Posted on 12/20/2010 5:58:54 PM PST by kindred
“The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings; she judges them more than she is judged by them. Harnack has said that the Church is accustomed to conceal her evolution and to efface as well as she can the differences between her present and her former thought by condemning as heretical the most faithful witnesses of what was formerly orthodoxy. Not understanding what tradition is, the ever-living thought of the Church, he believes that she abjured her past when she merely distinguished between what was traditional truth in the past and what was only human alloy mixed with that truth, the personal opinion of an author substituting itself for the general thought of the Christian community.”
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Tradition_and_Living_Magisterium
Sounds to me like a “Living Constitution”, that changes meaning as required to fit the judges opinions...
“As regards truths such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there have been uncertainties and controversies over the very substance of the subjects involved. The revealed truth was indeed in the deposit of truth in the Church, but it was not formulated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more general truth (that e.g. of the all-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actual sin, exemption even from original sin). On the other hand, this truth (the exemption of Mary from original sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certain truths (universality of original sin, redemption of all by Christ). It will be readily understood that in some circumstances, when the question is put explicitly for the first time, the faithful have hesitated. It is even natural that the theologians should show more hesitation than the other faithful. More aware of the apparent opposition between the new opinion and the ancient truth, they may legitimately resist, while awaiting fuller light, what may seem to them unreflecting haste or unenlightened piety. Thus did St. Anselm, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure in the case of the Immaculate Conception. But the living idea of Mary in the mind of the Church implied absolute exemption from all sin without exception, even from original sin; the faithful whom theological preoccupations did not prevent from beholding this idea in its purity, with that intuition of the heart often more prompt and more enlightened than reasoning and reflected thought, shrank from all restriction and could not suffer, according to the expression of St. Augustine, that there should be question of any sin whatsoever in connexion with Mary. Little by little the feeling of the faithful won the day. Not, as has been said, because the theologians, powerless to struggle against a blind sentiment, had themselves to follow the movement, but because their perceptions, quickened by the faithful and by their own instinct of faith, grew more considerate of the sentiment of the faithful and eventually examined the new opinion more closely in order to make sure that, far from contradicting any dogma, it harmonized wonderfully with other revealed truths and corresponded as a whole to the analogy of faith and rational fitness. Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it as true, they declared it revealed.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
“Was Paul willing to have someone circumcised so they could better spread the Gospel? Yes. / You say that very glibly, given your own reading of Galatians! Read Galatians 5, again...”
I’ve read Galatians, and only a fool would claim that there is no distinction between those who circumcise themselves to gain approval of God, and those who circumcise themselves to gain access to potential converts.
“Unless your bias against Catholicism leads you to do it?”
Odd. I’ve had Calvinists claim I’m a secret Catholic pretending to be a Baptist. There are many Catholics on this forum who can attest that I’m not anti-Catholic, but Baptist.
Where I bump heads with Catholics is on the central difference between the two - can the traditions discovered or uncovered by the doctors of the church conflict with the plain meaning of scripture?
On the topic of this thread, I don’t greatly care if someone wants to claim Mary remained a virgin. It is against a plain reading of scripture & requires a lot of contortions, but it conflicts with no essential doctrine. I do wonder, however, at those who twist themselves like pretzels to avoid the thought that Mary had other children, when scripture plainly says she did.
Thank you for the courteous response. I rarely post on the religion forum threads anymore due to the bitterness and hatred so often displayed, all in the name, supposedly, of Christ!
I have some chores to do and will reply later. For now, let me admit I don’t think either of us will convince the other. For my part, I’m happy if folks leave understanding why I believe what I do, and let God handle the rest.
I think this passage from Romans is worth remembering in these discussions:
“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lords. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.” - Romans 14
We may differ on the perpetual virginity of Mary, and each of us will give account to God for what we have believed and done, but I think God will be more concerned with hatred in our hearts than with scoring 100% on a doctrinal test.
Jesus' Family Tree
In the Maronite Catholic Church, we are in the Season of Announcements and Glorious Birth of the Lord. Over the past several weeks, the Sunday Gospel focused our attention on how God prepared His people for the birth of Christ. It began with the Announcement to Zechariah, followed by the Announcement to Mary, the Visitation of Mary to her cousin Elizabeth, the Announcement to Joseph, that takes us to Genealogy Sunday.
