Posted on 11/17/2010 11:38:55 AM PST by Alex Murphy
“God certainly could do such a thing if He wanted to”
That is a the clincher, isn’t it? But the Scriptures do not speak of Christ being omnipresent. He is spoken of as being either here or there or somewhere but not in several places at once, i.e., he has a particular location at a particular time and so the Scriptures describe him. So he is one or the other but not divided amongst numerous places and meals.
As to “compelling” the notion that bread and wine are changed into flesh and blood but still look, feel, taste and otherwise retain all the physical qualities of bread and wine, well compelling it is not.
Even the description, “His Presence in the Host” assigns location in some confused way since the bread and wine is supposed to actually BE his flesh and blood not just a thing he resides in. Maybe that bread and wine can pass through walls and locked doors?
But according to Jesus own words the only thing it will pass through is the gut and end up in the sewer since it really is bread and wine.
There is ABSOLUTELY no scriptural evidence to even hint that people are to pray to Mary, let alone worship her. Why don't you worship Moses? Or Ruth? Or Esther? Or Abraham? Catholics may try to dream up reasons that they should pray to dead people and worship them, but in the end it is nothing more than idolatry. It is no different than worshiping Buddha or praying to Muhammad.
Anything that takes away glory from the Son is pure evil and blasphemous regardless of where it is coming from.
As far as "free will", there is only God's will and man's will. God's will is good and perfect. Man's will is bad and defiled. Man cannot do God's will unless God empowers him to do His will. This isn't rocket science but it sure seems to be hard for people to understand this.
"From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so love her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight." - Ineffabilis Deus.Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.
ALSO
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and priviledge granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." - Ineffabilis Deus. Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.
The Church teaches that she was created without a sin nature and was "ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect". - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.
And she remained "free of every personal sin her whole life long." The German Bishop's Conference, The Church's Confession of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 46m quoting J.A. Mohler.
But of course you already know this. Her "Immaculate Conception" was formed "before time began". So it is no longer a "lineage" thing to consider. Only Mary and Jesus share the same DNA, according to her 'preparation before time began'.
But this is only layer two of the peeling back. The next layer is her "participation with Christ in redemption."
He is holding a piece of bread at the Last Supper and He says "This is my body". Is. Not represents, not symbolizes, but is.
Therefore you have Jesus still in his body, holding his body in his hands.
Plus, also let's not forget the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes in this context. Whatever the Eucharist is, it is a *miracle*, so trying to put into this nice little box of human spatial conception is not necessarily the best idea.
I am not citing the Fathers as any kind of infallible witness. I am citing them as historical evidence of *what the Church believed*...just like we would cite the Federalist Papers to illustrate what the Founding Fathers believed.
Look, at this point we’re just being drawn into typical Catholic/Protestant debate points. If you’re interested in the topic at hand of Mary’s presence in the Eucharist, then I’ll continue the discussion. Otherwise, bogging ourselves down into a debate swamp isn’t going to be terribly profitable for anyone.
You misunderstand the Immaculate Conception. Mary was free of original sin, yes, but she was conceived and born *in the natural way* to her parents Anna and Joachim. She was conceived as a result of sexual intercourse.
She is a creature, not a divine being.
Therefore you have Jesus still in his body, holding his body in his hands.”
Represents, figurative. Long before Jesus had said,
“I am the bread of life” (John 6:35,48). But he wasn't made of flour and water and baked in an oven.
“I am the true vine”. (John 15:1) Neither was he a plant despite seeming to say so to the rigidly, literalistic mind.
One wrong idea produces another, that the bread and wine retained all the characteristics of bread and wine until....well who knows.....did the wine have a funny taste or the bread become a bit chewy?
“Plus, also let's not forget the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes in this context.”
Let's not forget the fish remained fish and the bread remained bread, one didn't turn into the other or anything else.
“Whatever the Eucharist is, it is a *miracle*, so trying to put into this nice little box of human spatial conception is not necessarily the best idea.”
Since the Bible was written for humans their spatial conceptions are important for understanding it.
Well, you’re correct we are off topic. The Eucharist was always viewed by the Catholic Church as actually transforming into the body of Christ. So how can it become the body of Mary?
Figurative expressions have meaning (notwithstanding some who apparently think "figurative" often means "meaningless"). Note the structure of the three different expressions: the first term is (in I.A. Richards' terminology) the "tenor" -- the "principal subject of the metaphor"; the second term is the "vehicle" -- the "borrowed idea, or what the tenor resembles."
