So true!
Posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random:
ROSMINIANISM
A system of philosophy formulated by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855), founder of the Institute of Charity. Encouraged by Popes Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX, he undertook a renewal of Italian philosophy, ostensibly following St. Thomas Aquinas. But the influence of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel shifted his thinking. He came to hold that the human mind is born with the idea of "being." In time it analyzes this basic idea to discover in it many other ideas, which are identical with those in the mind of God. Rosmini also taught that reason can explain the Trinity and that original sin is only a physical infection of the body. After his death forty of his propositions were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 and 1888.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Well, you did react to my general assertion that analogy was the default mode of delivery for Jesus’ public teaching ministry. But you did not respond to the Scriptural evidence I produced to support this claim. Instead, you gave a “conclusory” answer. That’s a term of art in law that just means you are jumping to your predetermined conclusions without dealing with all the intermediate data and logic.
In this particular instance, I raised three passages that shift the burden of proof to you to show that Jesus’ challenging statement in John 6 are NOT analogy, because the presumption is that they ARE analogy, based on God’s own description of Messiah’s teaching ministry:
Mark 4:34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.Matthew 13:34-35 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: "I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS KEPT SECRET FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD."
Mark 4:11-12 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that 'SEEING THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND HEARING THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND; LEST THEY SHOULD TURN, AND THEIR SINS BE FORGIVEN THEM.' "
And here’s an example of your conclusory reaction:
Good grief. Seriously? Whatever He said I should then seek a hidden (*) meaning? By the way, there is no parable of Jesus that a half-way attentive reader would not understand the meaning of; parables are teaching tools, not obfuscation tools.
Now I know you’re working on a book, and that’s great. But as an attorney, I couldn’t get away with something like that as a serious response to a serious textual argument. It would be like responding to a statutory argument by
a) emoting,b) misrepresenting your opponent’s position,
c) misstating the central premise of the statute by 180 degrees, and
d) doing all this without ever directly addressing the actual text of the statute at all in your brief.
It’s one of those things that would be very entertaining to witness, sort of like a legal sitcom. But definitely not a response I would offer on behalf of a client.
So to make it clear:
a) The emoting is useless. I get that we strongly disagree. At this point I only care about the analysis.b) Its just busywork to have to keep on untangling your misrepresentations of our positions. We are not looking for hidden meanings. I specifically told you the opposite. Yet you raise this as though you either do not understand, cannot remember, or do not care what my actual is position is. I don’t profess to know which. Many times a metaphor is obvious just by the impossibility of the literal construct. But even Jesus’ obvious metaphors escaped the understanding of hardened unbelievers. The problem is NOT that these meanings are hidden. We actually agree on that in principle. The problem is that they are concealed from the proud but revealed unto babes. The understandability is a difference in the hearer, not the speaker.
c & d) By not addressing the actual textual argument, that God by His prophet declares that Jesus would teach exclusively by analogy FOR THE EXPLICIT PURPOSE of obfuscation, you come up with a proposition that is completely, obviously, directly contrary to God’s stated purpose in having Jesus use analogy. He did mean to obfuscate and He said so. This suggests to me you did not read the text carefully, or you missed it altogether.
Now it seems clear to me that your position does not hold up well if obfuscation was actually part of the divine intention, because then one might expect to encounter some figures that, though they would be plain as day to believers after an explanation, would totally confound the hard of heart, just as occurred in John 6. This is exactly why I want to see your response to these texts. I want to know what you think Jesus meant when he said:
Mark 4:11-12 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that 'SEEING THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND HEARING THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND; LEST THEY SHOULD TURN, AND THEIR SINS BE FORGIVEN THEM.' "
In the interest of preserving time, which I am sure is valuable to both of us, I will suspend further discussion on our many other topics until I see your response here. (Though I reserve the right to address your protracted and very colorful discussion of “saint” in the other thread, perhaps tomorrow evening).
