The Eucharist: The Body of Christ? ("Respectful Dialogue" thread)

Our Sunday Visitor (via Catholic Culture) ^ | 1/2005 | Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

[fortheDeclaration]

Nothing but The Blood of Jesus, thank you.

Amen.

[Gamecock]

pgyanke: There is more than one meaning to nearly every verse in the Bible. There can be multiple proximate meanings and a greater, eternal meaning.

A. Murphy: I've never seen any Catholic on FR claim this view before now.

Seems to me that pgyanke is speaking the truth, in spite of what is often said here on FR by other Catholics.

Let's look at divorce. Scripture forbids it. The RC church forbids it. But, we all know that there needs to be a mechanism to allow a marriage to break up. Voila! Let's invent something called an annulment and have Rome mediate. Rome can allow a marriage to break up, but not divorce. This allows for multiple proximate meanings as defined by Rome.

[Mad Dawg]

Here's a Wikipedia article, about as reliable as any Wikipedia article. The story on the conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne is interesting.

Even after I became Catholic I had a kind of automatic shudder at things like the Miraculous Medal until Easter Saturday of 2007. I had been on a quite day at the Dominican House of Studies in DC which is right across the street from the Basilica in DC.

After the quiet day (more like a quiet morning) we all went across to the Basilica to see the sites.

Having had foot surgery on both feet a month before (the doc broke 2 bones per foot) I was getting pretty sore. So I sat to rest in the little Miraculous Medal/Catherine Laboure Chapel which has all the aesthetic grace of the old TWA Terminal at Kennedy airport and which sports a statue of our Lady carved by someone who obviously hates women and is suspicious of beauty.

And I had a "religious experience". I don't like to go into it, so I won't but if you ever want a Miraculous Medal, frmail me. I give away at least one a month.

[Mad Dawg]

Now that’s funny.

[Mad Dawg]

Not a few have been slaughtered for persisting in "bowing down to [my] pope." Protestants here on FR have commended the zeal of their killers

This has been discussed into the ground. Dante has non-Catholics in Heaven. He didn't get in trouble for that.

Whether you agree with us or not, OUR thinking, FWIW, about the Church is that it is not just some association of like-minded people, like Rotarians with hymns. The whole company of Heaven make up the largest part of the Church. By definition, if you're in heaven, you're in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I'm not asking you to agree, only to understand that what our thought structure is when we say you can't be in Heaven without being in the Church.

If you want to know what we think and have thought BEFORE you disagree with it, The next to latest First Things has an article by Cardinal Dulles which gives a whirl-wind tour of the past couple of millenia of Catholic thought on the matter.

Again, I don't recommend this in an attempt to persuade you of the rightness of our position, but to assist you if you would care to know what our position actually is.

[Mad Dawg]

And, do you consider 'Papist' to be offensive?

Not really. I think "Catholic" is more precise than "catholic" and would suggest its use as a specific and non-controversial term.

I guess part of the deal in church terms is that they are almost inescapable controversial, and if used in a polemical way they can create a high heat to light ratio. I imagine this is because the terms are often adopted to make a clear distinction: "Episcopal" because it's a body with Bishops, "Presbyterian" because they don't have bishops, Baptists because they have what once was an unusual teaching on Baptism.

So someone who wanted to tanlge could waste a lot of time saying, "HAH! SO! All that matters to you is church polity, huh? If not, then why call yourselves "congregational" (or whatever)?"

And that is about the level of seriousness of many exchanges here. Kid stuff.

[wagglebee]

BTTT!

[Petronski]

I have the impression that you lead the pack vis a vis that Scriptural violation . . .

Your impression is malformed.

[endthematrix]

Thank you both! And it's not just me. My wife (raised UCC and never knew Christ) has done a 180, and my 5yr old are now living the Word too. Prayer is part of our house. The Holy Spirit has moved me to work for the Lord, helping and witnessing others, which was “not my thing” just a short time ago. Oh, let's not forget the peace he's given to my anxiety. Hallelujah!

[OLD REGGIE]

Jesus restored a man broken by his own failing.

Right, restored him to Simon.

[OLD REGGIE]

That is not only untrue but the Catholic stand on other ecclesial assemblies has been discussed so many times that it is a remarkable untruth.

"Smoke language". Why don't you also discuss the limitations (lack of fullness) associated with these other ecclesial assemblies. ie. The teaching of the RCC concerning the "seperated brothers".

[OLD REGGIE]

Check Aquinas. First Part, Question 1, Article 10. And he quotes Augustine. We've been saying it for around 1,500 years.

Remember Alex, There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or re-interpreted as required.

There is always some writing somewhere, some place which supports a particular position.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may – there is a difference between baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit. The baptism by water is an act of obedience and/or repentance whereas the baptism of the Holy Spirit is effectual to our new life in Christ.

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. – John 1:33

And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. – Acts 1:4-8

Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. – Acts 11:16

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: - I Peter 3:21

The Holy Spirit is the living water.

