He's An Only Child -- A response to a Protestant argument against Mary's perpetual virginity

Envoy Magazine ^ | Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.

[Patrick Madrid]

He's an Only Child
A bogus Greek argument against Mary's perpetual virginity is making the rounds.
By Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.

Recently, in some Internet discussion groups, a few Protestant apologists have been expending quite a bit of energy trying to refute the Catholic doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity. "Ho hum", you might be saying to yourself. "What's new or interesting about that? The 'Mary-had-other-children' canard has been effectively demolished by Catholic apologists a hundred times over. Who cares about this latest twist on a worn-out claim?"

 

My reaction, each time Professor McCrossen ranted about this, was: What's the big deal? No reasonable person would take the phrase "He knew her not until she gave birth" as somehow proving that he never knew her at all. Why rail away against a position no sensible person is likely to take anyway?

Well, as one who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity, I care, and you should, too. You see, this new argument is based on two Greek terms that mean "until": heos and heos hou.

These Protestant critics of Mary's perpetual virginity are training their guns on Matthew 1:25, claiming that the Greek term for "until" used by St. Matthew - heos hou - implies a reversal or cessation of the condition that is expressed in the clause preceding it. Thus they're attempting to show from linguistic evidence alone that Scripture contradicts the Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity. And that is a very big deal.

These Internet Intellectuals willingly admit that the Greek word heos all by itself does not imply any such reversal or cessation. This is true of 1 Timothy 4:13, for example: "[heos] I come, attend to the public reading of scripture." But in Matthew 1:25, heos is not used by itself; the word for "until" is heos hou. And in the New Testament heos hou always indicates reversal of the preceding clause - or so they claim. One of the Protestant apologists involved in this Internet argument wrote:

"We have insisted that the basic meaning of heos hou in the New Testament, when it means 'until,' always implies a change of the action in the main clause" (emphasis in the original).

Now if this were true it would indeed indicate that there is linguistic reason for denying the teaching of the Catholic Church on Mary's perpetual virginity. So on that little conjunction, heos hou, a great deal seems to depend.

My old history professor at Boston College, Vincent McCrossen, God rest his soul, used to scream at us in class: "Matthew 1:25, where it says that Joseph did not know Mary until she had given birth to Jesus, does not - repeat: does not - prove that Mary was perpetually a virgin!" He went on to say (or rather scream) that the Greek word for "until" (heos) leaves the matter open. It does not necessarily imply that what didn't happen before the birth (ie. Joseph's "knowing" Mary) did happen after it.

My reaction, each time Professor McCrossen ranted about this, was: What's the big deal? No reasonable person would take the phrase "He knew her not until she gave birth" as somehow proving that he never knew her at all. Why rail away against a position no sensible person is likely to take anyway?

That was my first reaction. But upon further reflection, part of what he said seemed reasonable. Even in English the word "until" need not imply that what didn't happen before some point in time did happen after it.

Think of Granny. She started taking an antibiotic last night; this morning her skin has broken out in welts. We call the doctor and he tells us: "Don't give her any of that medicine until I get there!" In this case the word "until" means pretty much the same as "before"; and there is no implication that Granny will get the medicine after the doctor arrives. In fact, it's implied that she probably won't. So I concluded at the time: Better to say that Matthew 1:25 does not disprove Mary's perpetual virginity; that considered in itself and from the point of view of language alone it does indeed leave the matter open. Catholics can read it as consistent with their Faith; Protestants, as consistent with theirs. Both readings are possible. In any case, it's no big deal. Right?

Wrong. The heos hou argument is bogus.

I'm fluent in classical and koine Greek (koine is the simpler style of Greek used by the New Testament writers), having studied it for many years prior to my ordination to the priesthood and before I earned my Ph.D. I've taught high school and university courses in Greek, and I regularly read Scripture in Greek. But none of that qualifies me as anything close to being an expert in Greek. So rather than trust my own judgment, I checked it out with the experts.

I printed out transcripts of the online heos hou arguments made by these Protestant apologists and showed them to several Greek scholars. They laughed, treating them with scornful derision. They confirmed what I already knew: that heos hou is just shorthand for heos hou chronou en hoi (literally: until the time when), and that both heos and heos hou have the same range of meaning. But do they? Professional scholars can sometimes be dismissive because they've been scooped by unpedigreed amateurs. Could that be the case here? What does a hard look at the evidence reveal?