Peace,
SR
This is all just so silly! Jesus didn't HAVE to explain His figurative meaning simply because he was standing right in front of them and was so even at the Last Supper. The bread did NOT change miraculously into bloody flesh nor did the cup of wine change to blood. AND IT NEVER DOES! What Catholics (some don't) believe is that the elements change after the words of the priest into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus WHILE still retaining the appearance of their original elements. There is no PHYSICAL change, only a spiritual one. You believe that by faith.
What I believe is the larger argument is the false idea that the Mass is a reenactment of Calvary and participation is in and of itself expiatory. Rather than understanding that faith in Christ's sacrifice for our sins is what He required and what was meant by His example of the eating and drinking of the symbolic bread and wine is confirmation of an expression of faith in Him. Taking "Communion" is NOT what saves someone - it is believing in Christ and receiving His gift of eternal life by faith. That is why He said, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.".(John 6:34,35) It is SPIRITUAL hunger and thirsting - NOT physical.
I remember well the going to confession on Saturday and receiving communion on Sunday at Mass and this act being understood as confirming my "state of grace" for the time being until the next time I goofed up and committed a sin. Then the whole process started again. What I have come to understand since is that we are saved from the moment we accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and we "faith" in response to God's grace. It is NOT by works of righteousness which we have done but according to His mercy He saved us. It is by grace we are saved through faith and that NOT of ourselves. It is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast. Joining with my worship fellowship in the celebrating of the Lord's Supper is a testimony to my having already received Christ by faith and is a recognition of the body of Christ of which we all are members joined to each other and Him through faith. We can either believe God or not, but we will reap the consequences of whatever we decide.
Better polish that mirror...the log is in need of plucking out.
So true!
It appears to us that...
Catholics read what is written in explanation by Rome and believe it like it wrote it.
OUR problem is with the Holy See's INFALLIBILITY on the subject.
Kinda like Heliocentrism.
Versus the VOLUMES of Catholic 'explanations' of Scripture that are classed as TRADITIONS.
Nope...
Just ADMITING it!
Catholics IGNORE what the THIS is!
A one time a year MEAL of rememberance!
They have morphed it into a REQUIREMENT that occurs every time you enter the doors of one of their churches!
(Let me go all Judas here and wonder... how much money is WASTED yearly, worldwide, and how much TIME is consumed by this ritual? SURELY the money could be spent on the POOR among us!)
http://askville.amazon.com/communion-wafer-made/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7383141
That is not a “point”. Of course the Eucharist can be any shape, since it doesn’t feed the stomach; it doesn’t have to be large. The important part is that it is bread, because that is what Jesus made into His body.
Ok; say after me....
Hail Mary, mother of GOD, pray for us ...
My response was a bit playful, but it was valid: once we take the approach that anything said by Christ publicly is a parable, we can imagine absolutely anything as a hidden meaning, and we can deny any apparent meaning. However, counselor, like you say, it was conclusory, lacking specifics. Here they are.
In the three passages, two in Mark 4 and one in Matthew 13:34-35 we see an important insight into the teaching method used by Christ. They speak of parables, but the term must be taken broadly because also Jesus taught in miracles: another thing people usually are at a loss explaining. The longest discourse on who "gets it" and who doesn't appears earlier in the Chapter 4 of Matthew:
[10] And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?
[11] Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. [12] For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. [13] Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. [14] And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. [15] For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
[16] But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. [17] For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.(Matthew 4)
It is true that Christ speaks differently to the crowd than He speaks to the disciples. He gives the reason, too: "the heart of this people is grown gross". Note however, that Christ did not intend His teaching to remain hidden forever. It was a stage of the development of Christian race; with His passion and resurrection another phase began. Now the disciples are charged to teach the people everything:
All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28)
As I noted before, whatever the disciples did not understand prior to the Passion, was explained to them during the forty days with the Risen Christ "speaking of the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3). Most parables, however, are explained on the spot, like the parable of the Sower.
So how does apply to the second part of John 6? The participants were "the multitude" (v. 24) but also the disciples (vv 67, 68; Douay uses Greek numbering in the second part of the chapter). The discourse on the Eucharist was not understood by the multitude and even rejected by some disciples. We can indeed ask ourselves, -- was the discourse a parable? And, -- if a parable, was it explained to the true disciples later?