The early christians were very well aware of Jesus' family tree. It is also worth noting that first century christians spoke and wrote in Aramaic. In fact, the Maronite Catholic Church still retains that ancient language in portions of its liturgy. There is no word for 'cousin' in Aramaic. The term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
Lot, for example, is called Abrahams "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abrahams brother (Gen. 11:2628), he was actually Abrahams nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:2122).
The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:1314).
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:4151). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Marys sons, not even when they are called Jesus "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.
Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:2627). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.
Do you really think that mangling my analogy makes your proposition any less absurd?
In this case, all you need for salvation and to be equipped for every good work is found in scripture.
If that were true, show me the verse that explains the Trinity, and need to believe in it even if one does not understand it.
Nor was the doctrine unheard of until the middle ages.
Then you should have no problem citing it as a doctrine agreed upon by the Church fathers instead of reading it into anecdotes. What was this doctrine called before sola scriptura was named at the reformation if it wasn't a "new revelation?"
“Do you really think that mangling my analogy makes your proposition any less absurd?”
I didn’t mangle anything. If $5 is the price, then $5 is sufficient. If the scriptures can fully equip you for every good work and salvation, then they are sufficient. You don’t need more.
“If that were true, show me the verse that explains the Trinity, and need to believe in it even if one does not understand it.”
Jesus never says, “Repent, and believe the Trinity!”
Nor does Peter.
The Trinity is a part of Systematic Theology - an attempt to put our knowledge of God into neat categories. That doesn’t make it an error, but neither is a full understanding of it required for salvation, or to live a holy life.
“Then you should have no problem citing it as a doctrine agreed upon by the Church fathers instead of reading it into anecdotes.”
There you go - relying on the doctrinal teachings of man instead of looking to the example of Jesus and the Apostles.
“Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” - 2 John
The teaching of Christ by the Apostles is sufficient. No one needs to run ahead and add more. They should be content to abide in the teaching of Christ by the Apostles. If not, “Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist”.
Indeed, as Paul said, “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” - Acts 20
He declared to them “THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD”. If Paul had proclaimed the whole counsel of God, then there was nothing left to be discovered and revealed: “Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it as true, they declared it revealed.
The Apostles revealed the whole counsel of God, and warned us against running on ahead of it. Of course, that is just scripture...the breath of God.
There is an Aramaic word for cousin. I don’t remember it, but I found it once in an Aramaic dictionary.
And the NT was written in GREEK for a reason - that was a part of God’s plan. And Greek certainly had words for cousins, and it is used in the NT - but NEVER to describe one of the brothers of Jesus.
At a minimum, God gave imperfect guidance to the writers of scripture, if He allowed them to write what must otherwise obscure the truth. The plain language of scripture doesn’t lead one to believe Mary remained a virgin. So either God made it to confuse, or Mary didn’t remain a virgin.
Aramaic is a language going back four thousand years. It is very diverse since it served as the lingua franca of the Middle East for centuries, developing numerous dialects. Hypothetically, some dialect could have acquired a word for "cousin." But the fact that one dialect would have such a word--and that it might conceivably be found in some Aramaic dictionary would not prove that it could have been used in a scriptural context.
[papertyger]
If that were true, show me the verse that explains the Trinity, and need to believe in it even if one does not understand it.
[Mr Rogers]
Jesus never says, Repent, and believe the Trinity! Nor does Peter.
Oh, come, now! Don’t you realize that you’ve dodged the main point altogether? Your original claim about “transubstantiation not being used as a word” to describe the Eucharist, per se, in early centuries, was being addressed, here: not anything else. This was one of the sillier non-sequiturs you’ve used, to date.
The Trinity is a part of Systematic Theology - an attempt to put our knowledge of God into neat categories.
The Blessed Trinity is an unalterable truth of our Faith, and our salvation depends on it, friend. The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity claims that God the Father is God, God the Son (i.e. Jesus Christ) is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God; but that they are not the same Person. If you deny the Trinity, you deny all of salvation history. If Jesus is not God, for example, then His sacrifice on the cross cannot save us. No... you can’t simply shove the “heavy listing” of theology onto others, while shoving it into the attic when it becomes inconvenient, simply to make a populist show of your case!