For one thing, it reveals that not every occurrence of heos hou in the New Testament plainly indicates reversal of the condition being described in the main clause.

Consider Acts 25:21: "But when Paul demanded to be kept in custody until [eis] the Emperor's verdict, I gave orders that he should be kept in custody until [heos hou] I could send him on to Caesar" (Anchor Bible translation, slightly amended; my bracketing).

Now when St. Paul was to be sent on, he was surely going to remain in custody; for his original request was to be kept in custody until the Emperor's verdict. Hence the use of heos hou in this verse does not imply that Paul ceased to be kept in custody after he had been remanded to Caesar. It implies the very opposite.

Another example of heos hou being used without any sense of a change in condition after the "until" happens is 2 Peter 1:19:

"Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as a lamp shining in a dark place, until (heos hou) the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." Clearly, St. Peter was not insinuating that we should cease being attentive to the truths he was presenting after "the day dawns and the morning star rises in [our] hearts." Here, as in Matthew 1:25, heos hou does not imply a change.

Think of a comparable case. Luigi, a mob informant in Chicago, tells agent Smith that he wants to be held in protective custody till he can meet with the head of the FBI in DC. Agent Smith phones his superiors and says: "I've put Luigi in protective custody until I can arrange for transportation to DC." Will Luigi cease to remain in protective custody once he leaves for DC? Of course not. The force of agent Smith's "until" obviously concerns the time before Luigi's leaving. He might have said to his superiors: "Luigi is in protective custody now and will remain in protective custody during the whole time before I'm able to arrange for his transportation to DC." But we express this in normal English by the word "until." If agent Smith had been speaking koine Greek, it seems clear he'd have said heos hou.

But suppose all this is wrong. Suppose that, apart from Matthew 1:25, every occurrence of heos hou in the New Testament clearly indicates a reversal of the main clause. That would still not prove that reversal is implied by Matthew 1:25. It would merely prove that Matthew 1:25 may be the only place in the New Testament where reversal is not implied. If this is supposed to be a linguistic argument, we need to ask ourselves: Did heos hou really have a range of meaning significantly different from heos all by itself? Is there evidence that between (say) 300 B.C. and 300 A.D., Greek speakers recognized that heos hou, unlike heos by itself, always implied reversal or cessation of what is expressed in the main clause?

The answer is no.

One Greek text well known to the authors of the New Testament was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was in place roughly two hundred years before Christ. And there, lo and behold, we find that heos hou does not always indicate reversal or cessation. In Psalm 111 (112):8 we read: "His heart is steadfast, he shall not be afraid until [heos hou] he looks down upon his foes." Obviously the man who delights in the Lord's commands is going to continue to have a steadfast heart and to be unafraid even after he looks down upon his foes.

Skip ahead now to the third century A.D. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Thus thirty years were completed until [heos hou] He [Jesus] suffered" (Stromateis, 1.21; Patrologia Graeca, 8.885a). There is no reversal of the main clause here; once again, heos hou is equivalent to "before." So two hundred years before the New Testament and two hundred years after the New Testament, heos hou could be used, like heos all by itself, to mean extent of time up to a point - but with no negation of the idea expressed in the main clause.

Do our Cyberspace Savants really expect anyone to believe that for a brief period in the middle of this consistent usage, heos hou suddenly had to indicate reversal of the main clause? Or maybe they think that the New Testament was written in a special kind of Greek - one raised uniquely above the mundane flow of usage that preceded and followed it. Or maybe they're blowing smoke concerning a language they really don't know very much about. Or maybe these Protestant apologists do know a good deal about Greek, but they are either ignorant of this particular issue (and are trumpeting their ignorance over the Internet), or they do know their argument has no merit on linguistic grounds and are sneakily persisting in using it.

But regardless of how well or poorly these men know Greek, St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest early Church Fathers, surely knew the Greek language immensely well (he wrote and spoke it fluently) and was sensitive to its every nuance. Let's look at what he had to say on the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity and the meaning of heos hou.

