Saturday, December 04, 2010

Catholic kuru

David H. said:
For example, when Jesus says truly truly anywhere in scripture he is always saying something non-metaphorical and he is putting extra emphasis on the words.

Also, he uses the word for "chew" or "gnaw" so there could have been no confusion by the Jews that he was only speaking of sacrificial language. The canibalistic language was what was offensive and this is clear in the context. And that is the where I will stand by what I said about torturing the text to make it say something other than what it is saying. Jesus verily verily or truly truly language never allows ambiguity in scripture. . . .

So please tell me why he would emphasize, with a truly truly, that his flesh was TRUE food and his bloood TRUE drink? This was the point I was trying make (which was, I admit, sloppy).

Jesus was not prone to Clintonisms. He said "true" because he meant "true". I cannot see how [John 6] verse 55 can mean anything other than what it is actually saying. Jesus leaves no doubt by saying truly truly and true. He is making himself very clear. Any other explanation is simply eisegesis.
According to eMedicine, kuru ("the shakes") is a prion disease transmitted by endocannibalism. It is characterized by a relentless progression of neurological symptoms through well-defined clinical stages:
  1. During the first stage, which is known as the ambulant stage, general coordination begins to deteriorate. The patient may experience symptoms such as an unsteady gait, shaking or shivering, slurred speech, and twitching eyes. In general, failing coordination begins in the feet, legs, and hands, and slowly moves upward.

  2. The second stage of kuru disease, which is known as the sedentary stage, is defined by a worsening of stage one symptoms that prevent the patient from walking without support, ataxia, or loss of muscle coordination and severe muscle jerking. Additionally, a new set of symptoms begins including depression, fits of laughter, and deteriorating mental capacity.

  3. The third stage is the terminal stage. At this point the symptoms include an inability to sit upright without support, fecal and urinary incontinence, trouble swallowing, and eventually coma followed by death. Death typically follows a clinical course of 4 months to 2 years with most patients dying within one year of symptom onset. Kuru is invariably fatal.
Kuru was first witnessed in the 1900s among members of the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea. Kuru was spread by the endocannibalistic funeral practices of the Fore. Family members were ritualistically cooked and eaten following their death. When first investigated in 1957, kuru was found to be present in epidemic proportions with approximately 1000 associated deaths in the first five years of observation, 1957-1961. The total number of kuru cases from 1957-2004 exceeded 2700 with more than 200 dying of the disease every year in the late 1950s.

The prohibition of cannibalism in the 1950s led to the decline in the epidemic in Papua New Guinea. Numbers fell to approximately six per year in the early 1990s and between one and two cases per year in late 1990s with only 11 cases identified from July 1996 through June 2004. More recently, kuru-related deaths declined to only two from 2003-2008.

These statistics are for the Papua New Guinea populace. But it appears the disease is far from being eradicated globally. It has apparently persisted in large numbers into the present century primarily because of the cannabilistic practices among a religious cult originating in the central-western region of the Italian peninsula in and among a polis situated on the Tiber River.

 

77 comments:

  1. Satire? Closer to insulting bigotry than satire.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would you mind explaining what is supposed to be so insulting about it? It is not the case that the RCC teaches that the body and blood of Christ are present in the eucharist?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You all are truly vile.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Once every 20 or 30 posts, a Triabloguer crosses a line. This is one of them.

    If a leading Reformed theologian suffered stomach cancer, would you like the Catholic blogsphere gloating that this was because he "wasn't eating properly"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the one hand we deal with Catholics who accuse us of not taking the Bible at face value. Being "selective literalists" (as one of them put it recently). Of "tortured" exegesis when we interpret Jn 3 or Jn 6 or 1 Cor 11. Turning a blind eye to the "obvious" meaning of sacramental passages.

    On the other hand, the moment we hold them to the crass, graphic implications of their face-value interpretation, then they suddenly distance themselves from simple, straightforward literalism, introduce various ad hoc buffers to insulate their own interpretation from the cannibalistic consequences of their "literal" interpretation, and take grave offense at what we said.

    How can we cross the line when you keep redrawing the line?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good news is, Triablogue can post whatever they feel like for the next 20 some posts and not cross the line.

    ReplyDelete
  7. At least Mr. Manata agrees a line was crossed. Mr. Hays' justification for the post is nearly as disgusting as the post itself. This post is the type of garbage that one expects from the likes of Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens rather than someone claiming to be a follower of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All I said is that according to Tom R, *if* the line was crossed, we have a while until it gets crossed again, so wait and see the rude and crude posts I'm going to write! You think this post was crude?! But maybe Tom R means that we average 1 over-the-line post to every 20 or 30. Then I have a problem instead of Houston. But I don't really care enough to think about it all that much.

    ReplyDelete
  9. John, I'm offended that you put Calvin and Luther in this list:

    Posted by John at 12:32 PM 0 comments
    Thursday, October 14, 2010
    CATHOLICISM

    Here is just a short list of folks that make me happy/proud/thankful that I am Catholic.
    1. Joel Osteen
    2. Jimmy Swaggart
    3. Pat Robertson
    4. Richard Bennett
    5. Seventh Day Adventists
    6. Just about anyone on TBN
    7. Richard Dawkins
    8. John Calvin
    9. Martin Luther
    10. Henry VIII


    You crossed the line!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul, I guess I just missed the *if* in your comment. In my post I did not mock Luther or Calvin. I did not insult their particular deeply held relgious beliefs. I did not mock or insult your particular religious beliefs. However, if you believe that I did, please accept my apology, but if you really believe I crossed a line, then it would seem that Mr. Chan's post not only crosses the line, but is so much worse.

    I am said to hear that you possibly intend to post rudely and crudely in the future, though I am not surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Correction: Sad to hear.

    ReplyDelete
  12. John,

    You sound like a Muslim who's outraged by some perceived slight to "the Prophet."

    The Bible doesn't hesitate to mock "deeply held religious beliefs" that are false. Consider the way it treats idolatry and idolaters.

    Back when the Roman church still had temporal power, Catholics weren't so politically correct.

