Results 3101 - 3120 of 3728
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3101 | when is someone saved? | Rom 10:9 | Emmaus | 58866 | ||
John, Just a little Catholic persepctive on the subject. "Perseverance of the saints Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state of grace he never will leave it but will persevere to the end of life. This doctrine is normally called the perseverance of the saints. [33] All those who are at any time saints (in a state of sanctifying grace, to use Catholic terminology) will remain so forever. No matter what trials they face, they will always persevere, so their salvation is eternally secure. [34] Analogies are used to support this teaching. Calvinists point out that when we become Christians we become God's children. They infer that, just as a child's position in the family is secure, our position in God's family is secure. A father would not kick his son out, so God will not kick us out. This reasoning is faulty. The analogy does not prove what it is supposed to. Children do not have "eternal security" in their families. First, they can be disowned. Second, even if a father would not kick anyone out, a child can leave the house on his own, disown his parents, and sever all ties with the family. Third, children can die; we, as God's children, can die spiritual deaths after we have been spiritually "born again." [35] Calvinists also use Bible passages to teach perseverance of the saints. The chief ones are John 6:37-39, 10:27-29, and Romans 8:35-39. The Calvinist interpretation of these passages takes them out of context [36], and there are numerous other exegetical problems with their interpretation. [37] Calvinists assume perseverance of the saints is entailed by the idea of predestination. If one is predestined to be saved, does it not follow he must persevere to the end? This involves a confusion about what people are predestined to: Is it predestination to initial salvation or final salvation? The two are not the same. A person might be predestined to one, but this does not mean he is predestined necessarily to the other. [38] One must define which kind of predestination is being discussed. If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation, then the fact that a person will come to God does not of itself mean he will stay with God. If one is talking about predestination to final salvation, then a predestined person will stay with God, but this does not mean the predestined are the only ones who experience initial salvation. Some might genuinely come to God (because they were predestined to initial salvation) and then genuinely leave (because they were not predestined to final salvation). [39] Either way, predestination to initial salvation does not entail predestination to final salvation. [40] There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to "believe for a while" but "in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). [41] A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation and who do not go on to final salvation, but he is free to hold to a form of perseverance of the saints. The question is how one defines the term "saints"--in the Calvinist way, as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification (their "saintification") completed. [42] If one defines "saint" in the latter sense, a Catholic may believe in perseverance of the saints, since a person predestined to final salvation must by definition persevere to the end. Catholics even have a special name for the grace God gives these people: "the gift of final perseverance." The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. [43] Aquinas (and even Molina) said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. [44] Aquinas said, "Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect." [45] But not all who come to God receive this grace. Aquinas said the gift of final perseverance is "the abiding in good to the end of life. In order to have this perseverance man...needs the divine assistance guiding and guarding him against the attacks of the passions...[A]fter anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil till the end of life. For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not give." [46] The idea that a person can be predestined to come to God yet not be predestined to stay the course may be new to Calvinists and may sound strange to them, but it did not sound strange to Augustine, Aquinas, or even Luther. Calvinists frequently cite these men as "Calvinists before Calvin." While they did hold high views of predestination, they did not draw Calvin's inference that all who are ever saved are predestined to remain in grace. [47] Instead, their faith was informed by the biblical teaching that some who enter the sphere of grace go on to leave it." from "A Tiptoe Through TULIP" by James Akin Emmaus |
||||||
3102 | Is the Law abolished or not? | Eph 2:15 | Emmaus | 58783 | ||
McGracer, I find the treatment below to be a suscinct way of addressing the moral law as constituted in the Ten Commnadments. "The obligation of the Decalogue 2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart. 2073 Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light. Thus abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment (thou shalt not kill), but would be a grave offense only as a result of circumstances or the offender's intention. "Apart from me you can do nothing" 2074 Jesus says: "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing."[33] The fruit referred to in this saying is the holiness of a life made fruitful by union with Christ. When we believe in Jesus Christ, partake of his mysteries, and keep his commandments, the Savior himself comes to love, in us, his Father and his brethren, our Father and our brethren. His person becomes, through the Spirit, the living and interior rule of our activity. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." excerpted from The Catechism If you are interested in a more complete treatment of Law and Grace which leads up to the section on the Ten Commandments you can go to this link. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/salve.html#SALVATION Emmaus |
