There is something about the journey through Lent, as one encounters it on the Internet, which suggests that the strain of fasting and self-denial is not necessarily an aid to patience and mutual understanding; perhaps it is only when he feels challenged that the devil feels it – and tries to disturb us.
As usual, during the Lenten season, the Catholic Church finds itself under attack, and, as, alas, is so often the case, not without cause. Cardinal Pell’s testimony to the abuse tribunal in Australia, raises, again, the spectre of the way those in high positions in the Church covered up child abuse and moved priests around. It is not the only large organisation to do this, but then none of the others makes a claim to be the Bride of Christ, and none of the others (even the BBC) preaches about morality to the rest of the world. There is no point complaining about media bias, the fact is at the time there was a cover u, it looks like what it was – a set of serious errors of judgment. But, of course, that has not stopped the innuendo that the Cardinal must have known more – and the fact that at least some of that comes from Catholic sources, shows that in civil wars, some people are not fussy about what weapons they use.
The Pope’s unfortunate habit of speaking extempore on air craft is not helping, and no one has to search very hard to find fuel to keep the Catholic civil war going. This time no one can blame the media, it is Catholics themselves doing the damage. But what to do? To stay silent in the face of what seem to be abuses of Catholic teaching because of group solidarity would be to leave oneself open to the charge of ignoring abuse because it would not reflect well on the Church – precisely the allegation which, in the case of child abuse – has brought so much more grief in its wake. Moreover, if, as we are always being told, the church hierarchy wants more involvement from those below it, including the laity, it really has to get used to debate being more robust than it has been used to. It is not as though the hierarchy’s record in terms of handling difficult issues is one which commands the respect necessary for anyone to take the view that it can be trusted to act wisely; that was the sort of thinking which, again, led us to where we are on the child abuse question. Yes, God forgives the repentant sinner, but it is a little naive to suppose that a child abuser can be stopped by forgiving him after he has confessed; it doesn’t work that way.
But, one the other side of the question, the critics of the Church also have to learn how to make their case effectively. Too often it can come across as carping and over personalised. That might be because the hierarchy has never shown itself either welcoming of private criticism, or liable to act on it, but even if that is the case, we need to find ways, as Catholics, of talking to each other in ways that does not sound bitter. There is a witness we all give to the world, whether we notice it or not. So for Lent, we might all ponder on how to make it a better one.
Philip Augustine said:
I have attempted to be diplomatic at times and have extended my hand of friendship a great many times to traditional Catholics. I fully accept their views of faith, although I have made arguments against TLM, I think it’s extremely beautiful and love it to be in practice. However, I do support many things of the Vatican II council, one of them being vernacular masses, which causes my hand has often been rejected.
Notwithstanding, I have formed great connections with Traditionalists here at this site and a couple in my community. Perhaps, many here know that when it comes to doctrinal and moral issues I will always fully take the lead of the teachings of the Church even though I may be more accepting of Pastoral changes.
I may be met with “there are no moderates, only Catholics” and I could certainly let that great anger in my heart build, but this is the point of a Year of Mercy–brought forth by Pope Francis. In the end, I will join shoulder to shoulder with my Traditionalists brethren and if needed profess the Catholic faith in the ultimate sacrifice against modernism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
That’s the spirit – of The Spirit!
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Perhaps a game show on the telly called, Are You More Catholic than the Pope? The questions will come from the Catechism and will be based on recent answers from the Pope. If you get it dreadfully wrong, you get dunked. If you answer as the Pope did, you get a pie in the face. And if you get it right you are crowned Pope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Or, of course not!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
So if you get it wrong do you become a ‘Dunker’?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Rob, I think I’ll leave that it to the producers to decide whether the dunkee can become a dunker . . . or a pie-ee can become a pie-er.
LikeLiked by 1 person
famphillipsfrancis said:
I was interested in your reference to Cardinal Pell, as I have been engaging with someone outside the Church on Facebook over his case (Facebook can also be an apostolate!) I said that I believe Pell is telling the truth when he says he didn’t know about a paedophile priest in the Ballarat area in Australia in the 1970s (where he was a young parish priest himself at the time). “Paedophile priests” were not headline news in those days and as Pell said, Christian charity meant you didn’t want to spread scandal or gossip when you didn’t have facts to go on. The other person challenged me by saying “Lots of people knew what was going on”. He was actually referring to he Boston scandal. I then explained that “lots of people” does not mean “everyone”. Two aspects are worth emphasising: a. accepting as Catholics that the Church did behave with scandalous negligence over abusive priests. b. making the point that most priests are decent and hard-working. Whatever the media or those outside the Church might throw at us, we have to keep calm and reason with them. Otherwise the question swiftly becomes a matter of personal opinion, personal anecdote and personal judgement. Innocent priest have also had their lives destroyed by what turned out to be false and malicious accusations – indeed a witch hunt.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
All excellent and accurate points Francis. The fact is that back then these things were ‘not spoken about’, most of us knew nothing about such matters, and most of us were willing to give our priests the benefit of the doubt. It is terribly easy to judge in hindsight by today’s standards.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jock McSporran said:
What a sad post! Yes, everything in it is correct – and it addresses an important issue – but all this ‘paedophile priest’ business was something I had been hoping to get away from.
Perhaps your problems with the RCC are structural? For example – yes, I agree that Peter had a foundational role for the church (Matthew’s gospel says so), but I can’t see how the ‘church’ that emerged looks anything like anything that could be envisaged from anything that Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry.
One issue that causes the RCC a lot of problems is the secrecy of the confessional. When David sinned in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, God informed Nathan the prophet, who then ensured that the whole story appeared in the best selling book of all time (Holy Scripture) and the story is dissected in great detail from millions of pulpits all over the world each Sunday.
Confession in the NT was never ‘secret’ confession.
If there wasn’t the secrecy of the confessional, this whole problem (of hiding the activities of paedophile priests) would never have arisen.
The RCC has blood on its hands on other issues as well. A few years ago, a Polish girl was murdered in Glasgow, by somebody who was working in the cathedral; the RCC had taken upon itself to hide his past and give him a new identity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
There are times, Jock, when sadness is the only appropriate emotion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
May I ask a question?
What is that thing the priest is holding up?
Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It’s called a Monstrance, Bosco, and it holds the consecrated wafer which is the body of Christ.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Are you sure he’s holding something up? I thought he had two heads.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Ah, the monsterance. I wasn’t sure because it looks dark and I thought it was golden.
Good brother Jock, if that’s god inside that, you shouldn’t make fun of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Oh – I’m awfully sorry. I thought it was a scene from a Star Trek episode – you know, the one where they have these incredibly brainy beings who have butts where their heads should be.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
The monstrance comes from the latin which means to show . . . where we get the word demonstrate from. It is also called an ostensorium, from which we get the English word ostensible, which also is from the latin meaning, to show. And yes, they are usually made of gold (or covered in goldleaf) or of silver. Since we believe that Christ is present in a special way in the consecrated host, it is treated in a most devout and solemn manner to show due respect for our Savior. When the monstrance is used for Adoration it is a time spent in profound prayer before His presence. Sorry that such a special act of love and devotion for our Lord is not found in all of Christianity as it is truly an experience of God that you get nowhere else outside of Adoration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
The CC has said that others can be saved, not just catholics, so the Adoration isn’t necessary …..would that be a fair statement?
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
That’s right Bosco. Its like anything in life you can do the minimum or you can give it your all . . . its up to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Yes – a gold plated monstrance containing the transubstantiated wafer is of vital importance in worship. Jesus earthly ministry would have been much more successful if he had only thought of that, rather than simply presenting The Word.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Indeed, Christ never asks for special treatment but He seems to find it praiseworthy when He finds it: e.g. the spikenard incident.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eccles (@BruvverEccles) said:
Yes, if he’d wanted a piece of bread to be his body, you think he’d have said “This is my body” when passing bread round.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jock McSporran said:
He had not yet been crucified when he passed the bread around saying ‘this is my body’. His body had not yet been broken; his blood had not yet been shed. If it had been the first supper after the resurrection rather than the last supper before the crucifixion, you might have had a point.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. besides, he didn’t pass round the bread in a gold-plated monstrance and the disciples did not reverentially bow down before the bread before eating it.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother Jock, what hes saying is, one would have a fuller Christian life if one adores the golden monsterance. Im aware that the object is always held up at catholic services.
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
“Monsterance…” Priceless. You seem to have some vision of the Catholic Church as an out of control Jurassic monster, and your ignorant prejudice will never change because you just get off on it, don’t you? There’s no openness to any other possibility. Even when people reach out to you, you reject that hand of friendship and just keep up your bludgeoning anti-Catholic prejudice.
What is it about the words “THIS IS MY BODY” that you do not understand, clown? Is it “THIS”? or the really tricky word “IS”?, or “MY”?… or the clincher, “BODY”? Meditate on all these four words, Bosco, and tremble. But don’t bring your problems here, for we can’t help you. Go and see a priest and confess.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
What did I do to deserve this fire and brimstone from you good brother Gareth? Actually, im not anti catholic. Like my atheist friend says….hes not anti god because there is no god. Im not anti catholic because Catholicism is nothing, just air. Its a figment of you imagination. Jesus is all there is. There is nothing else.
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
Oh, sorry, my mistake. I thought you were looking for a reaction so I gave you one. If you’re not looking for any reaction, I’ll continue with my usual policy of ignoring you, then everyone’s happy. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Gareth – my problem with this is that when Jesus handed out the bread on that evening, his body had not yet been broken. The breaking of the bread signifies the breaking of the body.
Are you saying that in the Catholic view, the crucifixion, breaking the body and spilling the blood has nothing to do with the Eucharist?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Are you saying Jesus did not know what was going to happen and was not foreshadowing it? A novel interpretation, neither Luther nor Calvin would agree with.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Erm …. nope, nowhere did I say that and nowhere did I even imply that. You have a very good imagination. You should put it to good use for biblical eisegesis. You can make a very good reputation for yourself in academic circles for this.