    In the meantime, you haven't given us a single intellectual justification for your pique. Thus far your "disgust" has no more moral or intellectual force than a 5-year-old who's disgusted by parsnips.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Really Steve? If you are unable to see the obvious offensiveness of this post, I am not sure any intellectual argument will help you or be worth the effort.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Offensiveness" is not a morally serious objection. Many social liberals are offended by the policies of the Roman Church. So you're very selective about how you apply that objection.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve, I am not selective at all. A similar post by a social liberal would be just as offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  16. John, putting Calvin and Luther in the same group as Joel Osteen wasn't meant to mock them? That wouldn't offend their deeply held religious beliefs to be grouped in with the others? Give me a break, John. Why didn't you list the Calvin, Luther, Hodge, Warfield, &c? Just respected and intellectually sophisticated protestants. I think it's obvious.

    I also don't intend to post anything rude and crude, you're being obtuse.

    ReplyDelete
  17. JOHN SAID:

    "Steve, I am not selective at all. A similar post by a social liberal would be just as offensive."

    Which illustrates your selective morality. You'd be offended by a similar post by a social liberal, but when social liberals are offended by the policies of your denomination, you don't reciprocate.

    Likewise, many Protestants were offended by the CDF document, Dominus Iesus. Should that be withdrawn to avoid offending many Protestants?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve,
    "Which illustrates your selective morality. You'd be offended by a similar post by a social liberal, but when social liberals are offended by the policies of your denomination, you don't reciprocate.

    Likewise, many Protestants were offended by the CDF document, Dominus Iesus. Should that be withdrawn to avoid offending many Protestants?"

    I am not sure how you know to what I choose to reciprocate. However I believe we are discussing this post on this blog. As for Dominus Iesus, there is really no comparison to the offensiveness of this post in its language or tenor.

    Paul,
    if you really believe my post rises to the same level as I see Mr. Chan's, I do not think I have any hope of convincing you otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  19. John,

    I see; so long as you think there are people worse than you, then you're fine. In any case, you meant to mock Calvin, Luther, and all orthodox protestants who read your blog, as I highly doubt any followers of Osteen read your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This guy is so clever and smart! Can he teach me science! I think Adam and Eve drove dinosaurs to work. I am just looking for evidence. Do the Flintstones count? Silly fundamentalists...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jesus offended people.
    Chan offended people.
    Chan is like Jesus.

    Anybody see a flaw here?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Paul,
    I am sure that if my blog posts ever began to approach the level of the mocking garbage in this post, my very intellegent faithful Lutheran wife would be the first to let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Atheists are offended by the sight of a crèche or a cross on public land. Should we accommodate their prejudice? No.

    This is just emotional extortion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. John,

    I see; so the bar is set at your and your better half. Got it. Convenient.

    ReplyDelete
  25. John,

    If Lutheranism sets the bar, then didn't Luther have some pretty choice things to say about the papacy?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I find it offensive that John refers to the content of Patrick's post as "mocking garbage".

    Please retract your comment and offer me a sincere apology, John.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  27. Steve,

    "If Lutheranism sets the bar, then didn't Luther have some pretty choice things to say about the papacy?"

    Yes, he certainly did, many of which were valid. But then we are adressing whether Mr. Chan's post is offensive, not what Martin Luther said during the reformation. It seems some of my critics are saying how dare I find Mr. Chan's post offensive, look at the offensive stuff I have written. A nearly tu quoquesque argument.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You're at liberty to be as offended as you please. We'd never dream of interfering with your penchant to wallow in self-indulgent offendedness. It's a free country.

    Of course, you haven't given Patrick a single good reason why you're entitled to be offended.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Steve,

    "Of course, you haven't given Patrick a single good reason why you're entitled to be offended."

    Gee, do you think it might have something to do with equating partaking in the Eucharist with "endocanibalism?"

    ReplyDelete
  30. I find suggestions that "nearly tu quouesque" argumentation is being utilized to be an offensive and unnecessary ad hominem attack.

    I'd appreciate an apology.

    In Him,
    CD

    P.S. - I also find being ignored deeply offensive as I'm still awaiting an apology for the "mocking garbage" secondary offense I incurred earlier.

    The offense is piling up quickly!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gee, do you think it might have something to do with equating partaking in the Eucharist with "endocanibalism?"

    I thought Romanists believe and teach transubstantiation, whereby through the taking of the eucharistic elements they are truly, coporeally, physically eating Christ's physical flesh and drinking His physical blood?

    Isn't eating human flesh and drinking human blood cannibalistic?

    Just sayin'...

    In Him,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you find yourself lacking the ability to think reasonably...

    If you find yourself sobbing like a Freshman after football practice because simply someone insulted your statue...

    If you find yourself having to share a lot of secrets with an old guy wearing a bath robe and pointy hat...

    THEN HAVE WE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU!!!

    That's right, Roman Catholicism is proud to present: 21st Century Catholicism.

    Loaded with twice the shame and only half the responsibilities, 21st Century Catholicism will have turn you into a sissified wuss 93% faster than Chester the Molester can!

    And if it can't, Chester can still be found in your local diocese at a special discount price--but act today! He gets shipped around the country a lot with no warning.

    Learn how to get in touch with your feminine side (priests are standing by 24/7 to assist). Learn how to cry at the drop of a hat; cry when your cat meows pitifully; you'll even cry every time your priest steps behind you and puts his hand on your shoulders. Being a 21st Century Catholic means you no longer have to even pretend to be straight.

    So call now!

    21st Century Catholicism: Specially formulated for the castrated male.

    ReplyDelete
  33. There John. Now man up and quit bitching about Patrick.

    ReplyDelete
  34. JOHN SAID:

    "A nearly tu quoquesque argument."

    Suppose so. What of it? Catholic logician Peter Geach defended tu quoque arguments.

    "Gee, do you think it might have something to do with equating partaking in the Eucharist with 'endocanibalism?'"

    Yet another example of your selective morality. Why aren't you equally offended by the Catholic commenter who explicitly characterized the Eucharist in cannibalistic terms? That was the launch-pad for Patrick's spoof.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Blogs comments are often interesting reads. Often comments are civil, intelligent, and worthy of response. Other times they can be bigoted, silly, or display profound ignorance and not worth any response whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In 2016, the UN established the No Offense Commission. The mandate of the UN-NOC was to prosecute all reported cases of one person offending another.

