Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 69800 | ||
"I have to say I have never seen anything like what you have described." I just saw it last week, and I would have to assume, without any other context, that it would be the driver voicing that to the Virgin. "We might have to fight back by hanging out portrait of Luther and Calvin. At least they were Catholics once. :-)" Well, I still am, only imperfectly so, right? ;) "By the way, I can tell my surgeon that my life is in his hands without any connotation of worship. Same goes for my daughter when she is driving and I am riding with her." Yes, but in those instances it is clear what is meant: a physical trust upon the surgeon for one's PHYSICAL survival. On the other hand, what could the driver be expressing by those words? If you are mystified, that is fine, but it's pretty characteristic of the Hispanic Catholicism in these parts, making very much of Mary and not so much of Jesus at all. "I am not sure I fully understand your question on the Eucharist. It lacks your usual clarity. What exactly in Rev 1 are you alluding to?" I was alluding to St. John's vision of the resurrected Christ. His glorified body is indeed different from his earthly one, but it is still apparently finite in nature. I hold that it violates Chalcedon to attribute divine qualities to Jesus' human nature or to attribute human qualities to Jesus' divine nature. Jesus Christ now exists as a permanent hypostatic union between the two natures in one person, without mixing or confusion of the natures. "I see it in the other passages you cite, although you avoid the citation of the instituition narratives of the Gospels and 1 Cor 11, which are key to the doctrine of the Real Presence." I hold to the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper (which is also clearly presented in 1 Corinthians 10 as well, and at least has some connection to Jesus' statements at the end of John 6 as well). However, I disagree that Jesus Christ is physically and locally in place of, in, with, or under the substance of the elements. Paul still refers to "the BREAD that we break" (1 Corinthians 10:16) and "as often as you eat this BREAD" (1 Corinthians 11:26; see the following verses as well as he continues to refer to it as "bread"). The doctrine of transubstantiation holds that the bread is no longer there, but the body of Christ is present with only the _accidens_ of bread (which depends not on Scripture, but Aristotelian philosophy). What I believe is Calvin's doctrine of a sacramental union between the elements themselves (which remain physically unchanged) and the body and blood of Christ, which are locally in heaven I do not hold to the prominent view today that they are merely bare symbols, because I agree with you that there is too much Scriptural evidence that we are participating in the actual body and blood of Christ in some fashion, not to mention the fact that partaking in an unworthy manner has very real, physical results as we see in 1 Corinthians 11. But just like baptismal water is a physical means of God's grace while it remains water, so I believe the bread and wine remains bread and wine as we feed spiritually on Christ, with whom the Christian is united. The Heidelberg Catechism illustrates this view well: "Question 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord's Supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits? Answer: Thus: That Christ has commanded me and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him, adding these promises: (a) first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes, the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ. Question 79. Why then doth Christ call the bread "his body", and the cup "his blood", or "the new covenant in his blood"; and Paul the "communion of body and blood of Christ"? Answer: Christ speaks thus, not without great reason, namely, not only thereby to teach us, that as bread and wine support this temporal life, so his crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink, whereby our souls are fed to eternal life; (a) but more especially by these visible signs and pledges to assure us, that we are as really partakers of his true body and blood by the operation of the Holy Ghost as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs in remembrance of him; (b) and that all his sufferings and obedience are as certainly ours, as if we had in our own persons suffered and made satisfaction for our sins to God." --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69829 | ||
Joe, When we are speaking of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist we are dealing with one of the highest mysteries of the Faith. One I do not feel completely adequate to address in depth. I like what the author of The Imitation of Christ had to say on the subject in his last chapter where he warned against "useless and curious searching into this profound Sacrament." That being said I want to address one issue you brought up and let another author address it at least in part, perhaps in way suprising to you. "I hold to the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper (which is also clearly presented in 1 Corinthians 10 as well, and at least has some connection to Jesus' statements at the end of John 6 as well). However, I disagree that Jesus Christ is physically and locally in place of, in, with, or under the substance of the elements."