Posted on 09/30/2013 11:30:08 AM PDT by NYer
How do you read the Bible? Today is the feast day of Saint Jerome, who once quipped, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”
It’s a running joke that if you want to find a Bible verse, you ought to ask a Protestant and not a Catholic. Protestants read the Bible. Catholics not so much.
This raises the question:
I think the answer lies in the fact that we Catholics go to Mass. The Holy Mass has at least two Bible readings every time. If you pray the Breviary or Liturgy of Hours, multiply that several times.
Joe Catholic says to himself, “Why should I study the Bible? I go to Mass. I hear it there. Check and check.”
There is something beautiful in this. For Catholics, Bible reading is liturgical. Hence, Bible reading remains chiefly a community experience.
It’s good to listen to the readings from the Bible at Holy Mass. However, we also need a personal (even private) encounter with God in the pages of Sacred Scripture. All of the saints breathed Sacred Scripture. Scripture served as the grammar for their souls. They couldn’t communicate without it.
Here are some basic spiritual needs that you have every single day of your life:
So when you wake up tomorrow, do the following:
What? You’re too busy. Sorry, you just got served a yellow card:
Doing these three readings will take you only 3-5 minutes. That’s the time of a commercial break. It will change your life for good. I promise. It takes 21 days to make a habit, so give it 21 days and see if you aren’t hooked. Put the Bible on your night stand and read it in the mornings. Start fresh.
“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” – Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church
It seems like no amount of Scripture refutation, teachings of early church leaders, LOGIC, reason, or anything else can sway those who have been totally convinced of this core doctrine. They say they have "authenticated" miracles, we are told, of REAL human heart tissue inexplicably appearing where a communion host was previously left. But, no one wonders, if this is the true reality, then why doesn't it happen ALL the time? Why depend upon exceptions to prove the rule? If everyone was being honest on this topic, they would admit that it is ALL by faith anyway. Catholics believe that the bread and wine, though materially not changed in the slightest, are in essence changed - it's a spiritual change that cannot be detected by any human means. That being the case then, what is all that wrong in the way other Christians view the ordinance of the "Lord's Supper"? It is GENUINELY all symbolic since the material never changes - the bread doesn't become REAL flesh, the wine doesn't turn into REAL blood.
What really matters is what we DO with Jesus. How do we receive his sacrifice for our sins? Believing IS eating and drinking. We eat and drink Christ through faith and that is how we are redeemed. It is how we are born again into the family of God. Observing the remembrance of Him in the communion service is how we are always reminded of what HE did for us. Taking the elements is not how we have eternal life - only through faith are we saved by grace. All this bickering, I believe, is futile and causes discord. What God desires is that we live peacefully in one accord with each other in love. That is what matters to Him.
Ditto! :o)
Please read a couple of these FR threads.
Mexico Archdiocese Investigating Possible Eucharistic Miracle
Bleeding Eucharist at Primary School in Moruga [Trinidad]
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy (The Body and Blood of Christ) [Catholic Caucus]
Do You Believe in Eucharistic Miracles?
Eucharistic Miracle at St. Stephen's in New Boston MI.(Catholic Caucas)
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS]'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity': The Miracle and Gift of the Most Holy Eucharist
Looking After a Eucharistic Miracle (Franciscan Recounts His Special Mission in Siena)
Eucharistic Miracle: 2009?
Possible Eucharistic Miracle in Poland
The Eucharistic Miracles(Catholic Caucus)
Vatican display exhibits eucharistic miracles
Eucharistic Miracle - Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy
Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano -Verifies Authenticity of the Phenomenon
BLOOD TYPE FOUND IN ICONS IS SAME AS IN SHROUD OF TURIN AND 'LANCIANO MIRACLE'
Eucharistic Miracle: Lanciano,Italy-8th Century A.D.
ROTFL!
What makes it a hoot is that by their own admission, their 'separated brethren' can be saved, no matter how imperfectly... rendering their whole system wholly unnecessary - After all, the very concept pf a thing made absolutely necessary loses every bit of it's force the very moment it is admitted there is another way.
Who exactly do you think "The Word" is, anyway? (The answer: He is Jesus, who was made flesh, just like the Bible says, and just like Catholics say when partaking of the Word in the Holy Eucharist.)
Read these links (for starters) to get a much clearer understanding of what St. Clement of Alexandria actually was saying and believed about the Holy Eucharist:
Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist(I have to get up early tomorrow morning, so I'll have to check back maybe late tomorrow to see if you read these clarifying sources, and what you think of his clear expressions.)Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Christ in the Flesh - Early Christians Testify on the Eucharist
St. Clement of Alexandria (150-216 A.D.)
Clement uses the flesh and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist as a metaphor for eating and drinking the Spirit.
But there isn’t one word in that whole passage in which Clement denies the Real Presence.
If I say that the Titanic is a metaphor for European civilization on the eve of WWI, that doesn’t mean there was no REAL Titanic!
NYer - should have included you when posting # 586.
(It has been a long day.) :-)
When he uses the "Word" he means Christ or the word of consecration mostly on the bread and wine. He is talking to people who basically already believe this as Eucharist. Which is why I think you are at lost of a full understanding.
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/01/early-church-fathers-on-eucharist-c-200.html
Cheers in Christ!
Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist (c. 200 - c. 300 A.D.)
A few weeks ago, I posted brief snippets of the writings of the earliest Church Fathers, from the time of the Apostles until 200 A.D., showing what they believed on the Eucharist. Long story short, these men believed that the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ, that this happened at the words of consecration, and that after this point, it ceased to be bread and wine. Today, I’m (finally) including the writings of those writing from c. 200-300 A.D.
