First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood"...it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein)...The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56)...Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.
while i understand what you are getting at with that picture, i think that is one of the most vile and tasteless things i have ever scene and am gravely disappointed you posted that
ReplyDeleteNothing less than the truth.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was rather good.
ReplyDeleteWhich part was the truth? Which part was rather good? Of the picture, that is.
ReplyDeleteHey, I have an idea: Follow it up with a picture of someone defecating, and the feces is in the shape of the image of Christ.
I mean, if you're going to stoop to Garth Ennis level atheist comic blasphemy to make your claims, gun it I say.
So is it any less gross to do any of that symbolically rather than literally? - especially given that in this case, "literally" has a special meaning that it wouldn't otherwise have when someone talks about "literally" eating flesh and drinking blood (ie, nothing you can actually see, taste or smell that resembles blood or flesh in any way).
ReplyDeleteCatholics: "We LITERALLY eat and drink Christ! - Of course, you would never get bloodstains or germs from doing it the way we do it."
Protestants: "Eeew! LITERALLY eating and drinking Jesus! - Doing it figuratively is fine, though."
May I point out that Gene "Star Trek" Roddenberry used to tell interviewers that a big factor in him quitting Christianity was the "cannibalism" involved in the Eucharist... and he was raised, err, some variation of Southern Baptist.
Crude: 'Which part was rather good? Of the picture, that is.'
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about parts?
The picture only illustrates what is written below it. If the picture is offensive then so are the words.
Crude: 'Hey, I have an idea: Follow it up with a picture of someone defecating, and the feces is in the shape of the image of Christ.'
What would be the point?
The picture only illustrates what is written below it. If the picture is offensive then so are the words.
ReplyDeleteRight, the part with the words which clearly meant that there was a zombie-orgy at the Last Supper. Because that's what the Catholic Church teaches. You can take that to any theologian or Church historian and they'll go, 'Yes, that's pretty much the exact thing that happened at the Last Supper according to Catholic theology.'
What would be the point?
Apparently, to illustrate what was written below. I mean, that's what the zombie apostles did after devouring Christ, just as the Church teaches, right?
Two things: Was this pulled off an atheist site? And if so, which one? I'd love to know if this is some repurposed atheist art.
Wait, I got another one.
ReplyDeleteMatthew 1:18 : This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[a]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.
Can we get a picture of Ron Jeremy dressed up like the Holy Spirit - you'll probably need to kind of dress him as an angel, with the words "Holy Spirit" literally on his chest like he was an Adam West Batman henchman - plowing some porn star dressed as the Virgin Mary? I think that's another Catholic teaching, and all you'd be doing is illustrating their teaching. The picture would only illustrate the verse, and if that picture would be offensive, then so is the verse.
We can all agree on that I'm sure. So let's see it. Trust me, this is one of the most obvious bits of blasphemy out there - I'm positive you can find the art. And if you accept that teaching, then the picture wouldn't be offensive at all.
I'd say I hope the above illustrated my points well, but I suppose the smart money would be that it falls on deaf ears. (Blind eyes?) Loud and clear, I get it - Catholics aren't merely thought of as wrong about some things, even key things. There is zero, absolutely zero, common ground to be had, common cause to be made, at least according to the management here.
ReplyDeleteAnd hey - your blog, your rules. I go without complaint and wish you all well, having said what I will on this. It was a pleasure up until this point, gents. Thanks for the time until now.
Either Catholics take it literally or they don't. What's tasteless–the picture or the dogma?
ReplyDeleteCatholics are very insistent about graphic literality on paper, but turn squeamish the moment we take them at their words.
Maybe next post a picture of a zombie and label it 'The Resurrection.'
ReplyDeleteThat's an argument from analogy minus the analogy. Try again.
ReplyDeleteIt's an edgy way to make the point, Steve. You're guaranteed to upset Catholics by doing it that way. You're smart and know better. But at the same time, I understand why you would think doing it in that manner might be useful. As to whether you're right about that, I don't know. I find your defense of the post more trollish than the post itself. But whatever.
ReplyDeleteit is generally never good to use cannibal corpse album covers (i am assuming its them it is similar to other covers of theirs)to make a point, it offends me as a presbyterian in two ways, while you may nay say the second commandment aspect of it, if you were going to use a picture of jesus could you at least use on that is remotely reverent. This is such a low blow it weakens the entire arguement against the popish understanding of the supper. I think you mistake being edgy for being profound.
ReplyDeleteERIC SAID:
ReplyDelete"it is generally never good to use cannibal corpse album covers (i am assuming its them it is similar to other covers of theirs)to make a point..."
Why isn't that a good way to make the point? Reread the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Doesn't that employ cannibalistic imagery?
"...it offends me as a presbyterian in two ways, while you may nay say the second commandment aspect of it..."
I've discussed that elsewhere
"...if you were going to use a picture of jesus could you at least use on that is remotely reverent."
Since I'm not attempting to depict Jesus, I'm under no obligation to be reverent. Rather, I'm depicting the implications of the Mass. And I'm under no obligation to be reverent about the Mass.
Crude said...
ReplyDelete"Right, the part with the words which clearly meant that there was a zombie-orgy at the Last Supper. Because that's what the Catholic Church teaches."
Feel free to explain how the picture is at variance with the text I quoted. I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, prooftexting the real presence from Jn 6. How is the picture inconsistent with the Catholic interpretation of Jn 6, which I quoted?
Crude said...
ReplyDelete"I'd say I hope the above illustrated my points well, but I suppose the smart money would be that it falls on deaf ears. (Blind eyes?) Loud and clear, I get it - Catholics aren't merely thought of as wrong about some things, even key things. There is zero, absolutely zero, common ground to be had, common cause to be made, at least according to the management here."