    Vegans were offended by meat-eaters. Therefore, offensive hunters, butchers, and ranchers were banned. All supermarkets were required by international convention to stock nothing but tofu products.

    Muslims were offended by Valentine cards. Therefore, Valentine cards were banned. Couples caught exchanging Valentine cards with each other were sent to detention camps for sensitivity training.

    Muslims were offended by pigs. Therefore, all porcine characters in Looney Tunes were changed to dark-eyed houris.

    Muslims were offended by Christians, so Christians were required by international law to convert to Islam.

    Muslims were offended by atheists, while atheists were offended by Muslims. Therefore, Muslims were required by international law to convert to atheism while atheists were required by international law to convert to Islam. Then, when each party completed the conversion process, they were required to deconvert, then revert, then deconvert, then revert, to avoid offending the opposite party.

    Homosexuals were offended by real men. Therefore, real men were required by international convention to undergo penectomies.

    Antinatalists were offended by “breeders.” Therefore, procreation was banned by international convention.

    When the last surviving antinatalist couple was offended by having nobody left to be offended by, they conceived an only child to feel the satisfaction of being offended again.

    When the couple died, and the only child died, nobody existed to offend anyone else.

    However, computers at the UN-NOC continued to issue automated citations to offensive decedents.

    ReplyDelete
  37. John said...

    "Blogs comments are often interesting reads. Often comments are civil, intelligent, and worthy of response. Other times they can be bigoted, silly, or display profound ignorance and not worth any response whatsoever."

    Your imputation of bigotry is offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Steve,

    "Your imputation of bigotry is offensive."

    Steve, I did not say that you were a bigot. However, had I said that you were or are a bigot, I would hope that you would find that offensive. Maybe I just think sometimes you are silly.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I know I'm putting my head in the lion's jaws here, but thought I'd give it a go.

    First, any such discussion of the Eucharist must be situated in its larger context in the new covenant in Christ's blood that creates the new People of God, the Church.

    Also, one ought to deal with the ubiquity of Eucharistic spirituality and thought from the earliest days of the Church. (http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp)

    The antiquity of the tradition can be seen in the fact that it's not just a Catholic thing.

    Compare the Catechism on the Eucharist (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm)

    to the Orthodox Church on the Eucharist (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=53).

    So, having said that--I think the main issue here comes from very different concepts of sacramentality, or perhaps even an absence of an awareness of the deeply Christian worldview that is the sacramental worldview. The Bible is suffused with instances of matter mediating God's powerful loving presence to his people, capped with the Incarnation of Jesus. That Incarnational presence is guaranteed to last till the end when he says "I shall be with you always unto the end of the age." And, as the testimony of many saints, mystics, and ordinary people attest (see one example here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207dr.asp and another here: http://attheturnofthetide.blogspot.com/2010/11/deification-makes-all-difference.html), that presence is real.

    Is it cannibalism to eat the sacrament of the divine presence? No. Why? A sacramental presence is usually different from a simply material/merely physical presence, though sometimes the two do go together, but both mediate the person just as fully. We do encounter Jesus Christ, true God and true man, through the Eucharist as we would upon encountering his Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Caspar, you've given a thoughtful intelligent response to criticisms of Catholic and Orthodox Christian views of the Eucharist. Which is not to deny that a reasonable person could disagree with you, but a reasonable person would have to give you a respectful response. It will be interesting to see if that is what you get.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Codum,

    You've given a great atta-boy as if it contained useful information. Way to go, dude! I'm so honored to be able to spend even thirty seconds reading that. Imagine, I could have lived my entire life without reading a response 100% devoid of content, cloaked as an insult!

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Caspar,

    Shouldn't you take that up with David H.? I mean, all of this was clearly a response to his own words. Shouldn't you be telling HIM that it's not cannibalism?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi, all,

    Reasonable people can be entirely disrespectful, and unreasonable people can be remarkably respectful. All I know is, from the looks of the topics for the blog, I'm speaking to brethren in Christ--and we all know how often we have to work at loving each other. It's all family dynamics. Brothers fight sometimes.

    No, Peter, I think David H. was trying to make a much more limited point than his words seem to indicate. He speaks of "canibalistic language," rather than talking about Christ's encouragement of a cannibalistic act. I don't think he intended anything other than I did. He was just making the point that Jesus certainly did not mean to institute a non-performative act. The Last Supper was intended to be a communion in his body and blood, mediated under the form of bread and wine in a sacramental way, such that perfect interpersonal communion with God is achieved, and through communion with God, communion with all the rest of the existing order. Again, the background of covenant in Scripture is utterly necessary to properly situate any discussion of the Eucharist and make sense of why eating the sacrifice is so necessary, and why Catholics/Orthodox find the sacrifice of the bread of the presence in the Old Covenant so incredibly significant, the thank offering, the Eucharistic offering of the Old Law.

    Anyway--pray for me, I'll pray for you, sinner though I am.

    ReplyDelete
  44. CASPAR IGNATIUS SAID:

    "He was just making the point that Jesus certainly did not mean to institute a non-performative act."

    Who said otherwise?

    "The Last Supper was intended to be a communion in his body and blood, mediated under the form of bread and wine in a sacramental way, such that perfect interpersonal communion with God is achieved, and through communion with God, communion with all the rest of the existing order."

    Really? You got all that out of Jn 6?

    ReplyDelete
  45. This is one of the few time in my life when I truly believe I have witnessed the sin against the Holy Spirit. Be careful.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I am ex-Catholic and agree with the Triabloggers' substantive criticisms of the Catholic doctrine of the eucharist.

    I am more than happy to criticise Catholic doctrines via reductiones ad absurdum (see here http://fathermckenzie.blogspot.com/2009/08/godfried-daneels-meet-anthony-daniels.html and here
    , http://fathermckenzie.blogspot.com/2007/11/tu-es-ille-vox.html, for example).

    However, gloating about communion giving Ratzinger the shakes is at the level of PZ Myers. Yes, that low.