I. St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D.)
Last time, I addressed Tertullian, who bridged the second and third century (c. 160 - c. 220). St. Clement is a contemporary of his (c. 150-215), so in both cases, we’re right on the cusp between the 100s and the 200s. St. Clement’s Paedagogus (meaning The Tutor or The Instructor) is from about 189-200 A.D., and his series of books called the Stromata (Miscellanies) were probably written shortly and after Paedagogus. Origen is one of his students, and succeeds him as Bishop of Alexandria. In his writings, which I’ve mentioned before, he shows a very Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
First, here’s what Clement says on the Eucharist in Book IV, Chapter 25 of the Stromata:
This is in reality righteousness, not to desire other things, but to be entirely the consecrated temple of the Lord. Righteousness is peace of life and a well-conditioned state, to which the Lord dismissed her when He said, “Depart into peace.” [Mark 5:34] For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Saviour is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist. And Melchizedek is interpreted righteous king; and the name is a synonym for righteousness and peace.
If you’re not familiar, a “type” is a prophetic prefigurement of something greater. The Passover lamb is a type of the Lamb of God. Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20), is a type of Christ, the Eternal High Priest, and the true King of Peace (the Book of Hebrews draws the same connections in Hebrews 5:5-10, Heb. 6:20, and all of Hebrews 7). Likewise, the consecrated bread and wine offered by Melchizedek are a type of the Eucharist, as the Mass says. That’s easy to gloss over, but pay close attention. What Melchizedek offered was a sacrifice, and he prefigures Christ, while the sacrifice prefigures the Eucharist. So we can see from his parallel that as Melchizedek offered bread and wine as sacrifice, Christ offers the Eucharist as Sacrifice.
Even clearer is Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, in which Clement says:
And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lords immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both of the water and of the Word is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.
Starkly Catholic. We drink the Blood of Jesus. Immediately after this, lest there be any argument that Clement thought this was really just wine, Clement writes at great length against wine, saying, “I therefore admire those who have adopted an austere life, and who are fond of water, the medicine of temperance, and flee as far as possible from wine, shunning it as they would the danger of fire.” He then lists off the dangers of wine, saying it’s inappropriate for those undertaking “the divine studies,” and it leads to drunkenness, lust, mistakes and irritations.
It’s clear from the sheer contrast between the Eucharist, which he praises (and calls “the Blood of Jesus” and promises will lead us to eternal life if taken faithfully), and wine, which he calls us to flee from completely, that Clement doesn’t think that the Eucharist is wine. You can’t abstain from wine and still receive the Eucharist, unless the Eucharist isn’t wine. And it isn’t as though these are writings separated by time and place, that he had a change of heart. This is a single chapter, and he connects the two thoughts with a “therefore.” He doesn’t view this as a contradiction.
Finally, we also see Clement condemning as heretical those “employ bread and water in the oblation, not according to the canon of the Church. For there are those who celebrate the Eucharist with mere water.” So here’s what we know. Clement viewed wine as bad, and encouraged Christians to flee from it completely. But he also condemned as heretics those who attempted to consecrate water without wine at the Eucharist. Rather, wine must be used in the Eucharist, because (a) the Church requires it, and (b) it becomes the Blood of Christ (i.e., no longer wine, and no longer something to flee from). Finally, note that Clement calls the Eucharist an Oblation, that is, a Sacrifice to God. This tells us all that we need to safely say that Clement held to the Catholic view of the Eucharist, and that he obviously didn’t hold to any of the Protestant views.
.
I
I
.
Wow! I was just typing about some of the same things. Lol! Hav a good nite.
Like I said:
They say they have "authenticated" miracles, we are told, of REAL human heart tissue inexplicably appearing where a communion host was previously left. But, no one wonders, if this is the true reality, then why doesn't it happen ALL the time? Why depend upon exceptions to prove the rule? If everyone was being honest on this topic, they would admit that it is ALL by faith anyway. Catholics believe that the bread and wine, though materially not changed in the slightest, are in essence changed - it's a spiritual change that cannot be detected by any human means. That being the case then, what is all that wrong in the way other Christians view the ordinance of the "Lord's Supper"? It is GENUINELY all symbolic since the material never changes - the bread doesn't become REAL flesh, the wine doesn't turn into REAL blood.
These so-called miracles should be an everyday, everywhere occurrence - if indeed this transubstantiation is the "literal" changing of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. It should be a given, but it's not, it's an exception - heralded and celebrated, worshiped and sold as sites for pilgrimages to see a "miracle". Why don't people ask why this isn't always the case? The point is we ALL celebrate the Lord's Supper as a Remembrance of Him and as a reminder of God's grace that redeems us through faith. Catholics have faith that the elements of which they are partaking infuse their souls with sanctifying grace. While others such as myself have faith going into the Communion service that, by partaking with fellow worshipers, I am reminded and assured of the grace of God and what He did for me by making propitiation for my sins by the sacrifice of the cross. God's grace imputes the righteousness of Christ to my soul when I first received Him. My faith is encouraged and strengthened as I remember with fellow believers the wondrous grace of God. Catholics have nothing over any of us.
I'm a 66 year old, thanks. I don't throw tantrums like I heard from some whiny baby! That is definitely not a depiction of me...
Galatians 3: ... 10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law. 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because the righteous will live by faith. 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, The person who does these things will live by them. 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole. 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. ...
... 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise.
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.