Clearly there is a "parabolic" content in the discourse. The crowd asks for a sign (v. 30). Jesus responds with a vague promise of "bread from heaven". That "bread" is then not real bread, but something miraculous and God-given; miraculous like the manna, but salvific onto eternal life. The bread then is the sign that they asked, and so applying the term broadly, the "bread from heaven" is a parable.
A parable of what? The crowd was fed miraculously, so they understand the "bread" in the context of the miracle: real bread for the real stomachs, and a whole lot of it. Jesus feels the need to explain His "bread from heaven". That is consistent with His teaching method: He explained His parables often. Starting with "I am the bread of life" we read not the parable of "bread" but the explanation of the parable. The "bread" is He, just like at the Last Supper He is the bread. When does the explanation end? When He circles back to conclude: "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life". The Eucharist will "profit" the spirit. What Jesus explained, however difficult it is to comprehend, is spirit and life. St. Peter is among the few who understand; or, at the least, he is a good Catholic here: he may not understand with the mind but he takes it in his heart as Bible truth.
Was it all explained later, following the resurrection? There is no account of any of that 40-day teaching session, but we see the effect of the explanation on the Church. The disciples discover Jesus "in the breaking of the bread" (Luke 24:35, here's the transubstantiation happening and witnessed to) and the Eucharist becomes a recurring celebration: "they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42,46). St. Paul corrects a carnal understanding of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11. By the 2 Century the Eucharist becomes the distinguishing mark of Catholic Christianity:
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 6
Justin Martyr. The First Apology, 66
Ireneaus. Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 33), 2
...
You know that how? Jesus says they did. That's Whom I believe.
the false idea that the Mass is a reenactment of Calvary
Indeed. Who would teach such nonsense. The Mass is Calvary.
Ok. Then what would or could convince you?
Jesus said "as often as you do this...", not "do this every time you come together". Leaving off your wondering of money and time being "wasted", I think the REAL issue is that it is the whole point of the RC Mass and very little time is spent on what Christians did from the very beginning when they gathered together. They worshiped, shared a meal, listened to Scripture teaching and edification, made offerings to help other assemblies, prayed and gave testimony for how God was working in their lives. It was a true fellowship and people went away rejoicing in their faith, knowing that they were saved by His precious blood and by the grace of God and were encouraged to continue despite the threats of persecution constantly surrounding them. We have it WAY too easy these days!
It WAS Elsie's point and he was right...Jesus didn't hold a "wafer" in His hands that night. You scolded him for not being familiar with the Scriptures and then posted a verse that PROVED exactly what he said. Did you miss this in your hurry to heap ridicule on Elsie?
As for Jesus "making the bread into his body", he clearly said it represented his body which would be broken for them shortly after this event took place. He said the same thing about the cup of wine - it represented His blood which would soon be poured out for our sins. The Apostles understood this and it was what they taught their disciples who then passed on the same teaching. I think that it really DIDN'T matter what shape the bread was nor even what kind of bread it was. The object lesson STILL works.
What you said was "I don't know if Daniel really read the Bible or not; he probably does." The rest of your arrogant absurd opinions is cultic propaganda, even more revealed for what it is by a fringe RC.
The end.
Are you contending the bread and wine were PHYSICALLY changed so that the bread Jesus broke and passed around no longer was bread but real human flesh? Was it raw? Gimme a break! Obtuse thinking leads to some silly conclusions.
the false idea that the Mass is a reenactment of Calvary
Indeed. Who would teach such nonsense. The Mass is Calvary.
Except that it's NOT. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was "once for all" and He has perfected forever those who are sanctified by faith through the grace of God.
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, my God.’”
First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
“This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”
And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary. (Hebrews 10:1-18)
That's Whom I believe.
No he didn't. He said "this bread is my body". He did not say "this bread represents my body". Read the Holy Scripture every once in a while if you want to argue about it.
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.