I found this fascinating – because if the powers that be in the church actually believed that the blessing of the water accomplished spiritual cleansing in any sense then there would be no cause for them to deny the body and blood of Christ – which they profess the Eucharist to be and/or represent - to a believer who had confessed his sin. I am a Christian plain and simple and confess my sins continually in prayer. But the powers that be have determined my refusal to submit to the doctrines and traditions of the Catholic Church is a disqualification to the body and blood of Christ.
Aw Gee whiz. "In any sense"? Does the sense it which it is generally taught qualify as "any sense"?
The Mark 1.1, 1 each, Device, Water, for the sprinkling of - aka "aspergillium", from which, I believe, we get the word "asparagus" - which is what a little portable Mark 2.1 device, water, for the sprinkling of, looks kinds like, deals with venial sin. The Asperges are for venial sin (for those who like to keep score -- not me) and to recall, in a subjective way, Baptism and its graces. A Catholic who had committed mortal sin would not be qualified to receive after being sprinkled.
So that's cleansing in some particular sense - and "some particular" is part of "any" - while not presenting an inconsistency about admitting someone to Communion. It May, (stipulated for the sake of conversation) be madness, but there is method in it. We ain't QUITE as stupid as we look. Well, okay, except for me.
And again: the complaint seems to be that we won't let you have something you don't think we have. And that seems to me a little like looking for something to complain about: "The Catholics won't let me share in their ceremonies which I think are, at best, misguided and at worse, idolatrous, the nasties!" If we compelled you to participate or exercised some kind of social pressure to do so, THEN you'd have a beef, IMHO. As it is, we can't win for losing.
After all, as you say if YOU are right, there's no harm done. And if we're right, there's no harm done.
So what's the problem? First we are told that there's nothing much there, and then we are berated for not letting the someone who says there's nothing much there SHARE in that nothing much. "I WANT some of your nothing which may be, if it is anything at all, idolatrous, and which runs a high risk of being scandalous."
And all along we're saying, "If anyone eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord .... any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."
And note that St. Paul is very concrete about this: "That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died [!]"
We ain't kidding around here. We're playing with [a consuming] fire here, and it wouldn't be right to let those who think it can't possibly singe them (or worse) participate when there's a clear Scriptural warrant for being careful.
[We'll take up "powers that be" in a subsequent tirade. ;-) ]
And the scandal problem is a good one. If I understand it, the problem is that those who disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church might find something in the practice of the Church to smack of "stock of wood worship". I'm reminded of a distant in-law of the teetotalling persuasion who spat communion wine back into the chalice because she was shocked, shocked, that Episcopalians use fermented wine in their worship. Should they stop so as to avoid scandal to co-alcoholics? Should we stop talking about "love" because of the reputation given to our worship by some "out-there" Corinthians.
My alleged point is that whatever we do is going to scandalize someone. So we're going to have to wonder about where the dividing line is. That's going to be tough. Some people, after all, cant possibly enjoy their day if they don't have something or someone down upon whom they can look (or up with which they cannot put.)
ANyway, it's still Easter and hooray.
Thank you for sharing your insights - especially about the sprinkling!
But truly, I did not accuse anyone I knew of idolatry. Quite the contrary.
The point I raised - which is explained by Christ in Mark 7:5-23 quoted in post 237 - is that defilement comes from within the heart of the man. If a person kneeling and kissing the wood believed in his heart that he was worshipping it, then it is an abomination to him.
As to the Eucharist, I find the exclusiveness doctrine to be quite fascinating - and revealing. I am not offended by it, but others may be. The Catholic Church should have paid closer attention to this: