Posted on 07/14/2004 6:12:39 AM PDT by NYer
And I am asking YOU, why you would prefer to foster the comments of St. Paul (whom I love dearly) over the words of an eyewitness, Matthew. I cannot understand why you would disregard the very words spoken by Jesus Christ, to favor those presented by Paul.
I do not understand how you would, as a protestant ... a protestant minister ... one who believes in 'Sola Scriptura', bypass the words of Our Lord, and argue your case on the words of one who set out to destroy the christians but was converted, after Jesus had been resurrected.
I believe St. Paul is considered an apostle.
I think you are misunderstanding the protestants, though. The point they are making, and I think it valid, is that both Paul and Matthew are eye witnesses. Paul did not know about the life of Christ because the other apostles told him about it, he knew it because it was revealed to him by God, just as it was the others.
Thus, I think you are making a false dichotomy in saying that they should not focus on Paul, but on Matthew. It seems you are saying that the two may be contradictory. This is not the case, you should focus on Paul AND Matthew. Both are correct, and both apostles convey the Catholic belief in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
You may be trying to say that one is more clear than the other, which I think would be accurate (even Peter mentions that some of Paul's writings are not easily understood). Plus the Gospel account does provide Christ's own words, which I do agree makes it particularly important. Both are completely 100% correct, though (as I'm sure you agree).
Does he then say something to the effect that everything else is less than Truth? Saying my stove is a kitchen appliance and not mentioning my dishwasher is not saying that the stove is more of an appliance than the dishwasher. Same thing here. All scripture carries equal weight. As I mentioned before, the Holy Spirit inspired all of scripture. He is God, just as Jesus is God. Or does someone writing about Jesus and quoting Him have more Truth than the Holy Spirit? Are the words of the Holy Spirit less than that of Jesus?
Would you deny that the Gospel is anything less than the Truth.
No and you know that. That was not the issue. My point, if you care to go back and reread was that other scripture is also Truth. There are not levels of "truthness". However, do YOU deny that all other canon is anything less than the Truth? You seem to be. It sure looks that way. :(
That is not to say that his words bear less weight; rather, the words of the eyewitness Matthew carry far more significance as he was present when Christ,...
You can't have it both ways. There is no such thing as one part of God's Word having more importance than any other. IF it was, then that itself would be part of the Word. But it isn't.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Because it simply isn't true. It goes against so many passages in scripture that one part is more "true" than others. Something is either God's Truth or it is a lie. There is not a sliding scale in-between. I also realize I cannot change your mind. I can only pray that you truly take it to the Lord Himself in the attitude that James talks about in chapter 1.
In Jesus
St. Mark was not an apostle, by the way. He was a follower of St. Peter.
This, I think, highlights the error of the way you're argument above follows. St. Mark provides us with Christ's words as well, though he was neither apostle nor "eyewitness" (used in the strict, natural sense that he was not living and travelling with Jesus and the apostles).
What you are trying to say (if I am reading it correctly) is that a primacy should be given to Matthew's account not simply because an apostle wrote it, but because they are the words of Christ Himself.
IMVHO John 6:60 sums up this entire discussion very nicely.
I am talking about the gospel of good news - the gospel of Jesus Christ. That He came to be the sacrifices that He defined for our consecration, fellowship, thanksgiving and atonement. The Greek word translated gospel is euaggelion and is found 77 times in the New Testament. 62 times outside of the "gospels". Whenever we tell about the person and work of Jesus, we are "presenting the gospel". Paul talks about people bringing/teaching a "different gospel" more than once. Hope that helps.
I agree. That is why I don't enter into that whole discussion. :) I just pointed out the fact that one part of the bible is not any more true than any other point which is what someone was strongly implying.
A question! Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?
There are some areas of scripture which are of particular importance over and above others.
The Pater Noster (or Lord's Prayer), for example, is considered the greatest prayer because it was addressed from God the Son to God the Father, and given to us by Christ Himself. There are many prayers in the Bible, obviously, but this one considered chief among them. That doesn't mean the others aren't prayers, or aren't true, but that this one is more important.
Or, for another example, I don't think one needs to know the story of Esther's efforts to save God's people in the Old Testament in order to get to heaven. One does need to know of Christ's redemption of mankind on Calvary, though.
These examples don't mean that the gospel accounts of the passion of Christ are true, and Esther's story isn't. It simply shows that there are some parts of scripture which are of particular importance, which I think is the thrust of NYer's argument.
What I am saying is that there are 4 books of the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Matthew was an eyewitness. He quotes our Lord. How is it that the words he quotes have so little meaning to the protestants? Rather than believe and accept what Christ, Himself said, as is recorded by the Matthew, seem to be of less importance than a few words written by St. Paul which are not directly quoted from Christ. Does that make any sense?
***Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.***
Do you also believe Jesus is literally and physically a "door" or a "vine"?
I agree. Thank you!
I had hoped that the error in the title was a result of a misreading of the story and not a subtle anti-Catholic dig on your part.
NYer. Your post assumes statements I have not made:
***you would prefer to foster the comments of St. Paul (whom I love dearly) over the words of an eyewitness, Matthew***
I place them on a PARITY level. You are the one elevating one over the other. Reread my posts.
*** cannot understand why you would disregard the very words spoken by Jesus Christ, to favor those presented by Paul.
***
Show in my posts where I do this. Reread my posts.
***I do not understand how you would, as a protestant ... a protestant minister ... one who believes in 'Sola Scriptura', bypass the words of Our Lord, and argue your case on the words of one who set out to destroy the christians but was converted, after Jesus had been resurrected.***
I have done nothing of the sort. I did not bypass Christ's words. Instead I challenged your placing Paul in an inferior position via your analogy, etc. Reread my posts.
Now answer my question. Are Paul's words in 1 Corinthians inerrant?
I knew I was missing something. Thanks.
The question seems rather moot here- whether or not one thinks the eyewitnesses are somehow more important or not doesn't terribly matter; St. Matthew and the rest did not offer interpretation to the Eucharist (one might say St. John did, but he did not explicitly link the chapter six discourse to the Eucharist). St. Paul does- "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." I found it hard to get around this- and because of it I began to read "This is my body" without seeing only a symbol.
At any rate I am at a loss to see why the Gospels convey the Real Presence more strongly the Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians. Besides, it is not very catholic to elevate one part of Scripture over another- leave that for the "higher critics" and Jesus Seminar people.
Do you also believe Jesus is literally and physically a "door" or a "vine"?
"I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
(And now I have brought St. Paul into the discussion, at the point where his comments confirm Christ's words to his disciples.)
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.