You have just admitted that in the last supper he wasn’t really distributing his body and his blood; you have stated that it was simply symbolically foreshadowing his crucifixion, where the body would be broken (at some point in the future) and the blood would be shed (at some point in the future).
Now, if you concede that it was a symbolic act in the Last Supper, at which point did it cease to be a symbolic act and at which point did the ‘real presence’ start?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I can’t work out if you are trolling or playing dumb Jock – the point would be when what was foreshadowed happened. which part of ‘this is my body’ causes you problems? We see in John that people could not take the hard saying – you seem to be one of them.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Well, I’m neither trolling (at least not deliberately) nor ‘playing dumb’. I simply don’t understand. I wouldn’t have engaged in this discussion – and perhaps I shouldn’t have entered into it – but I genuinely fail to understand.
The part of ‘this is my body’ which causes me problems is that his whole body was in tact, in front of them, when he said this. Are you saying that he hacked off his big toe or something? He had not yet been sacrificed when he said this. That is the part of ‘this is my body’ which causes me problems.
As far as John 6 is concerned, your Catholic commentator Raymond Brown, states that Jesus used the same words with a different meaning from half way through the passage – and I find this a rather weak justification.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I really can’t get where you are coming from. He told the Jews that unless they ate his body and drank his blood they would not have eternal life. No doubt some of them thought he was talking about hacking off his toe or something. Their excuse was they didn’t have the wisdom of the resurrection to go on to see, as the Church has ever since, what Jesus was saying. That was their excuse, I can’t quite see what yours is.
If you go to the notoriously liberal Brown for your info, you will get what you found. There are two thousand years of exegesis on this, and you choose Brown – really? Do you have access to none of the much better commentaries such as the Jerome Bible commentary, or Martin and Wright, or even Scott Hahn?
Do you not believe Jesus knew what was coming? Do you see no connection between John 6, the last supper and the universal habit of the church ever since the resurrection? It is there in the Didache, and in all the early accounts of what the first Christians did. If your church does not believe Jesus meant what he said, that might be a signal to get out of it and into one of those churches which does – of course it could be that we and the Orthodox are wrong and a few Protestant sects finally got it right in more recent times – but it seems a little improbable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – where I am coming from is reasonably straightforward:
John 6v40 ‘For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.’
so you have eternal life if you look to the Son and believe in him.
John 6v53, 54 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
so here you have no life in you unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man.
If you take the statements literally, then both cannot be true. Either it is belief, or else it is eating the flesh and drinking the blood.
John 6v35 states: Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
So I trust you see that there is a problem here: Jesus seems to be equating coming to him with eating the bread / flesh and not going (spiritually) hungry; he seems to be equating believing in him with drinking and not going (spiritually) thirsty.
I trust that you do see that there is something to be resolved here.
You’re on shakey ground if you trust to the tradition of the church. My own exposure to church history comes from the earlier volumes of ‘Sveriges Kyrkohistoria’ explaining how it got to Sweden. In this account, I don’t see people convicted of their sins and trusting that in the crucifixion their sins were dealt with and in the resurrection their sins were forgiven. Rather, I see lots of political games; I see princes and kings allying themselves to Christianity (and bringing their people with them) purely out of political expediency. The argument ‘everybody is doing it’ is a dangerous one. Better if you argue directly from John 6 why this seems correct to you (and why it is so obvious that the rest of us who don’t see it need our heads examined).
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I find it odd the way you divide the seamless robe J6v0 has to be read alongside J653-54, indeed I have never seen any Church Father not do so; it is not either or, it is both, and until Protestantism came along, no one thought of it as either/or. As to trusting to the unbroken tradition of the Church, it gave us the definition of the Canon, so you trust it – but only when it suits you.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – you see, I do read these passages along side each other – and reach different conclusions from you.
You claim that Protestant churches say that you have to believe – otherwise you go to hell; the Catholic church says that you have to both believe and eat the body and drink the blood, otherwise you have no life in you (i.e. you go to Hell when you depart this life). I tell you that I don’t like either of these positions. It’s OK for a church to tell me what I’m supposed to do, but the additional piece ‘otherwise you have no life in you’ is something that I have a serious problem with.
Many of my friends, the ones with a social conscience and who are not hypocrites have been atheists – hardened against Christianity and from a knowledge both theoretical (of what it is about) and also practical (of the hypocrites that a church can generate). They don’t ‘believe’, even less do they take the Eucharist. I’m quite happy going along to a church that expounds The Word and tells me what it requires; I have extreme difficulties with the additional clause ‘and if you don’t do this, then you have no life in you and you end up in Hell’.
By this measure – Protestantism bad; Catholicism, even worse.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As the Good Book says, many could not bear the hard saying and walked with him no more. It was, is, and always will be thus.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – I have encountered quite a few self-professed atheists whose moral outlook seems more in line with Christianity than many who go to church. I know what is required of me; I’m simply not prepared to take the view that if others don’t do likewise then they stand condemned.
