Absolutely. But he can also cite tradition, so that's no help. More to the point, when Jesus countered the Enemy's attacks, did He fall back on rabbinical traditions? Or did He instead cite Scripture truly?
That's why it's important for every disciple of Christ to not merely accept another's word, but to study the Word for him or herself. When one has a grasp of the whole of the Bible, one sees just how feeble the Devil's out-of-context quotes really are. I'm not here to say, "Follow me!" but to say, "Study the Word for yourself and follow Him!"
When you speak of two or more gathering in Jesus' name, it is indeed true that he is present among them, but virtually--as he is present in the Word.
Why do you take Christ's promise to be there among them to be "virtual" and His command to eat of His flesh literally? That seems inconsistant.
But the Liturgy has always been deemed a sacrifice--the ancients always used this term. This is why there must be a priest, a person who sacrifices.
But that's just a return to a mock-Levitical system! Christ Himself is our High Priest now (per the whole book of Hebrews) who offered Himself up for our remission of sins. Having done so once, His perfect blood, in contrast to the blood of animals, is effectual over our sins forever.
The mediation of the priest is of an altogether different order--as one who effects the sacrifice.
For a priest to mediate in any way between Man and Christ also puts him as a mediator in between Man and God, which violates the clear message of Hebrews and 1 Tim. 2:5. Furthermore, Peter and Revelation both refer to the universal priesthood of believers (I can provide quotes later if you'd like). Thus, I reject modern Nicolaitanism in all its forms (and it does still appear in many Protestant demominations too, so don't think I'm just picking on the Catholics here).
This is because she alone has kept the tradition alive from the ancient apostolic past to today.
I disagree. I think the RCC has done the work of God in maintaining the continuence of the Scriptures (for which I thank your scribes), but when it takes 1800 years to formally proclaim the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary (to name just two), we see a clear evolution of theology, not a consistant, unchanging one.
The idea that the "spirit" of the Eucharist is what matters in this case is not true--any more than it would be to use sand instead of water for baptism merely because it's the "spirit" that counts.
*chuckle* Nice analogy. But I'm not arguing for the caprecious changing of the tradition of wheat wafers just for the heck of it. I'm arguing that in a case such as this, where health issues are the problem, that the issue of what kind of bread to use is secondary to allowing the child to partake of the Lord's table. I understand it's your church, but I'm explaining why this smacks of legalism over love to me, like the Pharisees who condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath instead of during the work week.
But we mortals for the most part are spiritually weak and need the physical reassurance that Jesus provided through his concrete sacrament.
That's why God gave us rituals; not because they are "magically" necessary for His grace, but because they teach us, comfort us, and make His will a part of us through the act. Rituals turn dead orthodoxy into a living culture. That's why denying this girl a very important part of her ritual culture, begrudgingly offering a sip of wine instead, saddens me and strikes me as unloving legalism.
You'll notice that St. Paul was speaking in the present tense at the time he wrote his Epistle to the Hebrews:
"For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was" (Hebrews v.1-4)
1. "Study the Word for yourself and follow Him!"
Sure--we should all study the Word for ourselves. But there is need to tally our interpretations with tradition as well. The Eucharist is a good example of why personal interpretation is inadequate. From the earliest days of the Church, these words of Christ to eat his Body and drink his Blood had been taken literally. He used specifically graphic--even repulsive--language to make sure he was not misunderstood. In fact, he was NOT misunderstood and many immediately took offense: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Some say that Christ was using a Hebrew expression, "eat my body", to mean "accept what I am teaching." But the Jews did not interpret Christ's words in this way, but instead they took him literally and show their umbrage. After which, Christ responds with even more emphasis: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." That is rubbing it in! In fact, he wants to make sure they get his meaning--and there is no further explication to mitigate the impact of what he has just said. In other words, he was saying, "Take it or leave it."
What's more, the Greek itself is unusually literal. The word phagein is used, which means, "to eat". Later he actually uses the word trogein, which means, "to chew". It was so literal in fact, that many of his followers abandoned him at once. Even today, it's tough to accept this. But tradition demands it--it is the consistent teaching of the Church from ancient times into our own. None of the apostles taught otherwise. If they had, their disciples, the Church Fathers, would have said so. But none had taught this doctrine in any other sense than most Catholics understand it today.
So also with much else in Scripture. Political correctness and human respect exert tremendous pressures in this day and age to conform our interpretations to the prevailing doctrines and prejudices of the age. Thus because science precludes the possibility of miracles, many are prone to interpret the Gospels as non-historical mythic accounts. Tradition insures this does not happen.
2. "But that's just a return to a mock-Levitical system! Christ Himself is our High Priest now (per the whole book of Hebrews) who offered Himself up for our remission of sins."
Yet this was Jesus' intent--according to the most ancient sources. All the ante-Nicene writers testify to this, that the Liturgy of the Eucharist was sacrificial and propitiatory, as well as a memorial meal. That again is not something the Church invented, but a truth which was passed-down from the beginning. Trent merely repeats what it received in saying this, rejecting a more metaphoric Protestant understanding. Yes, Jesus is the High Priest, but this in no way precludes a priest from offering to the Father that Sacrifice again and again in the Name of Jesus. Of course we differ from Protestants in this--but not because we wish to, but because that is what has been passed-down from the apostles from day one.
3. I agree with what you say about rituals. They are necessary and natural for all societies everywhere. But some rituals are sacramental--i.e., signs which confer a grace that would otherwise be absent.