That doesnt make it an error, but neither is a full understanding of it required for salvation, or to live a holy life.
That’s almost painfully vague... and it applies to almost everything you hold dear.
1) Do you, for example, need to understand the necessity of Baptism, in order to be saved? St. Peter says that it is Baptism that saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and Jesus Himself says that we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven without it (John 3:5), so I think I’m safe in calling it important. For instance: would it make a difference if you (personally) are baptized, or not?
2) Do you, for example, need to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in order to have life within you? (cf. John 6:53) Or doesn’t the “exact definition” matter? (I would think that it would, frankly; if Protestants are wrong about Jesus meaning “acceptance of His Word”, and not a true consumption of the Holy Eucharist, it would seem to make a difference, yes?)
Ergh. Sorry for the bad formatting in that last message!
“Dont you realize that youve dodged the main point altogether? “
Haven’t. No one needs to believe in “The Trinity” to be saved. If they deny the Trinity, they are wrong, but the revelation of God isn’t exactly exhaustive in this area. In time, a person who studies the scriptures will conclude the Trinity, but no one needs to know it for salvation, and a person can be a Christian for years - or until death - without formulating the Trinity.
“1) Do you, for example, need to understand the necessity of Baptism, in order to be saved? St. Peter says that it is Baptism that saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and Jesus Himself says that we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven without it (John 3:5), so I think Im safe in calling it important. For instance: would it make a difference if you (personally) are baptized, or not?”
Lets look at John 3 again:
“1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Jesus is talking about the second birth - a man is born, but he must be born again to enter the Kingdom. He must be “born of water and the Spirit”. Why? “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
The water breaks, and the baby is born. But unless one is born again, of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It takes TWO births - water and spirit.
As John the Baptist put it:
“32And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.””
The baptism of Jesus is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
As Paul wrote:
“2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
That doesn’t mean baptism with water is nothing. I am, after all, a BAPTIST. I believe in following the example we find in Acts, where a believer is baptized with water as soon as water is ready.
“36And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” - Acts 8
“30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” - Acts 16
Now lets look at what Peter wrote:
“...when Gods patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
Notice he says baptism corresponds to the experience of Noah. Water didn’t save Noah from death. It threatened him with death were it not for the Ark. However, water did save him from the evil of the world, taking him away from the sinful society and destroying it in his life.
In corresponding manner, as Peter puts it, baptism saves us from the evil of this world, separating us from it. It isn’t “a removal of dirt from the body”, but “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.
If a man believes in Jesus, even without baptism or a full understanding of the Trinity, then like the thief on the cross, he IS saved. But if we take the example of scripture seriously, when someone converts, we should baptize them right away - not after taking classes, and not waiting for a church service or minister, but right away.
“See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
You write: “2) Do you, for example, need to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in order to have life within you? (cf. John 6:53) Or doesnt the exact definition matter? (I would think that it would, frankly; if Protestants are wrong about Jesus meaning acceptance of His Word, and not a true consumption of the Holy Eucharist, it would seem to make a difference, yes?)”
Yes we do. What did John write?
“35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”
So we see that Jesus isn’t referring to the Eucharistic wafer, but coming and believing. “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
It is an error to take “51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” as referring to Eucharist. If it did, we could simply give beggars on the street the wafer & wine, and they would have eternal life. Indeed, since everyone who eats the wafer dies physically, it is wrong to take this as a physical fact, rather than understanding what Jesus meant when he said “I am the bread of life.”
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
As CS Lewis once put it, the scriptures can be understood by a child, but they are not written primarily for children. It takes a hard heart to read John 6 and conclude that Jesus was talking about the Eucharist wafer and wine.
Amen! I attended Catechism Classes almost every week for a year with a nephew. I'm his adopted Godfather and the church allowed me and my formerly Catholic wife to stand for him at his confirmation at the beautiful Cathedral of Guadalupe here in Dallas.
During the process, my wife and I became very close friends with a Carmelite nun who was born and raised in Mexico. She's a wonderful woman of great faith.
Many of the families in the class were Hispanic and were fairly new to the United States. One problem that horrifies us and the sister is the difference in Catholicism between the United States and Latin America. Actually, it's really Catholicism in name only.