I think you’re on shakey ground if you say that those who don’t participate in the Eucharist stand condemned; that means the whole of the Salvation Army is destined for the lake of fire.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
God alone decides such things. People don’t like the idea of hell, so they invent their own eligibility criteria.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
I agree with that general principle. As for me, I try to be a good and faithful servant – and pray that those around me will see life (no matter what their belief status may be). But the matter is entirely in His hands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It is so. But Paul thought it so important that he thought those who ate and drank unworthily would be damned. The point about the Didarche is it confirms what Paul says and what we know the earliest Christians did. Now it may be none of these people were as wise as us moderns, but if we take the view that x or y is dispensable, we end up where the Anglicans have.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Can you say that god didn’t go into a In-n-out and get a double double with fries and a shake? If he could have, that means he did do it..Therefor……….
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I’m sure this means something to you Bosco. I simply believe what Jesus says, you keep having to make Jesus’ words fit what you think they believe; if I found myself doing that, I’d get out of the cult and join the church Jesus founded.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Jock – You seem to have a problem with God’s ability to pre-apply a Grace won by Christ before the actual event that manifests this Grace; even though this Grace was imperfectly given by a number of types and models of what was to be won on Calvary. For starters, the unfulfilled sacrifice of Abraham of his son Isaac, Moses and the Passover, the raising up of the serpent on the staff of Moses, the manna (the what is it), the scapegoat sacrifices of the Jews, the words of the prophets (especially Isaiah and Malachi for a few instances. Is it not the way God foreshadows what is to come? The discourse of John 6 did not do this? The Last Supper was empty of Grace and and not a pre-application of the Grace won on Calvary a few hours later? It is this same type of thinking that does not allow God to use the Grace won at Calvary to form Mary at the moment of conception without Original Sin. You do not believe that God could do it, or perhaps, you do not believe that He would do it.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Eat his flesh and drink his blood means to believe His Words. You religious folks think that you eat his flesh makes you saved. Your costumes turn bread into his flesh and you eat it thinking that now all is OK.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Well, Jesus says it means what he says, and in John 6 53-54 those who cannot accept his words leave him; are you leaving him, or will you believe his words?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
You do not believe that God could do it, or perhaps, you do not believe that He would do it.
I believe god could put 10,000 dollars in 5 dollar bills under my pillow.
You say god COULD do something and then say He did it because He could have done it. Even though the bible contradicts it.
Don’t let the bible get in the way of a good fable.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Well, let’s see. Eat means ‘believe’ to you, drink means ‘believe’ to you, body means ‘the Word’, and blood means ‘the Word.’ My thesaurus does not contain these meanings that you have created.
That He is the True Manna that came down from Heaven seems not to lead you to believe that He is saying that He is food to eat . . . its just a poetic way of saying what you made up for your own personal belief.
And, of course, St. Paul was just-a-kiddin’ when he said that you eat and drink your own destruction by not recognizing Christ in the Eucharist. Seems like everyone got it wrong but you, Bosco. The Teaching of the Twelve (the Didache) is only a fairy tale to you . . . though a very old one . . . dating to a few decades after the death of Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – well, a comparison of John verses 6 v40 and 6v53 might suggest that this is the metaphor that Jesus himself is using …..Of course, Jesus hadn’t read the thesaurus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Two things going on here Jock and the Catholics and Orthodox accept them both: That Christ’s words are spirit and truth and that Christ is the Bread of Life (v51-58) – this is finalized at the Crucifixion but realized at the Last Supper. So we have the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the breaking of the bread). You accept the first and reject the second. St. Paul accepts both . . . the Didache accepts both . . . and the Church has carried on believing this for 2000 years. I trust the tradition that was foretold by typology in so many incidents that were fulfilled by Christ that it is actually hard for me NOT to see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Dave –
1) the Didache wasn’t considered ‘canonical’ by the early fathers; they didn’t put it in the canon.
2) if you look for support from the early fathers, then I marvel that the Nicene Creed is a beautiful expression of my own faith – and they didn’t add any of the extra bits that you seem to insist on, which cause me a problem. If these extra bits are so important, then I wonder why?
Taken at face value, John 6 is self-contradictory unless the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood is intended metaphorically.
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
That is the ‘work’ pure and simple (of course, if we claim to believe and then don’t produce the fruit of the Spirit, then the claim to believe is clearly false).
‘For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.’
Again, it is clear and plain.
There is a device used throughout John; Jesus making statements – such as being born again – which are clearly not to be taken at face value, and his listeners making a crassly literal interpretation (such as Nicodemas wondering how it is possible to get back into the womb and being born again).