For example, in "The sun is a red balloon," the tenor is the sun and the vehicle is the balloon (i.e., characteristics of redness and roundness are being attributed to the sun).
Christ is like "bread of life," because He is life-sustaining; He is like a vine because life-giving "sap" flows from and through Him; "bread" and "vine" say something about Christ, illuminate one aspect.
In the words of consecration, conversely, if it were figurative, "My body" would be the vehicle and say something about "This" -- the bread (which would be the tenor). Note He does not say "My teaching", but "My body." What exactly do you think "body" illuminates about "This [bread]"?
Nonsense, “represents.” Talk about doctrine made up of whole cloth. Scripture nowhere says the Eucharist merely “represents” His body...it says the exact opposite. This is purely the doctrine of men and not God.
Christ uses metaphors in some places,and he doesn’t in others? Looking at the whole context of John 6 (read the Greek), the institution narratives, and the Pauline epistles, it strains credulity to infer that he was being figurative.
It can't. It's Christ's body. That's what I'm trying to get across here.
But since His body came from hers, you'd have to defy basic biology not to see a profound connection.
There’s an important distinction in the Greek too. I am the “true” vine uses Greek alethinos, which is true by analogy, figuratively true. Now contrast that to John 6 where Christ says “my flesh is true food, and my blood true drink.” That “true” is alethes, which is true as to substance, real genuine, authentic.
Given that it was actually bread he held, bread left from the passover meal, “represents” is the only reasonable meaning to his words.
John 6:55 uses the word “alethos”, above, and it meaning is noted above.
The Church teaches that she was created without a sin nature and was "ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect". - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.
And she remained "free of every personal sin her whole life long." The German Bishop's Conference, The Church's Confession of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 46m quoting J.A. Mohler.
Claude, the original sin I understand, but if you read the next two, they say she was ever absolutely free of ALL stain of sin, and she remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
That is a big difference. THey are saying she was conceived free of sin and was sinless her entire life. Just like Jesus Christ.
How can this be, in your opinion?
ANother one that seems equally confusing is this:
"From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of GOd would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so love her that truly in her was the Father well pleased." -Ineffabilis Deus. Pope Pius IX.
emphasis mine.
In John 6:47-58 Jesus compared himself to the manna that the Israelites feed on to sustain their physical lives and yet died by saying he was the bread that if one fed on would not die.
How to “feed” on that “bread”? Vs. 47 says by exercising faith in Jesus and his sacrifice. As Paul said, Christ entered into a “holy place with his own blood”, into heaven.
Just as the physical bread sustained a person’s life that “bread from heaven”, Christ, would give everlasting life. The bread represented his flesh.
On our reading, the words of the Last Supper answer the conundrum of John 6, which the Jews found a "hard saying." On your reading, the words of the Last Supper are at best badly phrased.
Again, how does comparing (if you must) the bread to Christ's body ("which will be given up for you") say something about or illuminate the bread other than by taking Christ at His word?
Jesus takes a loaf of bread and says, “This is my body”.
The “this” is the loaf of bread. It is “my body” which is to be given, not the loaf of bread so nothing more is being said about the bread.
Therefore the bread represented his body, the wine his blood.
It wasn’t the bread that was to be given in their behalf but it was his body.
By eating the bread and drinking the wine they were in a representative way eating and drinking of his body.
“You’re not answering the question:”
You’re not paying attention.
There in John 6:50 Jesus says in reference to himself,
“This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that anyone may eat of it and not die”.
He’s not offering a loaf of passover bread as he did at the last supper. The bread and wine represented his flesh and blood. The way in which his disciples would “eat” and “drink” of him was by exercising faith in him. (John 6:35)
It is that sense that the Israelites ate and drank from Jesus in the wilderness. (1 Cor. 10:4)
“On your reading, the words of the Last Supper are at best badly phrased.”
Not so any more than Jesus poorly phrased his comment about being “born” again, which is not to be taken literally but means one must undergo something comparative to being born.
The “this” is the loaf of bread. It is “my body” which is to be given, not the loaf of bread so nothing more is being said about the bread.
"Nothing more is being said about the bread" -- except of course that it "is My body."
It only works as figurative if "My body" somehow illuminates the bread at least in some aspect.
Like the shadow “illuminates” the light?
But it does require one pay attention to what is being said through John and the rest of the Scriptures. Concluding that anyone was being asked to eat human flesh or drink blood was the error made by those ho left off following Christ due to taking his words in a narrow, literalistic sense.
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.