In his sermons on St. Matthew's Gospel (cf. Patrologia Graeca, 7.58), St. John Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 and then asks, "But why . . . did [St. Matthew] use the word 'until'?" Note well here: In quoting the verse, Chrysostom had used heos hou; but in asking the question, the word he uses for "until" is heos all by itself - as if he were unaware of a difference in meaning between these two expressions.

He answers his question by saying that it is usual and frequent for Scripture to use the word "until" (heos) without reference to limited times. Then he gives three examples. The first is his own paraphrase of Genesis 8:7: "The raven did not return until the earth was dried up." Here Chrysostom uses heos hou for "until." (But the actual text of the Septuagint has heos alone.) The second example is from Psalm 90:2: "From everlasting to everlasting you are." The verse quoted (correctly) by Chrysostom has heos all by itself. The third example is from Psalm 72:7: "In his days justice shall flourish and fullness of peace until the moon be taken away." And here the word for "until," as in the Septuagint text, is heos hou.

If Joseph was a just man and a faithful Jew, if he believed that the God he worshipped, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who was present in the Holy of Holies, was present also in Mary's womb as Father of her Child,  is it really likely that he would have had relations with his wife once the Child had been born?

It's clear that for St. John Chrysostom, heos has exactly the same meaning as heos hou. That's why he framed his question about "until" in terms of heos alone, even though the verse giving rise to the question, which he'd just finished quoting, had heos hou instead. That's why it was natural for him to use heos hou in his paraphrase of Genesis 8:7. And that is why, in his list of analogues to Matthew 1:25, he used both heos and heos hou without the slightest hesitation - his linguistically sensitive ear registered no difference in meaning between them. (But there is a syntactical difference: heos hou came normally to be used as a conjunction; heos by itself as a preposition.)

If an unbridgeable linguistic chasm separated these two expressions, how could it be that the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom was unaware of it? The plain answer is that there was no such chasm. The whole "heos hou vs. heos" argument is a bunch of hooey. And both Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods and Stephanus in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae agree; they state explicitly that heos and heos hou are equivalent in meaning.

And finally, we have the testimony of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament that the Apostles and the early Church Fathers almost always quoted from in their writings.

So in this corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have Sophocles, Stephanus, the Septuagint, St. John Chrysostom, and modern Greek scholars; in that corner, we have the "Pentium Pamphleteers," swashbuckling Internet polemicists who are pretty clumsy in their wielding of this particular "argument" from the Greek. If you were inclined to wager money, I'd ask you: Where would you place your bets?

But beyond all this, it's the surrounding context, not words considered simply in themselves, that will usually tip the balance of interpretation. If we hear someone say: "I'm not going to eat anything until Thursday," we figure that come Thursday he's going to eat something - because people normally eat. Likewise when we read that a married couple did not have intercourse until a certain time, we figure that they did have intercourse after that time - because this is one of the ways married people normally express their love. And no doubt most (though not all) Protestants read Matthew 1:25 as they do, not out of any pedantic pseudo-scholarship or desire to derogate Mary or compulsive hatred for the Catholic Church.

Rather, they simply desire to see Mary and Joseph as a normal, loving couple. And to all such people of good will, I would close with the following question I'd ask them to ponder before they deny Mary's perpetual virginity: If Joseph was a just man and a faithful Jew, if he believed that the God he worshipped, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who was present in the Holy of Holies, was present also in Mary's womb as Father of her Child - is it really likely that he would have had relations with his wife once the Child had been born?

And if that question does not give you pause, be assured of my prayers until (heos hou) it does (and afterwards as well).

Call 1-800-55-ENVOY today and subscribe at our special introductory rate, order directly with our online subscription form, or buy a copy of Envoy at a location near you!

---

Home · Subscribe/Renew · Articles · About · Help Envoy· Advertise 
 Why Subscribe? · Writers' Guidelines ·  Permission/Use ·  Contact Envoy

800-55-envoy or 740-587-2292

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Assumption of Mary, The Immaculate Conception of Mary (says she was born sinless, didn't need salvation because she was sinless) or the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

We've discussed the Perpetual Virginity here already. Regarding the Assumption, why is this so unreasonable? Matthew 27.52 tells us the graves of the Old Testmament Saints were opened and the Saints rose again. Ephesians 4.6-8 tells us Christ led these same Saints up into heaven at his Ascension (as also Enoch and Elijah were taken bodily up into heaven).