We have the same manner of speaking here; if we don’t, then John is self-contradictory – and this is unacceptable to me, no matter how many brainy and spiritually sincere people over the last 2000 years have thought otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Jock – I am glad that you brought Baptism into the mix for it is a great example of the same thing. Just as water (a basic necessity for life) is nothing more than a common element which avails nothing other than temporal life is transformed by the words of Baptism into a ‘spirit and life’ for those who believe in the words of Christ. Likewise, bread and wine (staples of mankind) are the same . . . availing nothing but what they always have (the same is true therefore of ‘flesh and blood’ when speaking of them as they are. But quite obviously, Christ has transformed these elements into ‘spirit and life’ and left us with Sacraments that strengthen our Faith. “I am in you and you in me,”
Now the Pasch was celebrated at the first day of The Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Last Supper occured the day before the Passover meal and follows the Rite long established except for some changes: the Lamb (which must be eaten) is the Spiritual Lamb of God that will be sacrificed on the morrow. The chalice becomes a cup of the new covenant in His Blood. The symbols of the Old Rite were spiritually transformed in His Words: This is My Body . . . the Unleavened Bread and Wine being combined with the Lamb Sacrifice mystically or spiritually by His very Word. And what are you to do with the Lamb of old and the unleavened Bread of old? You eat it Jock. The breaking of the Bread then is now the Lamb of God which has been transformed into that which is both ‘spirit and life.’ It is now the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity (not of the carnal body and blood) but of the Spiritual, Risen, Glorified Christ of Heaven who wants to be our spiritual food and drink.
Even the Our Father prayer forshadows this: for we do not say, give us this day our bread nor do we say give us our daily bread but ‘give us this day, our daily bread.’
Here is a commentary: which is contested by some and yet is mysterious nonetheless:
Here is the mystery. The New Testament was inspired in Greek and the Greek word, used in both Gospels, is epiousion, which literally means “supersubstantial,” or “above substantial.” However, this term is found nowhere else in the New Testament or in the Greek translation of the Old. And, although most of the early fathers of the Church spoke Greek as a native tongue, there is not a unanimous consent as to the meaning of the term epiousion. The more common interpretation (Monsignor cites Origen and Saint Cyprian) is that the word refers to the Bread of Life, the Eucharist. But Monsignor notes that other fathers, Saint John Chrysostom, for example, held that the adjective denotes sufficiency, as in ‘give us this day bread sufficient for this day only.’ Saint Jerome, on the other hand, offered two viewpoints: one, that the term “supersubstantial bread” refers to the Blessed Eucharist, the “bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures” and two, that the Hebrew word that best matches epiousion is maar, which means “for tomorrow,” hence “give us this day our bread for tomorrow” that is, for the future.” (Commentary on Saint Matthew, c. 6, vs 11)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
You guys keep accusing me of not believing in communion. Or something like that. Its done to remember His broken body. It doesn’t make one saved. Its a good thing that people do communion.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Which part of ‘this is my body’ do you not understand? You keep explaining to us that Jesus did not mean what he said. Who to believe, you or Jesus?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – this has been explained to you a million times, quite clearly. The part of ‘this is my body’ that I do not understand is that at the Last Supper the body had not yet been broken; he was not yet the atoning sacrifice. If it had been the First Supper After the Resurrection instead of the Last Supper before the Crucifixion, then your argument would be rock solid, but it wasn’t, therefore your argument isn’t.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, you think Jesus did not know what was coming and what he was saying? Thats an interesting view, and if we take it, could lead to a wholesale rereading of Scripture in a liberal direction – oh, wait, that’s already happened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – again, a brilliant eisegesis, reading in that which is not there. I trust you don’t do that in your professional work as a historian.
Jesus knew exactly what was coming – the point is that it had not yet come. The once for all sacrifice to end all sacrifices had not yet been made. The blood had not yet been shed, the water had not yet poured out from his side.
He was telling them, very graphically, what would happen, but it had not yet happened.
Jesus also uses an awful lot of symbolic language. Are you saying (like Nicodemas) that ‘born again’ means that someone literally has to climb into his mother’s womb and come out again? Also, when he spoke about destroying the temple and he would rebuild it in three days – he fooled everybody (including the disciples) with his use of language.
It looks to me as if you’re looking for Bosco-style simplicity of use of language here.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Not mine, Jock, that of the Church from the beginning, and that’s the difference. You rest on your own understanding and that of other men, mine comes from the deep history of the faith once given received by the Church to which it was entrusted: rock on my side, sand on your side I fear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – the Nicene creed comes from a council which you may have heard of – curiously, something suggests this to me. It is a statement of my own faith, from first to last.
I therefore have no difficulties whatsoever with the early fathers; in fact, when I read the Nicene creed, I see that they are on my side.
They didn’t put the wiggy stuff which you and Dave come up with into that creed; they restricted it to good solid statements that express my own faith. Whatever support you think you may be getting from the early fathers, they fell short of inserting it into the Nicene creed – they restricted the creed to statements that expressed the faith of people like me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I think you’ll find that the same Church which promulgated the Creed took the view that the bread is His body and the wine is His blood. If you take that view you are with them, if not, not.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Not only that C, we seem to examine history of in a straight line from point A in time to point B in time which is purely Western. It is said that Jewish History was often told elliptically.