||||||
3103 | Hi JesusFreak | 1 Cor 14:34 | Emmaus | 58778 | ||
Jesusfrak, Pleased to be of service. If you are interested in a book length treatment of the subject, this link will take you to the book that is considered by many to be the standard on the subject of Deaconesses in the early Church. It was published,I believe, in 1986. http://www.ignatius.com Type Deaconess in the search box and it will take you to the title. Click on the title and it will take you to as picture of the book and a jacket blurb. Emmaus |
||||||
3104 | Hi JesusFreak | 1 Cor 14:34 | Emmaus | 58743 | ||
Jesufreak, This link regarding deaconesses may be of interest to you. It was originallypublished in 1912 I believe. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm I would also like to gently point out that there were vernacular translations of the bible done by Catholics before the Reformation. And when the bible was first translated into Latin, even before the time of Jerome it was because Latin was the vernacular language of the West and those who could read, read Latin. Emmaus |
||||||
3105 | but what means | Gen 1:1 | Emmaus | 58505 | ||
dasev. Yes, even you, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Emmaus |
||||||
3106 | help me understand | John 6:66 | Emmaus | 58491 | ||
dasev, At the first Passover and all other Passovers did the Hewbrews eat the sacricial lamb? Yes, and not just a symbol of a lamb, because it was not enough to just kill it and put the blood on the door post. If they did not eat the flesh of the lamb they would have died, rather than be passed over. As with that covenant meal so with ours. The Lamb of God said: "47: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48: I am the bread of life. 49: Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50: This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53: 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; 54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. " John 6 "26: Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." 27: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; 28: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. " Matt 26 This is a hard saying. Who can tolerate it? Emmaus |
||||||
3107 | help me understand | John 6:66 | Emmaus | 58475 | ||
dasev, You are finally getting closer to the truth. The word sacrament comes from the Latin word sacramentum, which means oath, as in covenant oath and Holy Communion is a sacrificial covenant meal. All the sacraments celebrate the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus. Emmaus |
||||||
3108 | may i rebuke the roman heresy , heretics | John 6:66 | Emmaus | 58382 | ||
dasev, If you can't argue the scripture and the real history I guess you have to argue the way you have chosen. I am sorry you have chosen that path. It would seem we will not have a fruitful discussion for either of our perspectives. I am happy to say that your's is not the attitude of most of the members of this forum. Emmaus |
||||||
3109 | Church is kidnapped to Sodom! | James 2:8 | Emmaus | 58378 | ||
Jesusfreak508, You asked: "Forgive him, but strip him of the fruits of being forgiven. If his repentence is sincere, and their forgiveness is sincere, where is your scriptural basis for this punishment after repentance and forgiveness?" Even sins that have been forgiven can have lasting consequences in our earthly lives if not the next. There are many comtemporary examples that could be cited such as the health effects of drug addition which has been overcome and forgiven. But for a scriptural example of God Himself foloowing this pattern see 2 Samuel 12:1-18 "1: And the LORD sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, "There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2: The rich man had very many flocks and herds; 3: but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. 4: Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him." 5: Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; 6: and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." 7: Nathan said to David, "You are the man. Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, "I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; 8: and I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. 9: Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uri'ah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10: Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uri'ah the Hittite to be your wife." 11: Thus says the LORD, "Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12: For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun."" 13: David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14: Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die." 15: Then Nathan went to his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uri'ah's wife bore to David, and it became sick. 16: David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground. 17: And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18: On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, "Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us; how then can we say to him the child is dead? " Emmaus |
||||||
3110 | Why did Paul offer a sacrifice? | Acts 21:26 | Emmaus | 58295 | ||
retxar This sets up the passage: "After this Paul stayed many days longer, and then took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aq'uila. At Cen'chre-ae he cut his hair, for he had a vow." Acts 18:18 Acts 21: 21: and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. 22: What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23: Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24: take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. 25: But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." 26: Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them. " Emmaus |