It's one thing to have a family discussion on FR about Mary's perpetual virginity. It's worth discussing but no one is going to hell for believing or not believing it. However, it's quite another thing to see that many people raised in Latin American churches are de facto polytheists who are a mix of about one-third Christianity and two-thirds indigenous religions.
In the border states, it has become a problem for mainstream Catholic churches to assimilate those from Latin America. As our nun friend has said, her biggest problem is converting the pupils and their parents to Christianity. In Catechism classes, she's more of a missionary than a teacher.
All of us born in the United States -- Protestants and Catholics alike -- are blessed to be here. Because of how God has blessed us, we are held more accountable than those with less understanding and are obliged to the salt and light to the world.
New doctrine. I used transubstantiation as an example. The doctrine evolved until a new word was needed to describe it, and to define it as essential belief - enough that people were killed for refusing to accept it.
As I pointed out from the Catholic Encyclopedia, ‘sacred tradition’ evolves until it declares what was previously hidden...to put it in very favorable terms. Referring to the Immaculate Conception as an example, it says, “The revealed truth was indeed in the deposit of truth in the Church, but it was not formulated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more general truth (that e.g. of the all-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actual sin, exemption even from original sin). On the other hand, this truth (the exemption of Mary from original sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certain truths (universality of original sin, redemption of all by Christ)...Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it as true, they declared it revealed.”
Yep. Although the Apostle Paul said he taught the whole counsel of God, and John said not to run ahead but to abide in their teaching, the Catholic Church “discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed”.
Please be frank about it. Admit that it is finding things not taught as truth before.
Mark Shea describes it thus: “Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.”
He argues that Paul taught a seed, and from it the Catholic Church has revealed a grown bush. But Paul and John said they taught the whole counsel of God, not fragments. To abide in it, not to grow it.
Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, etc were not revealed by the Apostles.
In his essay “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”, Cardinal Newman wrote:
“In truth, scanty as the Ante-nicene notices may be of the Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and more definite than the adducible testimonies in favour of the Real Presence. The testimonies to the latter are confined to a few passages such as those just quoted. On the other hand, of a passage in St. Justin, Bishop Kaye remarks, “Le Nourry infers that Justin maintained the doctrine of Transubstantiation; it might in my opinion be more plausibly urged in favour of Consubstantiation, since Justin calls the consecrated elements Bread and Wine, though not common bread and wine [Note 22] ... We may therefore conclude that, when he calls them the Body and Blood of Christ, he speaks figuratively.” “Clement,” observes the same author, “says that the Scripture calls wine a mystic symbol of the holy blood ... Clement gives various interpretations of Christ’s expressions in John vi. respecting His flesh and blood; but in no instance does he interpret them literally ... His notion seems to have been that, by partaking of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, the soul of the believer is united to the Spirit, and that by this union the principle of immortality is imparted to the flesh.” [Note 23] “It has been suggested by some,” says Waterland, “that Tertullian understood John vi. merely of faith, or doctrine, or spiritual actions; and it is strenuously denied by others.” After quoting the passage, {25} he adds, “All that one can justly gather from this confused passage is that Tertullian interpreted the bread of life in John vi. of the Word, which he sometimes makes to be vocal, and sometimes substantial, blending the ideas in a very perplexed manner; so that he is no clear authority for construing John vi. of doctrines, &c. All that is certain is that he supposes the Word made flesh, the Word incarnate to be the heavenly bread spoken of in that chapter.” [Note 24] “Origen’s general observation relating to that chapter is, that it must not be literally, but figuratively understood.” [Note 25] Again, “It is plain enough that Eusebius followed Origen in this matter, and that both of them favoured the same mystical or allegorical construction; whether constantly and uniformly I need not say.” [Note 26] I will but add the incidental testimony afforded on a late occasion:how far the Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist depends on the times before the Nicene Council, how far on the times after it, may be gathered from the circumstance that, when a memorable Sermon [Note 27] was published on the subject, out of about one hundred and forty passages from the Fathers appended in the notes, not in formal proof, but in general illustration, only fifteen were taken from Ante-nicene writers.”