I wonder if Jock thnks that the Tree of Life, present in the Garden from the beginning, cannot possibly be Christ and the fruit of that tree cannot possibly be the Eucharist? . . . or the power of the Cross was not present in the staff with serpent on it long before Christ died on the Cross? We have ceased to think of God in His realm and have made Him obey our rules of historicity; B always follows A and God must obey the Western logician’s impeccable rationality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – one of the striking features of Christianity (as opposed to any other religion that I am aware of) is that when God becomes man, this is not part of any mythology; this is at a specific point in human history, the lowest point in human history, ‘crucified under Pontius Pilate’.
So the answer to your question is ‘no’ – I had never heard of that wacky idea before – that the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden is Christ. Christ is not a tree; Christ is God, who appeared ‘in the flesh’. He did not come to us ‘in the wood’; he did not come in the likeness of a tree.
This sounds like the nonsense that the scholastics from the middle ages, those who locked themselves up in cloisters, divorced from the real world, might have come up with. It certainly isn’t mentioned (at least not explicitly in the language that ordinary people can understand) in the New Testament.
Furthermore, this sort of wacky idea mythologises the Christian religion and makes it just like all the others.
God created the natural order; God created the laws of logic. ‘The Western logician’s impeccable rationality’ as you put it is much closer to God than the wacky Scholastic thinking that says that Christ came ‘in the wood’, ‘in the likeness of a tree’. The rules of historicity which you despise are God’s rules of historicity, which He created, and Christ came in the flesh at a specific point in history.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Jock – You are galighting my friend. It is YOU who who said that I said that Christ came “in the wood’ and ‘in the ikeness of a tree’. I am not crazy though you would like to make my answer appear such. I am talking about and looking into the OT scripture the way St. Paul and others did. If you do not think that the seeds of all of human history were planted and arranged by God for our understanding of that which was to be revealed and that which is not understandable in human terms then you miss the point. Baptism being foreshadowed in Noah and the Ark or the passage of the Jews from Egypt etc. God prepares us for that which is essentially a mystery. But you choose to cheapen the argument of typology into nonsense and place words into my mouth which is simply a tactic of your trying to control the outcome of a dialogue by constructing a false reality of what has been said. It is not flattering for you to use such tactics . . . leave such tactics to politicians and such. You’re better than that Jock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – what you just said (now) makes some sort of sense. I agree that many important things of the NT were foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
What you said before didn’t make sense to me and I still don’t understand it. I don’t believe that the ‘Tree of Life’ was Christ – and furthermore I don’t understand what you are trying to say if you state that the Tree of Life was Christ. When I read Genesis, I always thought that the tree was, in fact, a tree – in the sense that it was made out of wood, reasonably stationary, and didn’t have a brain. I also assumed that it had the basic tree property that it turned carbon dioxide into oxygen, had sap rather than blood, etc … etc …. I fail to understand what you are saying here.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Jock – essentially remember the audience. The first Jews believed in ONE God with 1 person only. How are you to speak of a coming reality: sin being hung on a tree and the fruit of which brings eternal life. I can think of no reason to mention it unless it portends and looks forward to the Cross. Can you?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – a beautiful question; what was the tree of life, what did it represent, what was it for. But your answer simply doesn’t add up. The Tree of Life was available (they hadn’t been barred from it) before they sinned by breaking an explicit commandment and they were barred from it after they had sinned, God had pronounced his sentence and before Original Sin entered the picture.
I therefore can’t see anything of an atoning sacrifice, the broken body, or the blood shed in the Tree of Life.
For what it’s worth – I don’t believe that Mary was free of original sin, because I don’t believe that Christ, when he came ‘in the flesh’ was free of original sin. I think that’s the point. Christ was fully human, subject to exactly the same frailties, exactly the same temptations. He did not sin, yet he was forsaken by God anyway. When he says, ‘why have you forsaken me?’ that is exactly what happened.
When I mentioned being born again, naively it never occurred to me that I was mentioning anything connected with baptism. It was simply an illustration that Jesus made remarks which weren’t supposed to be taken literally – and Nicodemas takes the crassly literal interpretation. I think that with baptism, we have to understand why Christ was baptised by John, a baptism for repentance, when Jesus had nothing to repent of. This was an expression of solidarity with us in our sinnerhood – more than an expression, he was identifying with us and taking on our sins. When, at any time, we feel overwhelmed by our own sinfulness, Christ is there, sharing the burden. This (I believe) is what Christ’s baptism was all about.
The key verses of John 3, through which everything else may be understood are John 3v16 – 18
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
So we have to understand what is meant by belief – and, as we’ve discussed many times before, belief that is not accompanied by the Fruit of the Spirit and works commensurate with being servants of the Living God isn’t belief at all. But that’s it. Belief = eternal life; refusal to believe = eternal condemnation.
It is not belief plus something else; it is not belief plus taking the Eucharist. The meaning of the remainder of John, when Jesus is saying things where the crassly literal interpretation is wrong, can be inferred from this.
I take the ‘born again’ discourse to mean that belief itself is a gift from God, an act of grace and mercy. We can’t do it by ourselves; we need Christ.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Jock – a long answer that deserves a long answer.