    There are things you don't do. Not even in times of theologomachy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Tom R. said:
    ---
    However, gloating about communion giving Ratzinger the shakes...
    ---

    You're upset over something Patrick *DIDN'T* say. You're imputing the picture of the Pope as if he was the object of the article, when the object of the article was the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is merely the guy who wears the chief pointy hat. Nowhere did Patrick say anything about Ratzinger having the shakes at all. Rather it seemed a pretty obvious his point is that if one is to use cannibalistic terms, like David H. did, then the end result would be kuru disease.

    Seems to me you're reading a lot into this as uncharitably as possible against Patrick, based solely on a picture. Put it this way: if the picture was not on the page, would ANYTHING written there lead you to believe anything Patrick wrote was about Ratzinger personally? If not, then why do you assume the picture meant him personally instead of him as the representation of Rome?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Patty Bonds said:
    ---
    This is one of the few time in my life when I truly believe I have witnessed the sin against the Holy Spirit. Be careful.
    ---

    Why be careful after that? If it's truly a sin against the Spirit, it's unpardonable, isn't it?

    Secondly, nothing Patrick did was wrong. But even if it were a sinful attack, when did the Pope become the Holy Spirit (if you assumed incorrectly that the Pope was the reference), or when did Catholicism become the Holy Spirit (if you read the reference correctly)?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Patty--from me or someone else?

    "You got all that out of Jn 6?"

    Nope. The Eucharist stands at the summit of a very long process of development throughout salvation history, serving as the covenant meal for the new and everlasting covenant, the consummation of a series of attempts by God to restore the originally intended communion with man through the created order:

    original man as priest, given the Garden of creation to tend and keep while making a sacrifice of self through obedience, the rational worship desired by God; the covenants with Noah and Abraham, reestablishing communion with man, though each are broken in their turn by the men's fall, but each sealed by sacrifice; the covenants with Israel, sealed with sacrifice (the thank offering being of special importance), marked by eating that which has been sacrificed, as we see with the Paschal lamb that is slain for the life of the chosen people and which must be eaten ritually at the Passover; the covenant with David, spoken by the prophet David, foretelling a son whose throne shall be established forever and who shall be as a son to God, whose kingdom shall have no end and who shall rule universally over all the peoples of the earth; fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of David, the King of Kings, in whose kingdom is the new and everlasting covenant in the blood of the Lamb, whose sins suffice to atone for the sins of the world and reconcile all things to himself, so that ultimately God shall be all in all.

    The worship of this high priest of the order of Melchizedek, who offers sacrifice of bread and wine as did the King of Salem in ancient days, is also the liturgy of heaven, as Hebrews has it and Revelation so graphically describes, partaken of by the saints. The Lamb stands, as one slain, on the altar--the sacrifice of thanksgiving, the Eucharistic sacrifice for the life of the world.

    The worship of the Israelites was earthly worship, patterned after the heavenly worship. The worship of the new covenant is worship in Spirit and in truth, the liturgy of the angels and saints in heaven while at the same time the worship of the Church on earth, all adoring the Lord in the same liturgical act.

    The Orthodox are especially strong on that point, speaking of the divine liturgy, icons serving to remind them of and mediate the presence of the cloud of witnesses, the communion of saints, the elders gathered round the throne, casting their crowns down at the foot of the altar, at the feet of the Lamb.

    That's more poetic than scholarly, and skips a bunch and is inexact, but that's a synopsis of whereall I get the things I said about the Eucharist.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Caspar Ignatius,

    We've discussed the history of eucharistic doctrine many times. See, for example, here and here. The fact that Catholics so often appeal to something less than transubstantiation when discussing the alleged historical background to their view of the eucharist doesn't reflect well on Catholicism. A vague appeal to some sort of presence of Christ in the eucharist doesn't accomplish much when Catholicism defines its view of Christ's presence in a particular way and rejects and condemns other definitions.

    ReplyDelete
  51. CASPAR IGNATIUS SAID:

    "Nope. The Eucharist stands at the summit of a very long process of development throughout salvation history, serving as the covenant meal for the new and everlasting covenant, the consummation of a series of attempts by God to restore the originally intended communion with man through the created order: original man as priest, given the Garden of creation to tend and keep while making a sacrifice of self through obedience, the rational worship desired by God; the covenants with Noah and Abraham, reestablishing communion with man, though each are broken in their turn by the men's fall, but each sealed by sacrifice; the covenants with Israel, sealed with sacrifice (the thank offering being of special importance), marked by eating that which has been sacrificed, as we see with the Paschal lamb that is slain for the life of the chosen people and which must be eaten ritually at the Passover; the covenant with David, spoken by the prophet David, foretelling a son whose throne shall be established forever and who shall be as a son to God, whose kingdom shall have no end and who shall rule universally over all the peoples of the earth; fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of David, the King of Kings, in whose kingdom is the new and everlasting covenant in the blood of the Lamb, whose sins suffice to atone for the sins of the world and reconcile all things to himself, so that ultimately God shall be all in all."

    You're committing a level confusion. OT rites don't prefigure NT rites. Rather, they prefigure what the rite stands for: the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.

    "The worship of this high priest of the order of Melchizedek, who offers sacrifice of bread and wine as did the King of Salem in ancient days, is also the liturgy of heaven, as Hebrews has it and Revelation so graphically describes, partaken of by the saints. The Lamb stands, as one slain, on the altar--the sacrifice of thanksgiving, the Eucharistic sacrifice for the life of the world."

    Hebrews and Revelation don't begin to develop a high sacramentology.

    "The worship of the Israelites was earthly worship, patterned after the heavenly worship. The worship of the new covenant is worship in Spirit and in truth, the liturgy of the angels and saints in heaven while at the same time the worship of the Church on earth, all adoring the Lord in the same liturgical act."

    There is almost nothing about liturgy in the NT.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Patty Bonds said...

    "This is one of the few time in my life when I truly believe I have witnessed the sin against the Holy Spirit. Be careful."

    Yes, Patty. I just advised Patrick to avoid churches with spires lest he receive his comeuppance during a freak lightning storm–a la the Omen.

    ReplyDelete
  53. For those who lack rudimentary reading skills, *Patrick* didn't say Catholics are cannibals. Rather, he quoted a *Catholic* who explicitly used cannibalistic language to characterize his eucharistic interpretation of Jn 6. Therefore, it's a Catholic who's calling Catholics cannibals.