If Christ could do this for the Stains of the Old Testament, why woudl he not do so for His own Mother?

Regarding the Immaculate Conception, the doctrine says Mary was born with grace, and without concupiscence. It doesn't say she didn't need a savior, because she did (Luke 1.47), rather, it says her redemption from original sin took place at the moment of conception, and that when her soul was infused into her tiny zygotic body, it was also filled with grace at the same time that overcame Adam's sin (Luke 1.28). That's why the Angel greeted her "Chaire, Kecharitomene!" - "Hail, Full of Grace!"

It's why I could never become a Catholic, even though I have such respect for it outside of those doctrines...

If you truly want to become a Catholic, but this is a stumbling block, open your mind and pray to God for enlightenment on these topics, to grant you understanding.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>How do you read :

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”

II>The same way I read this:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

We will be one with the Father and Yeshua. Doubt that would make us God.

283 posted on 06/24/2003 5:47 PM MDT by Invincibly Ignorant

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the
world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by
the power of your name — the name you gave me — so that
they may be one as we are one.

I don't read John 17:11 the same way as you do .

I read it as G-d the Father and Y'shua are as one (("as we,"))
all the church( the "called out" ones) are one as the bride of Y'shua(("so that they may be one"))

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>

[Quester]

Jesus in the Gospels, too, solemnly informs us that the Jews are children of the Devil, because they reject Him, and thus reject God the Father.

"You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." (John 8.44)

JESUS is speaking to the Pharisees here, at a time when every follower he had was a Jew.

Paul, also, informs us that God has not cast away Israel ...

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
------------------------------------------------------
Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Also, god has yet more for His servant Israel to do ...

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

Also, I think that it is important to point out that your current pontiff does not agree with the declarations in your posting.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I don't read John 17:11 the same way as you do .

Selective reading. How convenient.

[Quester]

Where are these "Missionary/Evangelist teams" in a Scripture that talks only of Bishops, Presbyters (Priests - look up the derivation), and Deacons?

Paul/Barnabas/Silas/John Mark ?

How could this not be a comprehensive picture of Christ? Are you claiming their preaching was lacking?

I think that their preaching was entirely adequate.

Do you think the average first century christian's picture of Christ was as comprehensive as that which is available to us today through the completed canon of scripture ?

[SoothingDave]

Do you think the average first century christian's picture of Christ was as comprehensive as that which is available to us today through the completed canon of scripture ?

The average first century Christian could talk to (or at least hear from) an actual witness to Christ's life and resurrection. Ponder that for a moment.

SD

[Quester]

For clarity, I'm going to split your response into (2) parts ...

The average first century Christian could talk to an actual witness to Christ's life and resurrection. Ponder that for a moment.

If one of these witnesses happened to be around (in Philippi, Sardis, Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, Athens, Colossa, Ephesus, etc., ... rather than being concentrated in Jerusalem) ... no doubt.

The average first century Christian could, at least hear from, an actual witness to Christ's life and resurrection. Ponder that for a moment.

So can we (from the scriptures).

[Quester]

Israel is the Church, the congregation of the faithful of the Hebrews, and the converts of the Gentiles. See Romans 11, John 8, etc. You blaspheme by giving that term to the modern Jews, who are wholly underserving of it (see Revelations 2.9)

John 8 is directed to the Pharisees.

Romans 11 says that Gentile believers have been grafted onto the the branch of Israel. Have you forgotten that there are Jewish believers?

By sacrilegious Protestants such as yourself who deny her perogatives and holiness and call her place in the economy of salvation into question and deny the usefulness of having recourse to her prayers. That's how Blessed Mary is persecuted in heaven.

I take my cue from JESUS of the scriptures ... and I rather doubt that JESUS persecuted His mother.

[SoothingDave]

If one of these witnesses happened to be around

I thought the Apostles sent out witnesses to found the early churches?

So can we (from the scriptures).

And here it is again. Even with eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, you desire that text. Though the Apostles or their immediate successors are alive and directing the Church, even though the Bible is not yet finished being written, you desire it over and above the Church that already exists.

This is the result of your sola scriptura lenses. The new Church, even though it writes and canonizes your Bible is not sufficient to teach you.