Paragraph 1: Yes the Tree of Life was also at the center of the Garden. They could have eaten of it had they not eaten the forbidden fruit. But once they had taken on the stain of sin it also became forbidden until the stain be removed (the reason they were driven from Paradise and why we see in Revelation that one must wash their garments before eating from it). And similarly we cannot receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin.
Paragraph 2: God foresaw the atoning sacrifice. The ‘broken body’ was not broken as you keep saying but scripture tells us that not a bone was broken . . . just as no bone was broken in the Paschal Lamb. And as for all these, plus the blood shed by Christ, is simply being presented as the very first metaphor . . . why do you expect anything more explicit that what God gave as an everlasting (what is this all about?) question to rattle around in the minds of the Jews so that they might recognize in Christ what was planned from the beginning by God for our salvation? You’re rejection of Mary being free of original sin is answered by yourself. Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise because they sinned and could not eat of the Tree of Life and in Revelation nobody with stain of sin can eat from the Tree of Life. Christ, as God, cannot abide by one another . . . Christ could not take on sinful human flesh . . . or there is no reason to have ejected Adam and Eve. Yes Christ made Himself subject to our frailties and was ‘like us in all things but sin.’ You know this is the real answer and it is scriptural. So yes, He was abandoned (truly) as He was ‘made sin’ and God and sin cannot abide with one another.
Paragraph 3: Yes, Christ did not always speak literally and made use of metaphor or parable . . . and always explained them to His Apostles EXCEPT when it came to his discourse in John 6. In that case, you either take it on face value or you can leave . . . He did not call the scoffers back and tell them that it was only a metaphor. We understand why Christ was baptized by John (for much the same reason that Jesus celebrated the Todah or Last Supper). It was to transform the ritual cleansing of the temple which John did for the repentance of sin, into a new ritual cleaning that received the giving of the Holy Spirit: something we could not get until after His death on the Cross but Christ (being without sin) used this opportunity for a great miracle and revelation to the people. First to show them the vision of the Holy Spirit descending on Christ and secondly to tell them that this was ‘His beloved Son, believe in Him.’ All accomplished and picked up on by Christians after Christ was raised from this Earth to Heaven. And yes, we were to believe in Christ . . . and elsewhere scripture also tells us that to believe in His is to do as He tells you. What He tells us . . . you prefer to believe was not literal. We as Catholics say that we must believe it as literal . . . because He did not qualify to be anything other than this. And yes, you have answered well that the manifestation in ourselves of the workings of the fruits of the Holy Spirit are the signs of the efficacy of our true belief. Amen to that.
Last Paragraph: Belief is doing what He said and believing what He says. And the taking of the Eucharist is what He said to do. He never took away the Pasch; He transformed it and told us to do this as often as we meet. It is the remainder of John that we see that Christ is making clear that if you have belief in Him you will believe all that He said . . . even if you don’t understand it. It is the reason why Peter’s answer to Who He was was praised by Christ in the way it was.
Yes, all of the aids given us for our salvation were acts of God . . . for we can not save ourselves. Baptism, Confession, the Eucharist and even belief or faith itself is a gift from God. But that does not mean that because I have come to believe in Him that I can then disparage His words concerning these other things. I must first be Baptized as He says. I must confess my sins. I must eat His flesh and drink His blood. I might not understand these mysteries but I do understand that He has words of Eternal Life. I trust that He knows, and the Church is unfolding these mysteries as we continue to do what He told us to do.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Dave, Chalcedon – By the way – apologies if this is getting tedious – and apologies if it looks as if the thread has been hijacked by an off-topic discussion – but I find the current discussion substantially more interesting than Cardinal Pell and what he may or may not have done about paedophile priests.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
No problem with me, Jock. Here are a few links for you to think about.
http://catholicexchange.com/nine-ways-the-eucharist-is-hidden-in-the-old-testament
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8368
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html
Click to access WhySukkot_TypologyOfCeremonialLawAndFeastsOfIsrael.pdf
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Jock – sorry, I answered you but it seems to have been lost to the spam filter as I gave you some useful links to read in regards to our discussion. C will probably release it shortly.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother Chalcedon allways tells me that the bread is Jesus body, as if I ever said it wasn’t. I never said it wasn’t. Jesus tore pieces off a loaf and passed them around to the fellows. He said as of as ye do this, remember me. OK, ,that’s nice. We can do that on a train, on a plane or in our dinning room or walking down the street. The catholic church wants to make its devotees think that only its costumes can turn the brad into Christs body. The costume turns his back to the croud and waves his arms around and says magic words.