    Patrick then did a tongue-in-cheek riff on what this Catholic said. It's the Catholic commenter who went out of his way to describe the Eucharist (his take on Jn 6) in "cannibalistic" terms.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "The fact that Catholics so often appeal to something less than transubstantiation when discussing the alleged historical background to their view of the eucharist doesn't reflect well on Catholicism."

    In what way did I appeal to something less than transubstantiation? And in what way is transubstantiation necessarily going to make Catholics cannibals? And finally, isn't it a little indicative that accusations of cannibalism was one of the accusations leading to the persecution of Christians by the Romans?

    "OT rites don't prefigure NT rites. Rather, they prefigure what the rite stands for: the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary."

    And NT rites are done in obedience to Christ, re-presenting the once for all sacrifice perpetuated throughout time and eternity, as portrayed in Revelation, an act of earthly worship done in union with the heavenly liturgy, efficacious because partaking in the worship of Christ the high priest. All done in obedience to his command, "This is my body, which will be given up for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

    The NT is the fulfillment and full realization of the old, not the mere abolition of great chunks of it. Jesus is the Passover lamb of the full and final exodus of the people of God from the land of idolatry and death. Now we worship in Spirit and in truth the one God, the triune communion of persons, entering into that communion through the person of Jesus Christ, through the marriage supper of the lamb, which is the covenant meal by which God becomes our God, and we become his people.

    "There is almost nothing about liturgy in the NT."

    A great deal about the breaking of the bread--see Paul in 1 Corinthians, for instance--and the great Commission to baptize, and the laying on of hands, and the anointing of the sick, and the remitting or retaining of sins, and incense and instruments and ordered, ongoing, repetitive prayers in Revelation, in liturgies celebrated by robed priests around an altar. Depends on what you mean. Do you expect to find a Roman missal tucked into the pages of the NT? But the masses are ancient, especially in some of the Eastern rites, going back, it is said, even to the time of the Apostles.

    ReplyDelete
  55. And might it help to focus more on what is meant by "transubstantiation" itself? I'm not sure the short formula is making itself clear here--but then, we're dealing with one of the mysteries of the faith. The hypostatic union and transubstantiation both are in the realm of "how the heck did he do that?"

    God bless, all. Prayers always appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Let me ask you all this: Do any of you seriously believe that God cares one whit about what you all think?

    How does any of this self-satisfied "debating" reflect God's nature? How does it accomplish His desire to evangelize the nations and to practice what James called "true religion": helping the vulnerable in their distress.

    Besides, when anybody equates transubstantiation with cannibalism, that somebody deserves whatever he or she gets. I have questions about the theology, myself. But there's a big difference between having legitimate questions and waving a red flag in front of a bull, as it were.

    Let me remind you gentlemen that the Kingdom of God is not based on arcane theological debates. It's based on the person and rule of Christ Himself. Remove that and the rest is vanity.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes, Christ, His person and His work are what make Christianity. However, that person and work are described using theology.

    I agree that arguments about transubstantiation seem arcane but if someone claims that grace is doled out via the ingestion of bread and wine, that cuts to the very heart of the person and work of Christ.

    I'm not a papist but I too found this posting to be a bit much. Not incorrect but much. Even so, I cheer on the home team as they take on the freedom-stealing dogmas of the papist throng.

    Salvation by grace via faith and not by works else we are all damned!

    ReplyDelete
  58. However, that person and work are described using theology.

    Not when the theology gets in the way of the person of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit, regardless of whether that theology is Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc.

    Christ did not have "theology." He had Himself. He did not preach or heal through "theology;" He did so through constant communion w/His Father. If you recall, it was the Pharisees and Sadducees who had the elaborate "theology." Read Matthew 23 to see what Christ thought of them.

    Salvation by grace via faith and not by works else we are all damned!

    Salvation is through Christ, Mr. Fosi, not faith, works or any combination of the two. What difference does faith make if Christ didn't shed His blood to atone for human sin, nor rise from the dead to destroy death?

    No, I'm not talking universalism, here. But some of you people are putting a bunch of carts before the horse, as it were. Frankly, I think some of you are taking
    Christ's redemptive work for granted, and substituting your own "anti-papist" agendas for it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. For someone complaining about theology, Joseph makes a lot of theological claims....

    ReplyDelete
  60. JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAID:

    "Let me ask you all this: Do any of you seriously believe that God cares one whit about what you all think?"

    Let me ask you this: Do you seriously believe that God cares one whit about what
    Joseph D'Hippolito thinks?

    "How does any of this self-satisfied 'debating' reflect God's nature? How does it accomplish His desire to evangelize the nations and to practice what James called 'true religion': helping the vulnerable in their distress."

    If that's your priority, why are you trolling the internet? How can you just sit there at your keyboard, staring at a computer screen when you ought to be out and about practicing "true religion"?

    "Besides, when anybody equates transubstantiation with cannibalism, that somebody deserves whatever he or she gets."

    Which is exactly what Patrick did with the Catholic who drew that comparison.

    "I have questions about the theology, myself. But there's a big difference between having legitimate questions and waving a red flag in front of a bull, as it were."

    Well, comparing Catholics to angry bovines seems like a rather counterproductive way to defend them.

    "Let me remind you gentlemen that the Kingdom of God is not based on arcane theological debates. It's based on the person and rule of Christ Himself."

    That, of itself, is a theological claim that needs to be unpacked.

    "Not when the theology gets in the way of the person of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit, regardless of whether that theology is Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc."

    When Catholics put their faith in a piece of bread rather than Jesus, I'd say that's a spiritual impediment.

    "Christ did not have 'theology.' He had Himself. He did not preach or heal through 'theology;' He did so through constant communion w/His Father."

    Jesus didn't just do stuff. He also taught stuff, like theology.

    "If you recall, it was the Pharisees and Sadducees who had the elaborate 'theology.' Read Matthew 23 to see what Christ thought of them."

    Well, that's simplistic. He condemned them for hypocrisy and false theology.

    "Salvation is through Christ, Mr. Fosi, not faith, works or any combination of the two."