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) – John 7:38-39

And God cannot be contained, controlled or manipulated by man:

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. – Jeremiah 2:13

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. – John 3:6-8

The Didache is in grave Spiritual error by misappropriating the term "living water" to mean fresh, natural water instead of the Holy Spirit Himself.

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

And thus any doctrines or traditions of men which derive from that misappropriation of the term "living water" perpetuate that Spiritual error.

Truly, only the new Spiritual creature we become by baptism of the Holy Spirit can enter heaven.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:5-6

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Corinthians 15:42-45

To God be the glory!

[OLD REGGIE]

Personally I don't find it very offensive. I do find willful persistence in ignorance remarkable, and willful persistence in prejudicial and offensive language after it is known to be imprecise and to give offense pathetic (in the strict sense, I don't mean it contemptuously), at least.

Is the word "Catholic" (noun) the name of this church from day one? Would it be imprecise and/or ignorant to call the early church, prior to the coining of the word "Catholic as the Catholic Church?

[Petronski]

The Didache is in grave Spiritual error by misappropriating the term "living water" to mean fresh, natural water instead of the Holy Spirit Himself.

This is something wonderfully consistent from you. You reject the Catholic Church, so why not reject the word of its earliest fathers: the Apostles themselves.

Still, I am staggered by the arrogance: the Apostles are wrong, but you are right?

LOL

[OLD REGGIE]

Let's look at divorce. Scripture forbids it. The RC church forbids it. But, we all know that there needs to be a mechanism to allow a marriage to break up. Voila! Let's invent something called an annulment and have Rome mediate. Rome can allow a marriage to break up, but not divorce. This allows for multiple proximate meanings as defined by Rome.

"There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or re-interpreted as required".

[pgyanke]

Forgive me my absence. I FReep during the day… home time is family time. I see that in my absence much sport has been made of my assertions. I agree with Mad Dawg when he notes that edifying discourse is impossible with those who profane what they don’t understand. My words meant for illumination have been horribly twisted beyond recognition by those who do not care for honest discussion. Still, I will try here to expound on what I have said previously and may God open the ears of those who would hear.

Here is the simplicity of the Good News as understood by the Church: The Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph 5). This isn’t just a metaphor, it is a metaphysical reality as the fullness of this truth reaches from Genesis to Revelation. St Paul, dealing with this subject with the Ephesians, even quotes extensively from Genesis on what it means to be married. Without filling this post with quote after quote from the Bible, I will paraphrase the doctrine as from the beginning that the Groom and Bride are joined in one flesh.

How can it be that we are the Body of Christ? Were we made into His Holy Toes or Fingernails (I would assume I am but a hang-nail)? Or is it better understood that we are the Body of Christ by our membership in the Bone of His Bone and Flesh of His Flesh which is His Bride, the Church? Here I offer an article on the Church which will do a much better job at explaining our view of the Church than I can do in this limited space. Suffice it to say that there are a couple of references to the Church in the New Testament pointing to Her role as the pillar and bulwark of truth. I shared one such citation earlier in this thread, here is another: Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church…

So let’s talk about typology… the study of types in the Bible. Jesus is called the new or “last” Adam. Adam was keeper of the Garden of Eden. He was priest, prophet and king (priest as the keeper of the Garden; prophet in that He walked with God; and king in that he was created with dominion over all creation). He was a “type” of Christ. However, he disobeyed God and did what was evil. He didn’t receive a stain on his soul to be passed on through all generations… he lost his kinship with God. This kinship is the life-giving Grace of God. As God had said (and the Devil rebuked) that Adam would surely die if he ate of the tree. He did die… spiritually. He lost the gift of life in God’s Grace.

God then set about His Plan of Salvation right from the fall when He gave us the Protoevangelium promise that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent. This was fulfilled in Christ on the Cross. I’ll come back to this…

Another type is Moses. At his birth, he was protected from Pharoah’s edict for the destruction of Jewish children. He was called out of Egypt. He was sent to deliver Israel from bondage and lead them to the promised land. He was told to shepherd God’s people in the wilderness. He was the mediator of the Covenant and, though not a king, he ruled Israel as priest and prophet. I don’t think I need to explain how these types find their fulfillment in Jesus… The Evangelists understood clearly when they referenced OT passages (such as “Out of Egypt I called my Son) regarding NT fulfillments.

King David was another type in the OT. He established the Davidic kingdom and received the Davidic Covenant of an everlasting dynasty to be fulfilled in Christ. He ruled the twelve tribes as priest, prophet and king.

This is typology. It is a study of imperfect realizations of prophecy in the Old Testament which find their ultimate fulfillment in the NT. It is not a license to twist the clear language of Scripture, it is a deep study of Scripture in context.

