace will not be for man but for the Lord God" (1 Chron 29:1).
The prophet Hosea saw something like the selfish, materialistic hypocrisy that I discuss above:
"For Israel has forgotten his Maker, and built palaces . . ." (Hos 8:14).
Dave,
Good to hear from you. Have you read The Treasure Principle? This is one of the items God is using to help me view money and stuff in a more Godly sense. I agree with you on the things you speak against: luxurious houses, expensive cars, jewelry, and a posh life style.
There is a difference between THE Temple that Solomon built and David helped fund and the church building of the New Testament. The Temple Solomon built was actually God's house. God in some form was in the Ark, and the Ark was to be in the Temple. Every synagogue wasn't commanded or intended to be as lavish as the Temple of the Ark.
What is the Temple of God in the NT era? Anyone who follows Jesus whole-heartedly. Paul said, "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple." (I Cor 3:16-17) and again, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you." (I Cor 6:19a) So if one really wants to decorate the temple of God now, he would do better to get a 3 piece suit, some gold cuff links, a fancy pen, and a gold watch. I'm only partially joking when I say that. People used to wear their "Sunday best" for that very reason...to glorify God. They didn't show up in shorts and a t-shirt and flip flops.
Please note, I'm not ridiculing or mocking casual churches. My church is casual, and I'm a big fan, but my point is WE are the temple of God. If you want to decorate the temple as they did in Solomon's day, decorate (by dressing nicely) your body. Another note, I'm not advocating body piercings, tattoos, or body paint.
I have to run for now (soccer practice), but I'll type more later.
.
Hi Grubb,
I created a new post at the top, so please cross-post your comment over there, too.
I have responded to most of your comments in that new post, with an addition just posted.
Hi James,
Thanks for recommending The Paradoxes of Catholicism. I've begun perusing it and it seems like a wonderful little book. Allow me, in return, to suggest Monsignor Benson's The Friendship of Christ, a copy of which I just happen to own. It too is an excellent work. And happily, both these, as well as numerous other of Msgr. Benson's works, are now online.
The Paradoxes of Catholicism:
http://books.google.com/books?id...h+benson%22&
lr=
The Friendship of Christ:
http://books.google.com/books?id...%22&
lr=#PPP9,M1
And may I wish you, Dave, and all the visitors to his site, a most happy and blessed Easter.
Peace.
Thanks Ben
Yes he ought to be better now, more widely read.
I will read The Freindship of Christ tell you what i think,
I'm in a debate with a Protestant who seems very knowledgeable already about Catholic theology and all the basic Catholic "apologetics" cookie-cutter answers, and he already has refutations. So, generally, it has been a very interesting debate as I dont have to start at "square one" with him and deal with all the easy stuff we deal with time and time again, which gets boring.
But one objection he brings up is that Catholics take the Eucharistic passages of the Bible very literally when proving transubstantiation. But, he says, in the same passages Christ says, "If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have eternal life". But, he says, we do not require people to receive from the cup, in fact for a long time the laity couldnt.
Well, I say, we believe that the whole Christ is contained under either species, body, blood, soul, and divinity.
Yes, he says, he knows that, but that still isnt "drinking". When we recieve the blood under the accidents of the host, we recieve it through eating. But Christ didnt say "Eat my blood" (nor "drink my flesh" for that matter). He was very specific that we had to "eat" and "drink"...and even if the blood is also with Christ (by concomitance) under the host, we are still not "drinking" to recieve it, we're eating.
And he says, if we dont take that too literally...then why should we take the rest of the passage so literally? Why are we so literal about the "flesh" and "blood" part, but more lenient/less literal on the "eat" and "drink" part?
How do I respond to this??
Commenting by HaloScan