... Joe! You make a very important point here. Look carefully at Catholic doctrinal statements on the Real Presence, including transubstantiation and you will notice that the word "physical" is scrupulosly avoided and absent. The terms used for the Presence are always "substanially" and "sacramentally," but never physically. Here is a little of what Thomas Merton had say on this subject in his book The Living Bread: "Here we must empahsize the distinction made by the Church between Chrsit's natural presence and His presence in the Sacrament. Both presences are real, and both are equally real, but nevertheless only the former is a strictly "local" presence. For only in His quantatative dimensions is the Body of Christ directly localized--and this direct localization is realized in heaven, but not on our altars, where He is present indirectly localized by the quantitative dimensions of the Host. These dimensions are not His own, and he is therefore not in immediate physical contact with His material surroundings. His contact with us is spititual and mystical. "The presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is therefore not a local presence. He becomes present in the Host not by any change in Himself but by a change which He effects, by divine power, in the bread, converting its substance into His own Body. Transubstantiation is in no sense a "production" of the Body of Christ or a local "adduction" of His Fleash. This is not so hard to conceive if we remember He did the same thing at the Last Supper. Nothing happened to His own Person when He pronounced the words which changed bread into His Body. He remained locally present at the head of the supper table and became sacramentally present in the bread which He had changed, by transubstantiation, into Himself, and which was eaten by His disciples." The Living Bread by Thomas Merton Farrar, Straus, Girroux, N.Y. 1956 p. 61-62 Still in print I think you might aprreciate this book. I think from now on I would like to stick to more mundane bible questions. Are you teaching techniques for Spanish as challanging as your forum style? They must hate you now, but the survivors prbably love you later if they gain proficiency. Emmaus |
||||||
3 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 69951 | ||
"I think from now on I would like to stick to more mundane bible questions." Oh, come on, Emmaus. You have to admit that discussions like these have a lot more significance than the "Cain's wife" question or the percent alcohol by volume of Bible wine! :) 'Look carefully at Catholic doctrinal statements on the Real Presence, including transubstantiation and you will notice that the word "physical" is scrupulosly avoided and absent. The terms used for the Presence are always "substanially" and "sacramentally," but never physically.' Well, if the Catholic definition of "substantially" is substantially different than the common definition of "physically," then precisely what is the disagreement between the Calvinist view and the Catholic view? Here is the WCF, Chapter 29, on the sacrament: "VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." I also am confused by Merton's statements on the body of Christ not being locally present in the Eucharist. "Locally" comes from the Latin word "locus," meaning place. For something to be local means for it to be in the same place ("location") as the thing it is local to. Now after the words of institution are spoken, what does the Catholic priest hold in his hands? Is it bread or the body of Christ? How can one say that what is being given to the communicants and what they are ingesting is the very substance of Christ's body, and at the same time insist that the body of Christ is not "locally" in the sacrament? Merton seems to be contradicting himself in the very same paragraph. Christ converts the substance of the bread into His body, but doesn't produce it? In the Catholic view, does Christ produces the substance of his body from the bread, or he replaces it with the already-existing substance of His body? If the latter, we fall back into the Chalcedonian problem: Christ's human nature is not infinite. The two natures of Christ exist "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." To attribute infinity and omnipresence to Christ's body (his human nature) would be confusing and/or changing the natures. You wrote: "Are you teaching techniques for Spanish as challanging as your forum style?" Boy, I hope so! :) "They must hate you now, but the survivors prbably love you later if they gain proficiency." And, unlike on the Forum, I don't have too many students telling me I have got my Spanish wrong! :) May God bless you during this Advent season! --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69957 | ||
Joe, You are right about the relative significance of the subject. We are also past the level of "get out of religion and into a relationship with Christ." At least I hope so. I don't think I can answer better than Merton. You really should get the book, which is about a lot more than just Transubstantiation. Basically the substance is the answer to the essential question, What is this? and the answer is, the Body of Christ. The accidents are the outward appearence and sensory perceptions but not the essential quality of the reality. But I may not be exactly precise. It has a long time since I studied the exact meaning of these philosophical terms dealing with reality and existence. I must admit my conversations with non Catholics rarely get to this level. See my "get out of religion" comment. What I like about this forum is that the people I most often interact with are not that way. And conversations with people who always agree with you are not very stimulating, assuming you can even get a conversation going in such a circumstance. Your question about what is the difference between the Calvinist position and the Catholic is the right question. I am sorry to say I don't have a ready answer for you. So it seems we are in the same spot in that regard. But I knew that the information would surprise you. I also think the answer to your question about "production" is that Merton was saying that the Body of Christ was not "produced" or "adduced" by the priest but the change is effected by Christ through the Holy Spirit as the prayer called the epiclesis just before the consecration asks. Another book I highly recommend: The Lambs Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth, by Scott Hahn, is a treatment of the Mass in the context of covenant and a participation in the liturgy of heaven as seen in Revelation. I gave it to another Presbyterian friend after we got into a dicussion of covenant theology. Her note in the book when she returned it said she found it "very interesting and thought provoking." The section of the Catechism on the Eucharist, I think you would also find interesting if you have not already read it. Sometimes I prefer these kinds of discussion where we are left with something to think about. Emmaus |
||||||