In the beginning, the Earth was without form and void. God set about tackling each of these problems in turn. In the first three days, he took care of the form (Day 1: Light and Dark; Day 2: Sea and Sky; Day 3: Land and Vegetation) then in the second three days, he took care of the void by filling these forms with rulers (Day 4: Sun, moon and stars to rule the day and night; Day 5: Fish and birds to rule the sea and sky; Day 6: Animals and man to rule the land). Like any builder, He began with the end in mind… what was created last was the object of creation. Creation was made for man. On the seventh day God rested… not because He was tired but to seal His Creation in His Covenant and as a promise to man of his eventual destiny to rest in God in Heaven. The number seven is a sign of God's covenant throughout Scripture.

A covenant is a forming of a family bond. It’s not just a contractual arrangement. In a contract, goods and services are exchanged (this is mine, that is yours). In a covenant, persons are exchanged (I am yours and you are mine). Covenant differs from contract like marriage differs from prostitution. There are numerous examples in the OT of covenants forming family bonds between people. So in this Creation account and the sealing of Creation in the Covenant sign, God bonded creation to Himself and all was “good” as He called it. The fall of man changed that and severed that bond.

Here’s where I’ll share something that I’ve been thinking about but haven’t fully fleshed out. Bear with me…

From Adam, we have an unbroken line of succession through Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham and all the way to Christ because it was to Adam that the promise of redemption was given. In the flood, I see God starting Creation over again. Just as the Earth was without form and void at the beginning, we still have the form but He has made it void again. He makes His Covenant with Noah in the sign of the rainbow (did you ever notice there are seven primary colors in the rainbow?). This is the first covenant of the re-creation.

From here, I see God taking the same approach as in the first Creation account. He will make a three-fold promise and then fulfill them each in turn.

We next get the second covenant of our recreation in Abraham shown by the sign of the circumcision. He is promised the land of Canaan, a royal dynasty and through him all the nations will be blessed.

We get the third covenant with Isaac when God confirms His Promises to Abraham. Why the need for this covenant so soon after the other? Ishmael. God makes it clear that He is following one particular line, not all the descendents of Abraham.

The fourth covenant is with Jacob with the same promises and for the same reason as the last… Esau.

The fifth covenant is mediated by Moses to the children of Israel (Jacob). They are made a nation to take possession of the land of Canaan as promised to Abraham. The sign of this covenant is the Sabbath. Don’t get me wrong, this one gets very complicated with the failings of the children of Israel, but then I would be here typing for a month if I get into all of that. I’m dealing strictly with the covenants of Salvation… not, for example, with a covenant of Peace which God made with another.

The sixth covenant is with David. He is confirmed an everlasting royal dynasty as had been promised to Abraham.

The seventh covenant (The New Covenant) in the fullness of time is mediated by Christ (the new Adam) with us all. It is the covenant-making marriage of the Lamb to His Bride, the Church. Through it, all nations are blessed… as was promised to Abraham. Through this Covenant, God and man are reconciled into kinship again. The sign of this covenant is Baptism where we are reborn into His Family, taking on His Name (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and the rest of the seven-fold Sacraments. The bond that was broken by the sin of Adam was reforged in the obedience of Christ... and it is finished.

It is finished, the bond is reforged... but salvation isn't over yet. We are still here. Just as our birth is the beginning of our lives, so our rebirth is the beginning of life in Christ.

Now we are to believe in Him to be saved. I think our real problems come from what it means to believe. Some take this as an inward acknowledgement... but I would respectfully remind those who think this way that the Devil believes too. He knows Who is God and who is not. Belief is more than knowing in your heart of hearts that Jesus is Lord. It is an action word. Jesus told us that His Disciples are those who do the Will of His Heavenly Father. He also said that there will be many who will cry out to Him, "Lord, Lord" who will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. My children can't just believe it is good for them to work hard in school... they have to get up and work hard in school. Belief requires action.

That’s probably enough for one post… God bless you.

[hosepipe]

Its not an accident this planet has so much water.. Nez Pas.. For it is not only symbolic but metaphorical of other things.. Other things that "we" would have difficulty understanding without a stark object lesson, like water to allude to.. i.e. Baptism, Trinity, Sanctification(cleanseing), Thirst, Rain, Oceans, rivers, streams, brooks, trickles, Drops, floods, dew, fog, snow, ice, steam, mud, slush, quicksand, even urinate and a hundred(maybe a thousand) other words and nuances of words..

No accident this is the water planet.. Quite divine no doubt..
Baptism is a link between the body and the spirit.. even the Spirit..
The word nudges even weans our minds from the natural to the spiritual..
Baptism is a brilliant spiritual gambit.. for teaching..
Is GOD cool or what?..

[Petronski]

There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or re-interpreted as required by those who hate it and wish to defame, profane and otherwise distort its beliefs beyond all recognition.

This practice is known as "The Game."

[hosepipe]

[ Still, I am staggered by the arrogance: the Apostles are wrong,]

You're understanding of the apostles teaching may be FLAWED..
Yes and others with a like minded bent..
Hey it happens..

Whole denominations can become eye rolling tongue hanging out drooling, christian primitives.. You don't have to be smart to be a sheep.. (John ch 10).. The sheep pens hold the SMART ONES...