SD

[RobbyS]

<1>So can we (from the scriptures). But not many Christians up until the 13th Century, when the Bible was first put together in the format we know and in a handy size. Then it became available to every educated persons in western Europe.

[Quester]

I thought the Apostles sent out witnesses to found the early churches?

Do you have documentation of this ? Scriptural evidence points more to Paul and company, I believe.

And here it is again. Even with eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, you desire that text. Though the Apostles or their immediate successors are alive and directing the Church, even though the Bible is not yet finished being written, you desire it over and above the Church that already exists.

This is the result of your sola scriptura lenses. The new Church, even though it writes and canonizes your Bible is not sufficient to teach you.

To what eyewitnesses to the life of JESUS do you suggest that I appeal, other than they which preserved their eyewitness in the scriptures.

I am grateful for the writers which wrote and for the canonization of the NT scriptures by a church which was apparently faithful to this calling by God.

Let's face it ... I trust the recorded words of God more than I do the teaching of men.

Dave, ... if you were to buy a house or a car, ... enter into a business partnership, etc., ... you would insist that the transaction be recorded to shield yourself (and your family) from any potential loss.

Yet you would insist that I risk my very soul on what is not recorded as scripture, ... simply trusting that your leaders have accurately passed down oracles of God through two centuries worth of time, ... which they, as yet, ... have not deemed to designate as scripture.

[Quester]

Let me ask a question.

What, would you say, was God's purpose in the canonization of the scriptures ?

[SoothingDave]

What, would you say, was God's purpose in the canonization of the scriptures ?

To provide us with a sure way of knowing which writings were divinely inspired and which were not.

SD

[SoothingDave]

My point was only that I think your position today, no matter how justified, is anachronistic when applied to the first century. I would much rather learn at the feet of those who knew Jesus than I would from a book.

Even in the first generation, your suspicion of the humans in the Church comes out.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just noting how deeply your attachment to the written word over any Church is. You are, at least utterly consistent.

SD

[Sir_Ed]

"We've discussed the Perpetual Virginity here already. Regarding the Assumption, why is this so unreasonable?"

It just isn't said in the Bible. If it's okay to just come up with ideas, why not say that James, John, Peter and Matthew were raised bodily into Heaven?

"Regarding the Immaculate Conception, the doctrine says Mary was born with grace, and without concupiscence. It doesn't say she didn't need a savior, because she did (Luke 1.47), rather, it says her redemption from original sin took place at the moment of conception"

If her redemption from sin took place at the moment of her conception, then that means she didn't need Jesus' crucifiction to grants her forgiveness from sin...

If God didn't need Jesus' sacrifice to grant Mary forgiveness of sins, then why didn't He just apply that same method of salvation to the rest of the world, and spare His Son from crucifixtion?

And if God could grant salvation to someone without the needed step of Jesus' sacrifice, why didn't He grant that same redemption of sins to John the Baptist? Or King David? Or Elizabeth?

But it also doesn't make sense because it's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible that there were TWO people born without being subject to Original Sin, Jesus and Mary...in fact, the record states that Jesus was the only one born not subject to Original Sin.

"If you truly want to become a Catholic, but this is a stumbling block, open your mind and pray to God for enlightenment on these topics, to grant you understanding."

If anything, I'm pulled toward Lutheranism, but cannot quite believe in the Real Presence, (or Contransubstantiation?). I attend a Calvary Chapel right now, in Southern Oregon...

Ed

[SoothingDave]

If it's okay to just come up with ideas, why not say that James, John, Peter and Matthew were raised bodily into Heaven?

Nobody said it ok to just come up with ideas. We didn't make up the Assumption. It happened and is attested to. Just not in any canonical writings.

Likewise, Peter was martyred in Rome and the other Apostles were not Assumed. If they were, we'd have the Traditional belifs about it.

You see, we didn't read the Book and then make up stories outside of it. We wrote the Book and we were there in history when these things truly happened.

If her redemption from sin took place at the moment of her conception, then that means she didn't need Jesus' crucifiction to grants her forgiveness from sin...

God granted her a singular favor, because of her role in salvation, to grant the merits of Christ's sacrifice prior to it happening in time.

Do you think God had to "wait" for Christ to be sacrificed? God does not operate in time as we do. To Him the sacrifice of Christ has always been present, and He has always been able to use its merits for the salvation of souls.