    Salvation comes through faith in Christ. And it also involves sanctification.

    "What difference does faith make if Christ didn't shed His blood to atone for human sin, nor rise from the dead to destroy death?"

    Back to theology!

    ReplyDelete
  61. CASPAR IGNATIUS SAID:

    "And NT rites are done in obedience to Christ..."

    A red herring

    "...re-presenting..."

    Begs the question.

    "This is my body, which will be given up for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

    Which needs to be understood in context.

    "The NT is the fulfillment and full realization of the old, not the mere abolition of great chunks of it. Jesus is the Passover lamb of the full and final exodus of the people of God from the land of idolatry and death. Now we worship in Spirit and in truth the one God, the triune communion of persons, entering into that communion through the person of Jesus Christ, through the marriage supper of the lamb, which is the covenant meal by which God becomes our God, and we become his people."

    I explain that you committed a level confusion. You respond by repeating the same level confusion.

    "There is almost nothing about liturgy in the NT."

    "A great deal about the breaking of the bread--see Paul in 1 Corinthians, for instance--and the great Commission to baptize, and the laying on of hands, and the anointing of the sick, and the remitting or retaining of sins, and incense and instruments and ordered, ongoing, repetitive prayers in Revelation, in liturgies celebrated by robed priests around an altar. Depends on what you mean."

    You mash lots of stuff together that needs to be sorted out and rightly interpreted.

    "Do you expect to find a Roman missal tucked into the pages of the NT? But the masses are ancient, especially in some of the Eastern rites, going back, it is said, even to the time of the Apostles."

    "It is said"?

    ReplyDelete
  62. JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAID:
    "Christ did not have 'theology.' He had Himself. He did not preach or heal through 'theology;' He did so through constant communion w/His Father."

    Was Christ's purpose to preach and heal? That's certainly not what I get from a reading of Romans and Hebrews. I guess Jesus wasn't teaching theology in any of his parables or in his interactions with the woman at the well or his various run-ins with the Jewish scholars... <_<

    What I do see is an apparent anti-theology bias in your statements. Perhaps you might agree with the statement that one should preach the gospel and use words if you need to.

    "Salvation is through Christ, Mr. Fosi, not faith, works or any combination of the two. What difference does faith make if Christ didn't shed His blood to atone for human sin, nor rise from the dead to destroy death?"

    Maybe we agree here and maybe not. I'm not talking about a generic "faith" of the sort that is lauded in rags like Time Magazine. I am talking about the all-my-chips-on-the-black faith in Jesus Christ as the God-man who fulfilled the law, died a substitutionary death on the cross and promised that all that the Father had given Him would come to Him and that He would never cast them out. Romans 3, baby!

    "No, I'm not talking universalism, here. But some of you people are putting a bunch of carts before the horse, as it were. Frankly, I think some of you are taking Christ's redemptive work for granted, and substituting your own "anti-papist" agendas for it."

    I'd like to read more on these statements you unpack them.

    Christ's redemptive work isn't in bread, wine, cardboard or grape juice and it isn't accessed through such things either.

    No hurtful offense intended, but let's not bandy words here just to make ourselves feel smarter than the other guy.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I wish it wouldn't submit comments that it says are too large! >:(

    I shortened my last comment and resubmitted twice, then had to delete duplicates. <_<

    ReplyDelete
  64. Caspar Ignatius wrote:

    "In what way did I appeal to something less than transubstantiation?"

    You referred to a "real presence", and you linked to the Catholic Answers article found here. That article also refers to a "real presence", which isn't the same as transubstantiation, and it cites patristic sources who can't be shown to have believed in transubstantiation. For example, it cites the passage in Ignatius that I discuss in one of the threads I linked above. The Catholic Answers article is misleading for reasons like the ones I explained in the threads I linked.

    You write:

    "And finally, isn't it a little indicative that accusations of cannibalism was one of the accusations leading to the persecution of Christians by the Romans?"

    I address the cannibalism charge in my second article linked above. The Romans also accused the early Christians of sexual sins. They often misrepresented what the Christians believed. What's more significant than the Roman charge is the Christian response. For reasons I explain in my second article, that response doesn't suggest an early Christian belief in transubstantiation.

    ReplyDelete
  65. In what way is it a red herring to point out that the Eucharist is celebrated in obedience to Christ's command?

    I think when you're accusing me of a "level confusion," it's more indicative of a resistance to typology--could be wrong.

    "You mash lots of stuff together that needs to be sorted out and rightly interpreted."

    The point of that section was just to give some sense of the extent of the liturgical in the NT--I think it served its purpose.

    Yes, "it is said" of the Eastern rites--I am not up on my Eastern liturgical history, and so did not make a definite claim. Here's a starting point to take a look at some of the ancient rites: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Divine_Liturgy

    ""real presence", which isn't the same as transubstantiation"

    Well, yes--transubstantiation is the ontological change by which the substance of the bread and wine is replaced with the Real Presence, though the accidents of the bread and the wine remain. The description of the process occurs in the wake of controversies over the Real Presence, yes, and so the term would not show up in the early Church. Einstein's work told the truth about the phyiscal universe, even though nobody used his terminology until he came along.

    How did I appeal to something less than transubstantiation?

    Your post on Ignatius--I'm not sure I quite see the thread of the argument you're making there. And I'm a little doubtful that we share the same understanding of the meaning of transubstantiation, or a number of the other terms in use there. Discussing that particular post of yours would be a whole other series of posts, I think. We probably ought to stick to clarifying a common definition of "transubstantiation" and "real presence."

    God bless, all.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Caspar Ignatius wrote:

    "The description of the process occurs in the wake of controversies over the Real Presence, yes, and so the term would not show up in the early Church. Einstein's work told the truth about the phyiscal universe, even though nobody used his terminology until he came along."

    I wasn't referring to terminology. There's a wide variety of eucharistic concepts in the early church, as I documented in the threads I linked above.

    You write:

    "How did I appeal to something less than transubstantiation? Your post on Ignatius--I'm not sure I quite see the thread of the argument you're making there."

    Then explain how the passage in Ignatius that was cited by the Catholic Answers article you linked, the same passage I discussed, should lead us to the conclusion that Ignatius believed in transubstantiation.

