Tom still believes that the Church has no authority to claim that what happens during the Sacrifice of the Mass is transubstantiation, and still won't concede that the Eucharistic species truly become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The conversation gets a bit skewed at certain points, but we get it reeled back in to the main subject points of transubstantiation and Church authority, as well as what salvation really means. Therefore, you will notice at some points I'll skip ahead in the conversation (marked by ellipses) so as to keep this dialogue somewhat on-track and readable. As I said before, if anything, it proved a great learning experience, and showed me why the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist and the hierarchy of Christ's Church is deeply flawed.
 |
| The Four Doctors of the Church |
Nicholas, this is a well-written article. However, it falls flat of proving transubstantiation. Here is why:
Part of your evidence in favor of transubstantiation is based on the notion that the church is infallible. But the arguments Catholics use for an infallible church are invalid. Quite simply, Jesus did say He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But He did not say how He would build it and how He would prevent the gates of hell from prevailing against it. Throughout history God worked by means of fallible men, priesthoods, kings, nations, and peoples to accomplish His purposes. There is no reason to believe an infallible church is necessary to the building of that church, given that Christ is the builder of it.
In addition, "church" throughout the New Testament refers to the called out people of God. If the church is infallible then all the called out people of God are infallible. If bishops must be infallible, because they are charged with the responsibility of teaching others, then fathers must be infallible for the same reason.
And in order for the church to be infallible, once saved always saved must be a true doctrine. Otherwise, the gates of hell do prevail against the church in the individuals who fall away.
Transubstantiation falls apart, because Christ said, "This is My body" and "This cup is the New Testament in My blood." The verb, "to be," can mean to symbolize or represent, as when Jesus said, "I am the good Shepherd," and, "I am the Door." He did not mean He literally, physically became either a Shepherd or a Door. So linguistically, there is no reason to believe He meant transubstantiation.
You did explain that traditions should be traceable to Christ and His apostles. Transubstantiation cannot be traced to them. There is no reason to accept that doctrine as truth.
"But the arguments Catholics use for an infallible church are invalid."
Show how they are invalid. You have a habit of assuming what you have to prove so stop assuming and prove it.
"But He did not say how He would build it and how He would prevent the gates of hell from prevailing against it."
You commit the conjunction fallacy here. You assume that any other probability is more possible than the one proposed.
"And in order for the church to be infallible, once saved always saved must be a true doctrine. Otherwise, the gates of hell do prevail against the church in the individuals who fall away."
But the Bible does not teach this as I showed you in our debate. It is impossible to be true. Again you are assuming and building on false premises that have been destroyed over and over.
 |
| Jesus at the Door- Carl Rahl |
Tom, you will also recall that Jesus promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church and lead it to the fullness of truth. The Catholic approach to Scripture urges us to read Scripture not as isolated quotes but in its totality. Thus we use passages to shed light on one another. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, as we know at Pentecost and the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church ever since.
Also, if you argue against the infallibility of the Church, you need first to understand not just what you think that means but more importantly what Catholics believe it to mean. Otherwise you fail to engage. To say that the Church is infallible is not in fact to imply that all its members are individually infallible. Many individual Catholics, even Bishops, often do have weird and wonderful ideas - but this does not detract from the infallibility of the Church as a whole. Nor does the fact that some members may sin and fall away. If I commit mortal sin, that doesn't mean the gates of hell prevail against the Church, which remains on its way to glory. It simply means that I am a grave sinner.
You must also remember that Infallibility is very restricted, applying only to teaching on Faith and Morals. It doesn't apply to prudential judgments, to matters of law or discipline or to a whole host of other issues. So infallibility is not to be understood as being identical to perfection.
Linguistic tools may be of some help in understanding Scripture, but to say that Transubstantiation falls apart because it is possible to interpret Jesus' words at the Last Supper in another way really does not hold water. Again, we remember we must read Scripture as a whole - and John 6 makes it abundantly clear what Jesus meant when He spoke in this way. Scripture is a better tool than Linguistics alone.
Also we have a continuous process of interpretation of Scripture. Each generation does not just decide for itself, but builds on what has gone before. This is why we attach such weight to the Tradition that has accumulated over the years. If there is a doubt over a particular understanding we might well ask 'How did the earliest Christians understand this text?'
