The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper

Catholic Biblical Apologetics ^ | July 23, 2004 | Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl

[DungeonMaster]

I don’t see the connection between my tag line and whether or not I’m ditching scripture. Maybe we’re not on the same page about (a) what ‘ditching Scripture’ might mean and (b)what Scripture says.

I think you may be right. So far we have randomly bounced around from "I don't quote verses because of 10k interpretations" to "Sola scriptura" to "Mary conceived without sin".

I used the term ditching the scripture to mean setting it aside and looking elsewhere for doctrine. One must set aside the bible to find a doctrine about Mary being born without sin. The original post was to a comment that was completely about setting aside the bible simply because of other people's interpretations.

I happen to already know that there is no place in the bible that says anything about Mary being born conceived without sin. The bible says Rom 3:23"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". That includes Mary.

[Mad Dawg]

If you know, why'd you ask?

I (mis)understood the original post to be a kind of lament about the uselessness of arguing with a citation from here and a citation from there. (Mind you I would certainly cop to reading in that meaning.) So I was getting, "WHY argue from li'l bitty Scripture quotes if, as one of the poets indeed hath said, the devil can quote Scripture to suit his purposes?"

See, as an attitude or style thing, you say, "The Bible says ...." while I would have said, "Paul says in Romans ....". James says,"Man is saved by works, not by faith alone," but you don't catch ME bringing that up (any more) because I get how that can be sort of filtered or ordered into a sola fide weltanschauung

[tiki]

You got the right meaning, you didn't misunderstand. Once again, the attitude of the reader seems to make the meaning rather than the meaning of the one who wrote it. I felt I was being very clear but obviously it isn't to some. And it is a real example of why we can and need to go back to Tradition and Magisterium to see what the original meaning was.

I could have explained more fully what I meant but hey, I knew what I meant when I wrote it and thought it was clear, especially if one followed the posts that I was responding to. I often find myself wanting to qualify everything I say so there can be no misunderstanding because I see how many posts are parsed with a certain mindset.

That is a problem? with Catholicism, there aren't 2 nifty phrases to explain the whole of it. I tell my older Catechism kids that it is as simple as "Jesus love you" and as complicated as all the world.

[DungeonMaster]

If you know, why'd you ask?

Because like all of us, I love the debate. ;-)

I (mis)understood the original post to be a kind of lament about the uselessness of arguing with a citation from here and a citation from there. (Mind you I would certainly cop to reading in that meaning.) So I was getting, "WHY argue from li'l bitty Scripture quotes if, as one of the poets indeed hath said, the devil can quote Scripture to suit his purposes?"

I can understand that. Just he other day I was circling around gay pride in my home town, like a buzzard observing the dead. I was on my bicycle. I saw 3 guys holding signs with verses on them and they turned out to be Baptists. I went over to talk to them and happened to mention that I wasn't going to church that terribly often and within seconds, they were attacking me. One said "If you're not right with the local church you're not right with God". I said that I just can't find that verse and he cited Heb 10:25 "not forsaking the gathering of yourselves, as is the manner of some". Well that's a damnsight different than saying "not right with God". The term "not right with" is probably not in the whole bible and you'd think a Baptist would know that words mean things. So I guess for that moment I felt exactly like you or any other RC might feel when someone is hammering them with verses in a very aggressive way. I really don't mean to do that.

See, as an attitude or style thing, you say, "The Bible says ...." while I would have said, "Paul says in Romans ....". James says,"Man is saved by works, not by faith alone," but you don't catch ME bringing that up (any more) because I get how that can be sort of filtered or ordered into a sola fide weltanschauung

ya lost me with those 3 last words.

[HarleyD]

That sounds like the Pharisees' response to the healing of the man born blind.

I don't remember the Pharisee complaining about the people saying "Padre Pio healed me."

[Mad Dawg]

I tell my older Catechism kids that it is as simple as "Jesus love you" and as complicated as all the world.That there is very nice!

I always say,"Jesus is the answer. Jesus is a person. Every person is a fathomless mystery. So you expect to UNDERSTAND the answer? HECK no!' Ain't gonna happen, not in this life."

[Mad Dawg]

UM, "weltanschauung" cross-wrod puzzle word. "world view" or "world hermenuetic" might maybe be mo' better. (I had to teach it to my spell checker, but fortunately on my wonderful rotating book case I have a dictionary ....) , What I was struggling to say is that if the key or a key to understnading the Bobble is "Faith Alone" then James's crack about "NOT by faith alone" is easily dealt with. SO when a RC triumphantly hauls this quote into the arena, the Sola Fide proponent can just as triumphanlty incorporate it into his argument - along the lines of faith is not faith if it does not produce the works or faith so it is still faith alone which saves.