    ReplyDelete
  67. CASPAR IGNATIUS SAID:

    "In what way is it a red herring to point out that the Eucharist is celebrated in obedience to Christ's command?"

    Since every Protestant denomination except the Salvation Army celebrates the Eucharist in obedience to that command, your statement is irrelevant to the dispute between Catholics and, say, Baptists.

    "I think when you're accusing me of a 'level confusion,' it's more indicative of a resistance to typology--could be wrong."

    i) That's utterly unresponsive to my specific argument.

    ii) And, of course, I have no general resistance to typology.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I think right now we've got to have a commonly agreed upon definition of the terms "transubstantiation" and the Eucharist before we can proceed any further--I don't seem to recognize the Church's position in what you seem to think transubstantiation means, especially if somehow the Real Presence and transubstantiation don't go together in your mind.

    And, if I'm missing what you're claiming I'm doing re: level confusion, please clarify. It seems to me as though Christ, the one who fulfills the law, would institute a form of worship that would stand in organic continuity with the worship of the Old Covenant and be its fulfillment, its perfection, its realization at the most perfect pitch, and provide for the perpetuation of the perfect act of worship throughout all ages unto the end of the world, just as Moses and God provided for the perpetuation of the worship which seals the covenant of Sinai unto the coming of Christ. And so a lot of the connections I was drawing come out of that understanding.

    God bless, and happy feast day!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Caspar Ignatius wrote:

    "I think right now we've got to have a commonly agreed upon definition of the terms 'transubstantiation' and the Eucharist before we can proceed any further--I don't seem to recognize the Church's position in what you seem to think transubstantiation means, especially if somehow the Real Presence and transubstantiation don't go together in your mind."

    Roman Catholicism makes claims about the eucharist and the history of eucharistic doctrine, and you've been doing the same. The idea that you need me to define some terms before you defend your own claims doesn't make sense. If I had never heard of transubstantiation before and didn't know what it meant, that fact wouldn't prevent you from defining the term yourself and documenting the alleged acceptance of the concept by Ignatius and other ancient sources. And I did provide a definition of transubstantiation in my article that discusses Ignatius. I quoted Trent on the meaning of transubstantiation and the alleged historical background of the concept.

    The fact that you're referring to "the Real Presence and transubstantiation going together" illustrates what I've been arguing in this thread. The two concepts aren't the same. And instead of arguing that belief in one proves belief in the other, you've only said that they "go together". We could also say that pain in a leg goes together with a broken leg. It doesn't therefore follow that anybody with leg pain has a broken leg. If belief in a broken leg is under dispute, and you respond by arguing for belief in leg pain, then you're defending something less than belief in a broken leg.

    What you're doing is what I've seen many other Catholics do over the years. You often refer to a "real presence" rather than transubstantiation, you tell us that we shouldn't expect the term transubstantiation to appear in early sources, even though nobody suggested that the issue is what terminology was used, etc. I've cited evidence that the concept of transubstantiation was contradicted by mainstream sources in early church history, and I've asked for evidence that early sources like Ignatius believed in the concept of transubstantiation. It's insufficient to respond by referring to a real presence and the fact that transubstantiation terminology doesn't have to be present in early church history.

    ReplyDelete
  70. CASPAR IGNATIUS SAID:

    "And, if I'm missing what you're claiming I'm doing re: level confusion, please clarify. It seems to me as though Christ, the one who fulfills the law, would institute a form of worship that would stand in organic continuity with the worship of the Old Covenant and be its fulfillment, its perfection, its realization at the most perfect pitch, and provide for the perpetuation of the perfect act of worship throughout all ages unto the end of the world, just as Moses and God provided for the perpetuation of the worship which seals the covenant of Sinai unto the coming of Christ."

    There's no reason to think liturgy would be the antitype of OT typology. To the contrary, the person and work of Christ constitute the antitype. OT covenant signs are fulfilled in Christ, not in additional covenant signs.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Transubstantiation is the theological explanation for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

    ReplyDelete
  72. codum wrote:

    "Transubstantiation is the theological explanation for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist."

    Where's your supporting argument for that claim?

    If you're limiting yourself to Roman Catholicism, in the sense that transubstantiation is Catholicism's "explanation for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", then you're making a point that's correct, but insignificant. If, on the other hand, you're claiming that transubstantiation is the "explanation for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist" for everybody who's believed in some type of presence of Christ in the eucharist, then you're making a claim that's significant, but false.

    There are many Lutherans, Calvinists, and others who advocate some type of eucharistic presence of Christ that doesn't involve transubstantiation. If you want us to believe that every patristic source who referred to some sort of eucharistic presence of Christ believed in transubstantiation, then you need to explain why we should believe that.

    ReplyDelete
  73. It seems as though you want all the earliest Church Fathers to accept a particular scholastic description of the operation of the mystery. The Real Presence is the mystery at issue. A Lutheran does not believe in the Real Presence, no matter what they hold re: consubstantial. The Real Presence is the Catholic term for the specific Eucharistic reality that we hold is the truth of the matter--the full presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Each reception is receiving him under our roof, though we are unworthy. When we follow his commandments in love, he and the Father come and make their dwelling place within us, within our bodies, which are temples of the Holy Spirit. They tabernacle within us.

    Where is this indicated in the Early Fathers? It permeates their thought and writing. One issue we face is the different treatment of the mysteries of the faith of that time. The sacraments of initation were very much attached to initation, and so certain things were not addressed in nearly the same openly public way as came to be the case. But Ratzinger cites Augustine's sermons to the baptized as a case of fairly clear Eucharistic teaching. Other early examples can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

    The link goes to a subsection of the larger article on the Real Presence. It's polemically written, I grant, but it's also a great place to start for information on the subject.

    "the person and work of Christ constitute the antitype. OT covenant signs are fulfilled in Christ, not in additional covenant signs."

    Yes, Christ is absolutely the fulfillment of the OT types--and so are his works. Among those works, we find his teaching and proclamation, which includes commands for what we should do, how we should imitate them, and insistence that these things are necessary for our salvation.

    Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

    If you follow his commands, his Father will love you and the Son and the Father shall come and make their dwelling place with you, a temple of the Holy Spirit.

    Christ is the antitype of the high priest, of the priest king Melchizedek. Why wouldn't Christ's sacrificial offering also be an anti-type of the first offering? Indeed, his offering is the antitype of the Passover meal, of the lamb whose blood over the door to the house ensures the angel of death passes by, and of the unleavened bread, recalling the manna, the bread from heaven, sent by God in the desert to feed the people. And God sent his people the Bread from Heaven, whose first resting place was in a manger with the rest of the grain, of the food, and he was born in Bethlehem, which translates to "House of Bread."

    God bless, all, and happy advent!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Caspar Ignatius writes:

    "The sacraments of initation were very much attached to initation, and so certain things were not addressed in nearly the same openly public way as came to be the case. But Ratzinger cites Augustine's sermons to the baptized as a case of fairly clear Eucharistic teaching. Other early examples can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3"

    I've already addressed Augustine and some of the other fathers in the two threads I linked earlier. I also cited Philip Schaff's material on early eucharistic beliefs, and he documents many contradictions of the Roman Catholic view, including a contrary view held by the Roman bishop Gelasius. See, further, post #9 in the thread here, in which David King cites the Roman Catholic scholar Edward Kilmartin commenting on Gelasius' contradiction of the Catholic doctrine. Another Catholic scholar, Joseph Kelly, agrees with me that there was a variety of eucharistic beliefs in early church history. He refers to a more spiritual view of Jesus' eucharistic presence in early theologians, contrasting it with the views of later theologians who had "a more material understanding of the real presence" (The Ecumenical Councils Of The Catholic Church [Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2009], p. 5).

    You write:

    "Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

    I've addressed both of those passages already, and I've explained why neither should be interpreted as Roman Catholics commonly interpret them. I addressed John 6 in the articles I linked above, and I addressed both John 3 and John 6 recently in the comments section of the thread here.

    ReplyDelete
  75. CASPAR IGNATIUS SAID:

    “It seems as though you want all the earliest Church Fathers to accept a particular scholastic description of the operation of the mystery. The Real Presence is the mystery at issue.”

    Coincidentally, this very afternoon I was reading an essay on patristic views of the Eucharist. It’s a good deal more varied than your monolithic claims. Cf. M. Haykin, “A Glorious Inebriation’: Eucharistic Thought and Piety in the Patristic Era,” T. Schreiner & M. Crawford, eds. The Lord’s Supper (B&H 2010), 103-26. In the course of his own essay, Haykin also mentions a related essay: E. Ferguson, “The Lord’s Supper in Church History: The Early Church Through the Medieval Period,” D. Stoffer, ed. The Lord’s Supper (Herald 1997), 21-45.

    In my experience, lay Catholics usually derive their notions of patristic theology from predigested sound-bites at popular Catholic apologetic websites. If you really want to understand the church fathers, you need to read patristic scholars.

    “A Lutheran does not believe in the Real Presence, no matter what they hold re: consubstantial.”

    Since Jason and I aren’t Lutheran, that’s a red herring.

    “The Real Presence is the Catholic term for the specific Eucharistic reality that we hold is the truth of the matter--the full presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Each reception is receiving him under our roof, though we are unworthy. When we follow his commandments in love, he and the Father come and make their dwelling place within us, within our bodies, which are temples of the Holy Spirit. They tabernacle within us.”

    There are some obvious problems with that representation:

    i) When the NT uses tabernacle language about God dwelling with his people, that’s an allusion to the OT Exodus narrative, involving the Shekinah. But the Shekinah didn’t have a physical body. And the Shekinah wasn’t Jesus. Rather, it’s a theophanic manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

    ii) The idea of Jesus physically inhabiting physical bodies reminds me of a SF movie I saw as a kid: Fantastic Voyage, in which a miniature submarine with a miniature crew was injected into the bloodstream of a patient.

    But Jesus had a body with the dimensions of a normal man, not a homunculus. This is a good example of how the “True Body” of Christ in Catholic theology dissipates into a gnostic ether.

    iii) Protestants also obey Christ’s commandments. Protestants also practice communion and water baptism.

    “But Ratzinger cites Augustine's sermons to the baptized as a case of fairly clear Eucharistic teaching.”

    You’ve oversimplified the issue. For instance, although Augustine interprets Jn 6 eucharistically, he also seems to view the carnal imagery as figurative:

    ReplyDelete
  76. Cont: “[Augustine] In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. ‘He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.’ This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’ [Matthew 5:8].”

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

    “For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.’…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, ‘Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him’ [ John vi. 54]. Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:’ they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, ‘This is a hard saying.’ It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life’ [John vi. 63]. Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.XCIX.html

    ReplyDelete
  77. Cont. Back to “Caspar”:

    “Yes, Christ is absolutely the fulfillment of the OT types--and so are his works. Among those works, we find his teaching and proclamation, which includes commands for what we should do, how we should imitate them, and insistence that these things are necessary for our salvation. ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you.’”

    i) You’re so busy regurgitating the Catholic talking-points you’ve been spoon-fed that you can’t think straight. If you’re going to use Jn 3 & 6 to prooftext baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation, then you simultaneously disprove the claims of your denomination, for the church of Rome doesn’t regard water baptism or communion as a prerequisite for salvation. You need to brush up on Lumen Gentium. Christ is the antitype of the high priest, of the priest king Melchizedek. Why wouldn't Christ's sacrificial offering also be an anti-type of the first offering?

    ii) In addition, Jason and I have repeatedly explained why the sacramental interpretation of Jn 3 & 6 cut against the grain of the text.

    “Christ is the antitype of the high priest, of the priest king Melchizedek. Why wouldn't Christ's sacrificial offering also be an anti-type of the first offering?”

    You’re substituting your own homegrown typology for how the author of Hebrews actually delineates the relevant parallels.

    “Indeed, his offering is the antitype of the Passover meal, of the lamb whose blood over the door to the house ensures the angel of death passes by, and of the unleavened bread, recalling the manna, the bread from heaven, sent by God in the desert to feed the people.”

    All of which points us to the Cross, not the Mass.

    ReplyDelete