Posted on 09/06/2007 3:27:02 PM PDT by annalex
The Catholic understanding of “This is my body” as well as the discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 is not repudiated by any context. Regarding the extraordinary means of salvation, this is still literal reading of John 6; the example of the Good Thief, which is also read literally, merely explains that Jesus speaks of ordinary means in John 6.
The Good Thief fulfilled every requirement of the Church, by the way. His suffering provided for baptism of blood; his good works were defense of the innocent Jesus, he repented of his sin by acknowledging the justice of his punishment and his communion with Christ was face to face.
And she was corrected.
But then again not, because she only said blessed, she didn't immaculately conceived, born without sin, co redeemer, queen of heaven, hearer of prayers, distributer of graces, yadda yadda yadda. So all she did was say blessed are the body parts. It took the RCC to make it Mary the person and then expand times a million to actual veneration. Did you notice how close the word veneration is to worship in it's definition?
We have two levels of goodness here: the righteous yet afflicted with original sin stock producing what would have been a righteous yet afflicted with original sin Mary, and the Divine Goodness that gives birth to man Jesus. If the Father had made Jesus out of clay like Adam, there would be no questioon of how, -- but it pleased the Father to use a human mother. She is then both a culmination of the human Jewish stock, and a tabernacle of the Divine Word. This supports the immaculacy of Mary; it is logical that the immaculacy was imparted onto her at her conception.
So, "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" can mean something other than the physical acts of eating and drinking
Speculate you. The context of John 6 is firmly against any symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. The Good Thief episode merely explains that one should "eat the flesh of the Son of Man" if he is able to do so, and the Good Thief was not.
The woman was corrected in the manner of her veneration: her attention was drawn toward Mary as the deliverer of the Word rather than a physiological creature. Her desire to venerate Mary was not corrected.
It is true that the precise manner of venerating Mary was not spelled out anywhere in the Gospel. The same applies to any other human liturgical practice: we still argue when to sit and when to stand, whether to baptise children and how to baptise, whether the Eucharist is to be unleavened bread, etc.
Basically, we find out own way to express our veneration: there is not right or wrong way, so long as it is done in true piety. Some contemplate icons, others pray the Rosary, light candles, kneel and prostrate etc. We are free to do as we please with that.
The interface was between afflicted with the original sin (Joachim and Anna) and free from its effects (Mary), but that was not a result of the natural order of Mary’s conception, but of a divine intervention bypassing it.
Mary’s freedom from personal sin, as opposed to her freedom from the original sin is the result of the operation of her free will. She could sin if she wanted to.
Literal reading means discerning the intent of the speaker. We know from other scripture that those unable to receive the Eucharist but who repented and labored for Christ to the extent that they could, like the Good Thief, also had eternal life. Hence, the literal reading of John 6 is the Catholic reading, as always.
How does the word blessed get promoted to venerate?
Hail, Mary, full of grace
the Lord is with you
blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death
Amen
Here Mary is put in the context of her connection to Jesus and praised as uniquely blessed. She is then asked to pray for us at all times and expecially as we die.
So we go from "blessed rather" to venerate and then you modify the word venerate to mean slightly less than what it really means.
Your argument requires that we redefine the word "blessed" and the word "rather" and the phrase "those who hear the word of God and keep it". As Rush says, words mean things.
We don’t know what form the veneration of Mary took when the woman in the crowd addressed her. We know that veneration of living saints is often embarassing to them. Now, with Mary and an army of saints in heaven, we venerate them in the way that comes most natural to us. It is strange that the latter-day Protestants don’t do so at all: it is a serious defect in your prayer life, especially when you take this as a pretext of attacking the Church of God.
While dictionaries mix up veneration and worship, we don’t do so, precisely because words mean things. One worships God; one venerates a saint or a holy object. When St. Peter’s clothes were collected as relics, it was an acceptable practice; but when pagans attempt to worship the apostles, the apostles stop them.
The fundamental form of worship is the sacrifice of the Mass. We do not offer masses to Mary, but we invoke her holy name several times during the mass: asking for her prayers as well as the prayers of all the saints and living brothers and sisters in Christ during the confession Rite, when the Creed is spoken, and when the communion of saints is invoked in the Eucharistic prayer. Also, some priests like to say three Hail Marys in the end.
St. Peter’s clothes were collected as relics
Actually, St. Paul's:
11 And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. 12 So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.(Acts 19)
when pagans attempt to worship the apostles, the apostles stop them.
10 And when the multitudes had seen what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice in the Lycaonian tongue, saying: The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men; 11 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury; because he was chief speaker. 12 The priest also of Jupiter that was before the city, bringing oxen and garlands before the gate, would have offered sacrifice with the people. 13 Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying, 14 And saying: Ye men, why do ye these things? We also are mortals, men like unto you, preaching to you to be converted from these vain things, to the living God, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them...(Acts 14)
John 16:26 In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; 27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God.
Coincidently I just read this today. Jesus sure seems to be saying not to even pray to Him but to the Father. What a far cry from RC doctrine.
The notion “not to even pray to Jesus” is indeed a far cry from Catholicism.
That's ironic because I have a very Marian RC friend that prays to Mary almost exclusively. He is offended by evangelicals and they're prayer to Jesus.
Is your friend offended by the evangelicals because they pray to Jesus or for some other reason?
I’m out with a flu/cold for the moment, so find myself with some small amount of time :)
Returning to our discussion;
What exactly is a Protestant?
- To refer to someone as a ‘Catholic’ has clearly defined parameters. To refer to someone as Protestant however has no such benefit... even your working definition of ‘tactile apostolic succession’ misses the mark, as some ‘Protestant’ groups claim this (though I may be incorrect here).
Instead of the term ‘Protestant’ or ‘Catholic’, or any other man inspired term, I think the only true distinction is between those who follow Christ Jesus and those who do not.
It’s all a package either way, as far as I can see.
I'd largely agree. It really centres on whether you accept Catholic tradition or not. Weighed against what I read in scripture though, there is much within RC tradition that seems to go directly counter to what I read in God's Word. At the simplest, this can be seen in the title of the Pope as 'Most Holy Father'. Compare that to Matthew 23:9, which says;
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
I'm afraid my medication is kicking in... getting very drowsy. I'll have to take this up again later.
May we be imitators of God, and of Him alone.
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.