||||||
3111 | Why did Paul offer a sacrifice? | Acts 21:26 | Emmaus | 58294 | ||
Retxar, Also Acts 21:24, 24: take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. 25: But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." 26: Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them. Emmaus |
||||||
3112 | Why did Paul offer a sacrifice? | Acts 21:26 | Emmaus | 58292 | ||
retxar, Take a look at 1 Cor9:20 and then Numbers 6:1-24, especially verses 13-15, keeping in mind that just before the Acts 21:26 were the decrees of the council of Jerusalem which were to release the Gewntiles from following the Mosaic Law, but it they did not prohibits jewish Christians from continuing to follow that law. "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." 1 Cor 9:20-23 " 1: And the LORD said to Moses, 2: "Say to the people of Israel, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, 3: he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink, and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. 4: All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins. 5: "All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be holy; he shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long. 6: "All the days that he separates himself to the LORD he shall not go near a dead body. 7: Neither for his father nor for his mother, nor for brother or sister, if they die, shall he make himself unclean; because his separation to God is upon his head. 8: All the days of his separation he is holy to the LORD. 9: "And if any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing; on the seventh day he shall shave it. 10: On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest to the door of the tent of meeting, 11: and the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead body. And he shall consecrate his head that same day, 12: and separate himself to the LORD for the days of his separation, and bring a male lamb a year old for a guilt offering; but the former time shall be void, because his separation was defiled. 13: "And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the door of the tent of meeting, 14: and he shall offer his gift to the LORD, one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one ram without blemish as a peace offering, 15: and a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and their cereal offering and their drink offerings. 16: And the priest shall present them before the LORD and offer his sin offering and his burnt offering, 17: and he shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of peace offering to the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread; the priest shall offer also its cereal offering and its drink offering. 18: And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the tent of meeting, and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offering. 19: And the priest shall take the shoulder of the ram, when it is boiled, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazirite, after he has shaven the hair of his consecration, 20: and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD; they are a holy portion for the priest, together with the breast that is waved and the thigh that is offered; and after that the Nazirite may drink wine. 21: "This is the law for the Nazirite who takes a vow. His offering to the LORD shall be according to his vow as a Nazirite, apart from what else he can afford; in accordance with the vow which he takes, so shall he do according to the law for his separation as a Nazirite." 22: The LORD said to Moses, 23: "Say to Aaron and his sons, Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them, 24: The LORD bless you and keep you: " Numbers 6:1-24 Emmaus |
||||||
3113 | Are condoms ok in a marriage? | 1 Cor 7:9 | Emmaus | 58284 | ||
bcbj, An important question. Prior to the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, all Chritian Churches were opposed to artificail contraception. If you read the Reformers you will see that they were of the same opinion. Lambeth was the break in the dike. Even then they said it should be allowed only for grave reasons. But that position did not last long. In the 1960s "the pill" arrived and seemd less mechanical and artificail. Many Catholics thought even thought the Catholic Church would change its position. But against advice of a commission, in 1968 Pope Paul VI issued a letter "On Human Life" affirming the Church's opposition to artifical contraception. This started a firestorm of dissent within the Catholic Church that is still reverberating to this day. I was 18 in 1968 and remeber the controversy well. In recent years many evangelical Christian couples as well as Catholic couples are rethinking this whole question and returning to the traditional position. For a look at how prophetic "On Human Life" was in its predicitions of what would happen to society if artifical contraception became accepted and widespread, here is a link to the document. It is only 31 paragraphs long. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM Ther is also a whole host of information available on natural family planning or NFP from other sources. Emmaus |
||||||
3114 | tithing or donations | Mark 12:41 | Emmaus | 58198 | ||
decombobulation, I am a Catholic. Most of my life I have heard the collection taken up at Mass called an offering and other types of giving to the Church a donation. In recent years it is often spoken of in terms of tithing. I guess it comes under the catagory of " a rose by any other name." It is interesting to note that during the Middle Ages when the ecomony was agaraian there were barns built called tithe barns to hold the agricultural tithe offerings. Many still exist and are popular with tourists in England and Normandy. Here is a link to see a few. http://www.digital-brilliance.com/hyperg/history/tithe.htm Emmaus |
||||||