Think for a moment about the very TITLE of his essay: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
That is what I’m saying - that Catholic doctrine develops. What wasn’t known, now is - according to Catholics. And while I think Newman wrote it prior to becoming a Catholic, consider Shea’s statement: “Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth...”
Those who say the Constitution is a living document don’t do so because they want to abide in it. They do so to escape it. Think about it.
Regarding baptism, you ask, “Why set one against the other?”
Because Jesus was answering Nicodemus. In context:
“Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?”
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”
Born again. Do you doubt that the FIRST birth Jesus is referring to is physical birth? Born again requires the first birth to be physical birth, and Jesus is saying (to a Jew, remember, one of God’s Chosen People) that it isn’t enough to be born a Jew, but you must be born AGAIN.
To suggest Jesus was interjecting water baptism in the middle of a discussion on needing more that physical birth is silly. Water baptism has no role in the discussion.
You must be born again. Physical birth as a Jew won’t suffice, you must also be born again of the Spirit. Two births - physical, and spiritual.
THAT is why I say the water refers to childbirth. It fits in the context of needing two births.
You write: “Going “THROUGH” water saved him and his family from earthly death; just as going THROUGH the waters of Baptism (think “immersion”) saves us from eternal death.”
No. Noah wasn’t saved from death by water. The threat of death WAS the water - a flood, remember? During a flood, water doesn’t save you from death. It DOES force you to go elsewhere. It separated Noah from the evil world.
In like manner, water baptism doesn’t save us from death, but separates us from the world around us be declaring our repentance and decision to be born again as new creations. It saves us FROM THE WORLD.
As for the Eucharist, Newman makes mention of it above. If it is the wafer and wine that truly becomes the blood and flesh of Jesus, and all who partake are saved, then we could give it to street people and save them apart from their will. It takes a hard heart to believe that Jesus, answering a question of the Jews, was instituting the Eucharist (Thanksgiving) and saying it literally becomes his blood and flesh, and saves anyone who partakes.
So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Jesus is using the miracle of the manna to tell the Jews, in response to their argument, that God HAS sent a sign: Jesus, the Bread of Life. There isn’t a hint of transubstantiation in there...
There's a tagline just waiting to happen.
If youread all of John 6, you see the Jews grumbling over Jesus' statements that they must eat his flesh, finding it a hard statement to understand. The translation of Jesus' words is very literal,i.e., to chew or gnaw. I believe that Jesus repeats himself 3 times on this point to the Jews growing consternation. He does not say to them that they are takinghim to literally, like when he clarifies his statements about being "born again."
Ultimately these disciples leaave him an d no longer follow him . If he was speaking figuratively, why would they leave? Because he wasn't.
25When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?" 26Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."
"61But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" 68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
This was a test for those following Jesus. It came right after the feeding of the 5000. Those who were looking for bread or an earthly king left. Those who believed remained.
Jesus was plenty clear.
"28Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." 30So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness..."
Jesus was talking about belief. THEY were looking for miracles. Jesus didn't WANT to keep disciples who wanted a good show...
Nicodemus, on the other hand, was asking sincerely. "39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. 40So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices..." - John 19
“Find me the verse that says Jesus gave authority to a book instead of a Church, and Ill regard you as something more than a religious flim-flam artist.”
“1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4But he answered, “It is written,
“’Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple 6and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,
“’He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “’On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
7Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”
10Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,
“’You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.’”
11Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.” — Matt 4
You might also consult St. Paul on the meaning:
“23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes.
“27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)
So... to what, exactly, is St. Paul referring, when he speaks of “eating the bread” and “drinking the cup”, where eating and drinking the contents unworthily entails sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord?
IN CONTEXT, what you cite follows this:
“17But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lords supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.”
They are using the Eucharist as an excuse to show off and to get drunk!
And a few paragraphs later Paul writes, “12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body Jews or Greeks, slaves or freeand all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.”
The Body being sinned against in 1 Corinthians 11 is the Body of Christ - the CHURCH!
They should be doing it thus: “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me” and “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Instead of remember Jesus, and giving thanks (eucharist) for what He did, they profane it by getting drunk, showing off and despising their fellow congregants - the Body of Christ. It is a holy time, not a time for drunken behavior. It despises the sacrifice of Jesus, and it despises his body the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.