The history only had to play out in time for our benefit here in creation.

If anything, I'm pulled toward Lutheranism, but cannot quite believe in the Real Presence, (or Contransubstantiation?).

Lutherans believe, generally, in consubstantiation. That the Body and Blood of Christ are present "with" the bread and wine.

Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that the Body and Blood are present because the bread and wine have changed permanently.

SD

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>I don't read John 17:11 the same way as you do .

II>Selective reading. How convenient.

344 posted on 06/25/2003 2:03 PM MDT by Invincibly Ignorant

Thanks. Dave.

Matthew 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say,
`Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" [Psalm 118:26]


Barukh haba b'Shem Adonai
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord
Y'shua HaMashiach

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It just isn't said in the Bible. If it's okay to just come up with ideas, why not say that James, John, Peter and Matthew were raised bodily into Heaven?

Because they were not. As you know, from the earliest times the Church has venerated the relics of the saints. St. Peter's body is under his Basilica in Rome, St. James is at Compostella in Spain, etc.

No one, anywhere, at any time, has claimed to have the smallest fragment of the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I think this is the firmest proof, given the known predisposition of the Church for holding on to such things, that Mary was assumed into heaven.

If her redemption from sin took place at the moment of her conception, then that means she didn't need Jesus' crucifiction to grants her forgiveness from sin...

If God didn't need Jesus' sacrifice to grant Mary forgiveness of sins, then why didn't He just apply that same method of salvation to the rest of the world, and spare His Son from crucifixtion?

Of course Christ's sacrifice was necessary. Mary was a human being, and no human has ever been redeemed without the application of Christ's sacrifice to them. Mary happened to have it applied to her at the moment of conception, as opposed to at circumcision (old law) or Baptism (new law). Mary did not need a redeemer to take away her personal sins, since she had none, but to prevent her from contracting original sin so as to make her a fitting habitation of the Almighty. Mary was redeemed from the sin she would have incurred as a member of the human race by a singular grace of God. This could only be done in anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ.

But it also doesn't make sense because it's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible that there were TWO people born without being subject to Original Sin, Jesus and Mary...in fact, the record states that Jesus was the only one born not subject to Original Sin.

Jeremiah the Prophet and St. John the Baptist were both sanctified in the womb (Jeremiah 1.5, Luke 1.15).

If anything, I'm pulled toward Lutheranism, but cannot quite believe in the Real Presence, (or Contransubstantiation?).

"This is my body ... this is my blood." All we do is take what Christ said literally. He didn't say, represents, or symbolizes, but "is". We don't make a Clintonian parsing of this word. Since it really "is" His Body and Blood, the seperate consecration re-presents his sacrifice on the Cross, where His Body was drained of the Most Precious Blood for our redemption. "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come." (1 Cor. 11.26)

Bread and wine are used to make the sacrifice a clean oblation (physically without blood, although transubstantiation changes the substance of the wine into blood), as prophesied in Malachi 1.11:

"For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."

And also bread and wine are used to make Christ's offering one that is in line with the sacrifice of Melchizedek, who also offered bread and wine. "For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." (Hebrews 7.17). Its difficult to see how Protestants, denying the sacrifice of the Mass, can make this prophesy make sense, since according to them Christ never offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, and they certainly deny making any such offering themselves.

[Patrick Madrid]

"If anything, I'm pulled toward Lutheranism, but cannot quite believe in the Real Presence, (or Contransubstantiation?). I attend a Calvary Chapel right now, in Southern Oregon..."


Hi, Ed & 911. If I may, let me recommend two books (among others) that I think will offer valuable information on the Eucharist and Calvary Chapel.

The first book is "The Hidden Manna," by Fr. James T. O'Connor (Ignatius). It's an insightful analysis of the Eucharist as it's seen in Scripture and Christian history. The section examining consubstantiation is very helpful.

Also, Surprised by Truth (Basilica), which contains eleven testimonies of converts from Evangelicalism to the Catholic Church. One of them, Steve Wood (cf. www.dads.org) used to attend, and was a youth pastor at, the main Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa. I think you'd be interested in his reasons for becoming Catholic. Both books are readily available from Amazon.com or at any local Catholic bookstore or Barnes & Noble store.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

No prob Robby.