3115 | Info.-Towdah,Tehillah,Towah, praise ect. | Psalm | Emmaus | 58192 | ||
Rav T, Here is another section of exposition that mentions the "hogadah" or Passover celebration and the singing of Psalms called the "hillel" and the "great hillel" at a certain point in the Passover celebration and at the last Supper. "The Passover Celebration, the Seder Meal, has a Set Liturgical Pattern When you look carefully at the sources, scholars, historians tell us that the Passover liturgy in Jesus' time, just as it is today, is based on a four-part structure. The four parts or stages of the Passover liturgy are basically set up to revolve around four cups of wine, that are consumed by the participants. So, if you look carefully at the structure of a Passover Seder, known as the "Hogadah" the liturgy that Jesus celebrated in the Upper Room with his disciples, you see these four stages. The first part was ... the "kadush," a prayer that was spoken by the celebrant over the first cup of wine. Then a dish of green, bitter herbs was passed along with some fruit sauce and that was shared by all the participants. ... the second stage which consists of the Passover liturgy, taken from the Book of Exodus, chapter 12. ... is read and then questions are asked of the oldest member participating by the youngest one. At this point, Psalm 113, is sung. It's known as the "little Hillel." In Hebrew Hillel means praise. Hallelujah means praise Ya, praise Yahweh. The little Hillel, Psalm 113, is sung and then a second cup of wine is shared ... At this point you now proceed to the main course, the main meal. First, grace is spoken over the bread, the unleavened bread, and then the meal of roasted lamb is served up along with the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs. At this point in the ancient Passover liturgy, the celebrant would say a prayer. Grace was spoken over a third cup of wine. This cup of wine was known as the "cup of blessing." The cup of blessing was then passed around and shared by all the participants. At this point you have reached ... culmination of this ancient Passover liturgy would occur with the fourth cup of wine. Some scholars believe that back in the 1st Century, it was known as the "cup of consummation." It wasn't passed around immediately, though. First, all the participants would sing a song, a long hymn consisting of Psalms 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118. This was known as the "great Hillel," a very long and beautiful hymn. On the closing note of that hymn, the fourth cup was passed around and shared. This was the climax. This was the culmination. This represented the purpose, the goal, the end result of the Passover. It signaled the communion between God and his people and among the brothers and sisters who are members of God's family. Traces of the Passover Liturgy in the Gospel Narratives ...when you go back into the gospel narratives, you discover traces throughout the texts of this liturgy. Joachim Yuraneaus, a German New Testament scholar, for instance, shows us how the Passover liturgy is assumed in the gospel narratives, especially in the Synoptic Gospels and even in the writings of St. Paul. For instance, there in 1st Corinthians 10, in the passage that I read in the beginning of our time together, we have Paul referring to the "cup of blessing, which is a communion in the blood of Christ." Now where did Paul get that terminology, "the cup of blessing"? Well, that refers to the third cup which Christ blessed and prayed over which Christ then shared. There is other evidence as well. We won't go into all of the data. But at this particular point an interesting problem arises for certain scholars because in the gospel narratives you discover that after Jesus passed around the cup of blessing, the next thing is something we'd expect. We read in Mark 14:26, "and when they had sung a hymn", this all fits with the Passover. After the third cup you would sing a hymn. That would be, of course, the great Hillel. Then you would proceed to the fourth cup. But the problem which arises is that they don't proceed to drink the fourth cup. Instead, the verse continues, "and when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives." Now it might be difficult for us Gentile believers to understand the problem because we are not so familiar with the Hogadah, with the ancient Seder. But it is not lost to Jewish readers of the gospel, nor to students of the ancient liturgy who study the Synoptic texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because, apparently, Jesus skipped the fourth cup ..." transcripted excert from a talk by Scott Han titled The Lamb's Supper, done before the book was published. http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/lambsup.TXT Emmaus |
||||||
3116 | Info.-Towdah,Tehillah,Towah, praise ect. | Psalm | Emmaus | 58181 | ||
Rav T, An interesting and unsusal question. I cannot address all the different types of praise prayer you mentioned but I am familiar with a ongoing application of the todah. In Catholic sacramental theology the connection between the Mass and the Passover celebration is well known. But there is also a connection with the todah which is less well known. Here is a brief exposition on the subject which you may find of interest. "Perhaps the most striking liturgical "ancestor" of the Mass is the todah of ancient Israel. The Hebrew word todah, like the Greek word Eucharist, means "thank offereing" or "thanksgiving." The word denotes a sacrificial meal shared with friends in order to celebrate one's graditude to God. A todah begins by recalling some mortal threat and then celebrates man's divine deliverance from that threat. It is a powerful expression of confidence in God's sovereignty and mercy. Psalm 69 is a good example. An urgent plea for deliverance ("Save me , O God!"), it is at the same time a celebration of that eventual deliverance ("I will praise the name of God with a song... For the Lord hears the needy"). Perhaps the classic example of the todah is Psalm 22, which begins with "My God, my GoD, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus Himself quoted this as He hung on the cross. His listeners would have recognized the reference, and they would have known that this song, which begins with a cry of dereliction, ends on a triumphant note of salavtion. Citing this todah, Jesus demonstrates His own confident hope in deliverance. The similarities between todah and eucharist go beyond their common meaning of thanksgiving. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has written: "Structurally speaking, the whole of Christology, indeed the whole of Eucharistic Christology, is present in the todah spirituality of the Old Testament." Both the todah and the Eucharist present their worship through word and meal. Moreover, the todah, like the Mass, includes an unbloody offering of bread and wine. The ancient rabbis made a significant prediction regarding the todah. "In the coming (Messianic) age, all sacifices will cease except the todah sacrifice. This will never cease in all eternity." (Pesiqta, I, p. 159)." excerped from: The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn p 32-33 Doubleday 1999 Emmaus |
||||||
3117 | help me understand | John 6:66 | Emmaus | 57999 | ||
dasev, Christ in the Eucharist: Part III "What Did the First Christians Say? Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians. Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1). Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20). Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3). Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9). In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1). Unanimous Testimony Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided. One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ. " http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp Emmaus |
||||||
3118 | help me understand | John 6:66 | Emmaus | 57998 | ||
dasev, Christ in the Eucharist: Part II "Their Main Argument For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense? Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly. The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18). In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true. And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65). Paul Confirms This Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp Emmaus |
||||||
3119 | help me understand | John 6:66 | Emmaus | 57997 | ||
dasev, Christ in the Eucharist: Part I The following will at least make clear the true Catholic position on the Eucharist and address some of your objections and questions. Agreement with this doctrine is not necessarily expected. This will take several posts. I am sorry not to present an original essay, but I see no point in reinventing the wheel. "Christ in the Eucharist ... John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Again and Again Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52). His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56). No Corrections Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction? On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis. In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14). But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do (others) say? Merely Figurative? They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ. But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3. " http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp |
||||||
3120 | why must Catholics "doubly" confess? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 57960 | ||
dasev, I was pointing out that you, by stating that "those who ascribe to roman catholic doctrine in its totality really are not intellectualy honest regarding history or the Word" were confessing the sins of others. That is being the accuser. We do know who the accuser of sins is. Christians as I understand scripture are to confess their own sins or as a corporate body the sins of their own group. You chose to "confess" to Estelle the alledged sin (intellectual dishonesty) or sins of a body to which you do not belong. Perhaps you should follow the biblical example of confessing your own sins or those of the body to which you belong if you feel the urge. It is apparent from your comments that you know very little about the Catholic faith as it it understood by Catholics. Your understanding of Catholic doctrine about confession is completely deficient in that you make assumptions that are totally inaccurate (i.e that Catholics can not or do not confess their sins to God other than in a confessional booth to a priest). It is one thing to understand correctly another's position and disagree with it. It is an entirely other thing to misunderstand and misrepresent another's position and then assault that caricature of the true position. Your comments fit into the latter category. I hope that your comments are made in ignorance and not with malice. My I suggest that before you attack the faith of another, you first learn about it from someone who is qualified to teach it accurateley, preferably one who believes that faith. You ask if I am "a member of the r.c. church., and if so what order." This also display basic ignorance about Catholics. Most Catholics are lay people and do not belong to any order or religious congregation. Indeed, even most priests do not belong to any "order". Since you are not a Catholic, may I suggest you avoid that area and stick to what you know. I have no idea what your faith background is and I would not presume to comment on what your Church teaches if I did. You asked before if I was a "card carrying Catholic" and if so you had questions. Being in the questioner's seat is a good place for you to be on the subject of Catholicism, because you have yet to give an accurate answer on that subject. Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 ] Next > Last [187] >> |