Jesus said that whenever we sit to eat we can remember him. Its for everyone, not just one organization, no matter what they claim.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, why then did St Paul say if you drank the blood and ate the body unworthily it would be to your destruction – doesn’t sound like he agrees with you that it was just a memorial – since when did betting a memorial wrong lead you to hell?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
My reply got erased, I hit the wrong button. Dang. Im not going to retype it…suffice to say that im not able to remember the unworthily thing, but my good guess is that taking com union just for a show might be one way of eating unworthily. good brother Gene Scott went into this 30 yrs ago. Its not being personally unworthy, its the act of taking communion in an unworthy manner. But religious people have turned everything into a ritual, a ritual that confers something to the devotee. Funny thing is,….rituals do nothing for salvation. You want to be born again? Ask Jesus to come into your life.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – I don’t agree with it, but your argument from Paul is much better than your argument from John.
In John, Jesus says many things that are clearly not intended to be taken literally (for example, being born again, which Nicodemas takes in a crassly literal way), destroying the temple which he will raise again in three days (he meant his body, but his listeners took it in a crassly literal way) and he has already stated (John 3v16-18) that believing in Him constitutes life; failure to believe in Him constitutes death.
Furthermore, John seems to be quite anti-sacramental: John 14v31 ‘Come let us leave’ before the Last Supper. It doesn’t appear in John’s gospel at all; 14v31 seems to be pointedly anti-sacramental.
So, at several levels, your argument from John clearly doesn’t add up.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Except that on this one, many of his followers left him when he said they must eat his body and drink his blood – if he didn’t mean it literally, he would have said so and they would have come back.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – I don’t think that this argument is bullet proof. You could (in the same way) argue that he was stating literally to Nicodemas that he had to get back into his mother’s womb and be born again.
There are lots of metaphors, particularly in John’s gospel concerning food; ‘my food is to do the will of my father who sent me’ – or words to that effect.
If you take it in the way that you do, then the idea of cannibalism (literally eating his flesh and literally drinking his blood) is a ‘bolt from the blue’. It’s actually very difficult to see how they could have understood the teaching given the background of John 1 to 6, let alone understood it and decided that it was very hard.
In fact, one reason I don’t like it (in addition to the main argument, which is that if it is taken literally in the way that you take it, then I don’t see how to reconcile it with John 3v16-18) is that it seems like a very easy teaching; too easy. All the churches around here have masses at 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 on Sunday and you see the churches packed to the gunwales, people standing outside at each mass. They go to church take the mass (what you mean by John 6, eating the flesh and drinking the blood) and it doesn’t seem to be a hard thing to do at all.
Many of these people are sincere, but many probably are not – and would have much greater difficulties with the hard teaching that Jesus gave to the young man whom he told to sell all his possessions, give everything to the poor and follow him.
I see this (telling the rich young man to give up all his possessions) as a truly hard teaching, in line with doing the will of the father.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Jesus is the Word of god. Eating his body means believing his Words.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Oh yeah, this is about good brother Pell, I almost forgot. Well, as everyone knows by now, he not only knew, but he is one of them.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As everyone who has been following it knows, he didn’t and he isn’t. Where is the evidence he is a pedophile – or do you born again types throw around serious allegations without evidence?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Let me qualify that and apologize for not being clear. He is one of them meaning he was in the know the whole time. For gods sake…he went to school with these guys, came up the ranks with these guys, ate and slept in the same building with these guys, hung around them all day for years. Everybody does something, my girlfriend used to say.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, that is there is no evidence and you, claiming to be born again, are spreading lies and scandal – not the fruits of the Holy Spirit, so which spirit is in you?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
It must irk you that I don’t belong to a half baked religion that I have to make excuses for its holymen all the time.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – careful here – Jesus does (after all) say that you must be born again, so if you are in the number of the Saviour’s family, this includes you as a ‘born again’ type.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
We are born again, through water and the Spirit – and I have always considered myself born again. But then I try to follow what the Church has always taught, and do’t claim that being born again gives me insights unknown to the tradition of the church.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
So, good brother, what you are saying is these bishops are blind and stupid. You are aware that they used to be rank and file priests and hung around other priests. And you claim they don’t know whats going on. You remind me of the guy in here that when I posted the big dragon up on the wall in the Vatican, he said that it wasn’t a dragon , and that it really was a furry little kitten or something.
Come on, get serious. You think they don’t know?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I see that in order to bolster your lack of evidence about Pell, you move back to generalisations- usually a sign you have no evidence about Pell. Yes, mistakes were made, but like many people, Pell knew nothing. If you have actual evidence he did, I am sure the Australian enquiry would be interested in it.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Pell suggested putting some austrailian bishop to guard the henhouse.
Vatican treasurer George Pell took an oath on the Bible and testified on Sunday before Australia’s Royal Commission Into Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse that the Roman Catholic Church “mucked things up” when confronted with allegations of priests molesting children.
“I’m not here to defend the indefensible,” Pell said in a video call from Rome, according to NBC News. “The church has made enormous mistakes and is working to remedy those, but the church in many places, certainly in Australia, has mucked things up, has let people down.”
http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-church-mucked-things-sexual-abuse-says-third-220516816.html;_ylt=AwrXnCGf4OBWxWQAbljQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjR0MTVzBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–
Plus the committee to handle bishops who shelterd abusive priests has gone nowhere. There is even high level opposition to it.
LikeLike