Then you have the combatants lining up their quotes like people arranging pawns on a chess-board, and then each pawn gets contested on the grounds of context, translation, or whatever. And at the end everyone leaves the field of battle bruised and irritated and wondering why he didn't win.

And that's why I don't much like the debate on religious matters, in fact -- as debate. There is enough here for all of us to profit from a little bit of it without one side having to win while the other loses.

Thanks for your peaceable response and intention. So now I will expose my soft superstitious Catholic underbelly:

My tag line is the prayer of what has come to be called the "miraculous medal". It comes from a vision or an apparition (I never know which is which) of our lady to an exemplary novice, the not learned or possibly even very bright daughter of a French farmer who was a Vincentian. (They take care of very poor sick people.) One remarkable thing about it is tha tthe vision happened before the "definition" of the Immaculate conception.

And yeah, I would agree in a heartbeat that there is no definitive scriptural text which would support it. Paul's remark admits of one exception, to wit: our Lord. So we dare to parlay one into one more than one. The definition, I guess, depends on our understanding of time and eternity (about which Forest Keeper and I have written much) And we see Mary's freedom from sin as possible through the eternal side of the redemption wrought by Christ. What He did on the cross reaches, we think, in all directions in time and space and so Mary herself enjoys an anticipation of the sinlessness all the blessed -- possibly even moi! -- will enjoy someday.

It is NOT that she did not need the "work of Christ". ON the contrario, it is that the work of Christ is so amazingly miraculous that it can reach back in time to have an effect -- in our point of view.

[Mark17]

Why would God NEED to predestine those He already perfectly knew would come?

That is a very, very good question, for which I do not have an answer. The only thing I can think of is that when we try to fully understand the sovereign, infinite mind of God with a finite mind, we will always come up on the short end of the stick.

[GoLightly]

As far as I'm concerned, there are legitimate challenges. This was not a legitimate challenge it was an untruth. Good may come of people saying what is not true, but it is still not good to say it.

There are good ways to make a legitimate challenge & this was not one of them.

I don't think saying something that is untrue in a discussion among alleged adults about tings of importance is the same as teasing. I don't know your brother and would hesitate to guess why he teased.

I didn't say that the two possibilities you named had to be wrong, only that there was at least one more possibility that I could see. My brother teased because he was unthinking, not because he was malicious. Not caring if one causes harm is not the same thing as having harm as the goal. Need to have intent to harm as the goal to qualify as malicious.

I'm assuming the term you all are talking about is transubstantiation.

I had no idea that transubstantiation of the priest was involved. I only knew that Catholics don't believe that the priest "becomes" Christ. I think I see why my use of the term "placemarker" got the reaction it did now.

I am intrigued that you think it is okay for others to attack a belief and misrepresent a belief which they do not understand.

While I'm intrigued that you think that's what I think. Going after a sacred cow by first misrepresenting it is a straw man, so it's not very effective. If there is iron in a belief it will withstand all attacks. If your belief begins to crumble under assault, is it a worthy belief to hang your hat on? If you don't know whether or not your belief is up to the test, do not blame the one that is beating on the door. Do the work you need to do so you *know* your belief is worth defending.

I think it is contemptible.

Understandable. Your indignation is justified, so try to change the behaviour of the other guy. Shame him into shaping up. Expend your energy on him.

It is also sowing dissension.

It is. If you cooperate with it, you own it too.

He could have asked. he could have said, "I've heard such and such. Is that so?" and we could have talked about the priest's role in a friendly way.

I don't think he wants to learn more about your beliefs. I could be wrong, but that's the way I see it. Use what he sends your way or move on.

But he chose to say something he did not know as though he knew it.

He owns his action & you own your reaction.

YES, good may have come of it. But it was not good to do.

You look like you could use a glass of lemonade.

[trisham]

And that's why I don't much like the debate on religious matters, in fact -- as debate. There is enough here for all of us to profit from a little bit of it without one side having to win while the other loses.

*************

This is the very thing that is wrong with these threads. We need more discussion and less debate.

[GoLightly]

And we see Mary's freedom from sin as possible through the eternal side of the redemption wrought by Christ. What He did on the cross reaches, we think, in all directions in time and space and so Mary herself enjoys an anticipation of the sinlessness all the blessed -- possibly even moi! -- will enjoy someday.

It is NOT that she did not need the "work of Christ". ON the contrario, it is that the work of Christ is so amazingly miraculous that it can reach back in time to have an effect -- in our point of view.

That's beautiful. I'm glad you shared it.

[Mad Dawg]

You look like you could use a glass of lemonade.

WITH Tequila? AND salt around the edge?

Global comment: I think we were talking past each other.