And your reaction illustrates another point. I post lots of dry, academic critiques of Roman Catholicism. I hear nary a peep from Catholics when I do those. It's the biting satirical pieces which provoke a response. Catholics don't respond to reason and evidence. They respond to tone. That's the level at which they operate.
CRUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete"I'd say I hope the above illustrated my points well, but I suppose the smart money would be that it falls on deaf ears. (Blind eyes?) Loud and clear, I get it - Catholics aren't merely thought of as wrong about some things, even key things. There is zero, absolutely zero, common ground to be had, common cause to be made, at least according to the management here."
Likewise, the Baal-worshipers were outraged when Gideon desecrated the pagan shrine (Judges 6). Similarly, the Ephesians were outraged when Paul badmouthed idolatry (Acts 19).
Perhaps the picture would be less distasteful if the diners were wearing cravats and eating with knives and forks?
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't that a good way to make the point? Reread the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Doesn't that employ cannibalistic imagery?
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't that a good way to make the point? Reread the quote from the gospel of John. Doesn't it employ cannibalistic imagery?
John 6:47-56
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
The Triablogers then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Lord, forgive them. They know not what they do.
Steve, How would one get in touch with your ruling elder?
ReplyDeleteKristen,
ReplyDeleteAre you affirming or denying that Jn 6 employs cannibalistic imagery? If you construe the passage the way the Catholic Encyclopedia does, then, yes, that is, by definition, cannibalistic imagery.
If you disagree, then explain how that doesn't follow from the Catholic source I quoted.
It is interesting that Catholics insist on a literal interpretation of John 6 but when confronted with imagery of that literalism they object. I can sympathize that zombies and a screaming Jesus may be a "bridge too far" for some - the overall point seems consistent with Catholic dogma. Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteSteven,
ReplyDeleteThat's a funny question coming from Mr. "Profile Not Available." For somebody who supposedly believes in personal accountability, you do a nice job of covering your tracks. Next time why don't you come out of hiding before you ask me that question.
Steve, My full name is Steven Jaxson Browne. I live in Austin, TX. I am registered at the parish of St. Ignatius, Martyr Parish. (512) 442-3602 is the phone number. The pastor goes by Father William.
ReplyDeleteHow do I get in touch with your ruling elder?
If you have done nothing wrong here than I would question why you would hesitate to provide this information?
STEVEN SAID:
ReplyDeleteIf you actually thought I did done something wrong here, then I question why you hesitate to argue me down?
Also, zombies are only a small subset of cannibals. Not all anthropophages are mindless reanimated corpses (Aztec priests, IIRC?). Zombies would be unappealing even if they ate only dead animals, not human brains.
ReplyDeleteIf the argument from grossness is deployed, Protestantism is no less vulnerable to it than Catholicism is. Probably more vulnerable, if anything, than a theology of glory is. "All our righteousness is like filthy rags" sounds pretty disgusting once you realise Paul doesn't mean it in the "rag doll" sense but in the "on the rags" sense.
Kristen,
ReplyDeleteYou could interact with what we've already said about John 6, like in the threads linked here. Your arguments haven't held up well when you've tried to defend them in the past. Maybe that's why you aren't making much of an effort to defend your claims here.
Kristen,
ReplyDeleteYou should read to the end of the chapter, where Jesus explains:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
-TurretinFan
Steven said:
ReplyDelete"How would one get in touch with your ruling elder?"
A first step would be for you to act like somebody who should be given that sort of information. So far, you've been acting like somebody who shouldn't be trusted with it.
A second step would be for you to give Steve a way of contacting you privately with the information you've requested instead of expecting him to post it publicly. Even if he had a good reason to give you the information you asked for, which I doubt he does, he probably shouldn't post it publicly. There's a lot of potential for abuse of the information if he'd post it publicly, not only to his detriment, but also to the detriment of other people involved.
You're behaving here in much the same way you've behaved in other threads. Other people have pointed out some of the problems with your behavior, but you don't seem to have changed much, if at all. You don't seem to be open to correction much yourself.
I'll repeat something I said in response to you in the other thread linked above. Even if we assume that Steve is wrong on the matters you've brought up, at least his faults would be accompanied by a lot of good he's done. You, on the other hand, aren't offering us that sort of compensation. So far you've come across as an unreasonable critic who doesn't have much of significance to offer, but instead keeps looking for opportunities to criticize Steve. You typically ignore the bulk of what he says and his most significant points, but look for opportunities to criticize him about lesser things, usually things of a more subjective and personal nature. What would you think of, say, a Democrat who behaved the way you do in a political context?
Judging by some of the responses here, it is clear that Roman Catholics typically don't have a good hermeneutic for discerning figurative language, even when the figurative language is visualized. Perhaps it's worth observing that this type of image may be representative of the dark side of iconography.
ReplyDeleteThe picture obviously contradicts Catholic theology of the Mass, and Steve ought to know better. The Body and Blood of Christ suffer no damage or corruption in being consumed. If one breaks a Consecrated host in two, Christ is present, whole, intact, and entire, in each part. If one breaks the host in one's mouth, Christ is present entire in so many pieces. He remains present, undergoing no intrinsic change, until the appearances of bread or wine break down, at which point His presence ceases entirely.
ReplyDeleteBen,
ReplyDeleteOnce again–compare the picture with the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Explain how the picture is at odds with how the Catholic Encyclopedia interprets its prooftext for the real presence.
The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't make the distinction as to how this act of eating differs from ordinary acts of eating, which affect the thing eaten. But that isn't it's point. It is merely establishing that it is a literal act of eating.
ReplyDeleteBen -
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, the Catholic encyclopedia entry that he cites does affirm that the eucharist is Christ's glorified body.