I yam toadally lost on what term we are talking about here. No, I sure don't think the priest gets transubstantiated. He acts, in a way, in persona Christi, yeah, and I didn't think placeholder was so off the mark, myself. But I haven't given the role of the priest all that much thought in that way. It's like I haven't taken my eyes off the altar yet. I'll get to the priest next decade.

He owns his action & you own your reaction.

Barkeep! No more transactional analysis for this young lady. I think she's had enough. ;-)

Thanks for the lemonade and sage advice (Does sage go with tequila?)

I have to go give a plausible imitation of being responsible.

[Mad Dawg]

Thank 'ee! Whether or not one agrees, considers it de fide or just a pious belief, or thinks it's stupid, it testifies chiefly to the wonder of the redemption wrought by Jesus.

[lastchance]

Thanks for your gracious reply. I have been feeling a bit poorly so have not had a chance to formulate a response.
Hope to do so soon. God be with you.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I hope you feel better. Sometimes we forget there are lives and stresses behind these anonymous FR names. I hope you're returned to vigor and well-being ASAP.

"From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I." -- Psalm 61:2

[lastchance]

Thank you.

[DungeonMaster]

And yeah, I would agree in a heartbeat that there is no definitive scriptural text which would support it. Paul's remark admits of one exception, to wit: our Lord. So we dare to parlay one into one more than one. The definition, I guess, depends on our understanding of time and eternity (about which Forest Keeper and I have written much) And we see Mary's freedom from sin as possible through the eternal side of the redemption wrought by Christ. What He did on the cross reaches, we think, in all directions in time and space and so Mary herself enjoys an anticipation of the sinlessness all the blessed -- possibly even moi! -- will enjoy someday.

It is NOT that she did not need the "work of Christ". ON the contrario, it is that the work of Christ is so amazingly miraculous that it can reach back in time to have an effect -- in our point of view.

Well, as you said, there is no scripture but it is a commonly held belief. Between our posts I was in the lab and found myself surrounded by an evolutionist and a Budist. They were talking about evolution and the big bang and string theory and dark matter. I seemed like a nut to them when I started saying what the bible says about a young earth and the six days of creation. I think that is my job here on Earth. To be a person that just says "The bible says...".

[1000 silverlings]

The whole thing is even stranger: Apparently now Mary is the eucharist, not even Christ. I think Catholics need women priests if this is what they really think. Cahtholics know not what they worship

From this website:http://www.adoremus.org/JPIIadlim1198.html

Pope John XXIII in a radio message to the 16th Eucharistic Congress of Italy on Sept. 13, 1959, (AAS 51. 713) said he hoped all would grow in their fervor and veneration for the Blessed Virgin,"the Mother of the Mystical Body, of which the Eucharist is the symbol and vital center." And he added: "We trust that they will imitate in her the most perfect model of union with Jesus our Head; we trust that they will join Mary in the offering of the Divine Victim."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The whole thing is even stranger: Apparently now Mary is the eucharist, not even Christ. I think Catholics need women priests if this is what they really think. Catholics know not what they worship From this

website:http://www.adoremus.org/JPIIadlim1198.html

Pope John XXIII in a radio message to the 16th Eucharistic Congress of Italy on Sept. 13, 1959, (AAS 51. 713) said he hoped all would grow in their fervor and veneration for the Blessed Virgin,"the Mother of the Mystical Body, of which the Eucharist is the symbol and vital center." And he added: "We trust that they will imitate in her the most perfect model of union with Jesus our Head; we trust that they will join Mary in the offering of the Divine Victim."

Staggering.

The RCC would have us believe Protestants to not understand their faith.

In truth, it's not difficult to understand what RCs believe. It is, however, puzzling to understand why they choose to believe in fables over Scripture.

The RCC believes Mary was born and died sinless by some scattergun, retro-salvation through Christ which was greater than the salvation Christ won on the cross for you and me and all believers.

If RCs would simply return to Scripture they could read, just as we read, that Christ declared His flock to be of even more import than His own mother...

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." -- Luke 11:27-28

Everything in Scripture points to the glory of God through the redemption of Christ's sheep. It does not point to anything above the one-time, single, perfect sacrifice Christ made at Calvary for each and every believer.

"And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.

And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it.

And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste...

And upon them that are left alive of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth.

And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies.

And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up." -- Leviticus 26:30-33;36-38

God is very specific about the singular attention He expects His flock to pay to Him. To glorify men in place of God, even alongside of God, is error of the first magnitude.

"What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?" -- 1 Corinthians 10:19-22

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Additionally, the last line of this article reads...

"In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it."

Jesus said to partake of the Lord's Supper in "remembrance of me."

If the RCC uses Christ's words -- "This is my body" to mean Christ's real, materialistic body as in the alchemy of transubstantiation, then it follows when Christ refers to believers as "my sheep" that we should all be covered in wool and say "baaahhh."

Jesus "said it," after all.