"This is a well-written article."
Thank you, Tom, for your kind words. I do hope that you read carefully it in its entirety, as a number of the objections you've just brought up in your comment are already addressed there by the Apostle and the early Church Fathers.
Now before I go any further, Tom, I ask you for at LEAST the third time to tell us your religious affiliation. You're obviously Christian, but to what faith tradition do you belong? You know what our religion is, and I've asked you politely to please share yours with us so we can be on equal ground. If we were having a face-to-face conversation, I would've asked you this and received an answer in less than 10 seconds. It's not that hard, so I kindly ask that you let us know where you are coming from as far as your denomination goes.
"...the arguments Catholics use for an infallible church are invalid."
As Kevin noted, prove why the arguments are invalid. Kevin also already addressed your point on how the Church was built infallibly by pointing out your logical fallacy.
"Throughout history God worked by means of fallible men, priesthoods, kings, nations, and peoples to accomplish His purposes. There is no reason to believe an infallible church is necessary to the building of that church, given that Christ is the builder of it."
God indeed has worked through fallible people during the course of history, and still does today. This very fact DOES give us very valid reasons to believe an infallible Church is necessary to the building of that Church. Here's why...
First, Fr. Hill has explained above very eloquently that the Church understands infallibility to mean something else than what you might perceive it to mean. It is in faith and morals that the Church is infallible. Can you give us your definition of infallibility? Here is what the Church means when she says that she is infallible:
-that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
-that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless invincible ignorance should excuse them;
-that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship;
-and that in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy — and on them exclusively — the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#I
Second, it should be obvious that the reason to believe in an infallible Church is that if Christianity is divinely revealed to us as doctrine (that is, that we must have faith in and accept Christ to be saved), which mankind must believe to avoid eternal separation from God (hell), the charism of infallibility is absolutely necessary to the Church. If the Church that Christ founded was capable of erring at all, then that Church could err at any point. The flock would have no guarantee of any truth whatsoever. Christ's words of remaining with us always would mean nothing. The Reformation is a case-in-point. As Charles G. Herbermann says: "Divided into various sections and parties, they [the Protestant churches] are the scene of never-ending disputes; and by the nature of the case they are cut off from all hope of attaining to certainty." This doesn't sound like the "one body" that Christ built upon St. Peter. With the infallible charism of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, we can be confident that we as Christians will not be led into error.
"In addition, "church" throughout the New Testament refers to the called out people of God. If the church is infallible then all the called out people of God are infallible. If bishops must be infallible, because they are charged with the responsibility of teaching others, then fathers must be infallible for the same reason."
You're mixing up impeccability and infallibility. These words have different meanings, Tom. As pointed out already by Fr. Hill, people don't have to impeccable. No one is, since we are all fallen. But the Church itself is indeed infallible, even through erring human beings. What is taught is infallible. The messengers may not be. Perhaps you've forgotten about St. Peter's denial of Christ? A man who authored books in the inspired Scriptures?
Now, "church" does occasionally refer to an assembly of the people of God in the New Testament. However, this is not the only meaning of the word. "Church" comes from the Greek "ecclesia", which in turn is the equivalent of the Hebrew word "qahal", i.e., the entire community of the children of Israel viewed in their religious aspect. Two Hebrew words are employed in the Old Testament to signify the assembly, or congregation, of Israel, "qahal 'êdah". In the Septuagint, these words are rendered respectfully as "ecclesia" and "synagogue", meaning two different things. Look at the distinction between the two in Proverbs 5:14: "in the midst of the church and the congregation", the Greek rendering is "en meso ekklesias kai synagoges." In the New Testament, "ecclesia" is used in a few different ways, as you mentioned with individual assemblies, but is also used to describe those exercising the office of teaching and ruling the faithful (i.e. the Magisterium of the Church). Thus, the name "church" which belongs to the whole is also applied to a part. This can be plainly seen in such Scripture passages as Matt. 18:17 and Acts 20:28. St. Robert Bellarmine gives a great definition of what the Church is defined as, referring to BOTH the parts AND the whole, in direct opposition to your definition of what "church" means in the New Testament:
"[The Church is] A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth".
You then said this, Tom: "The verb, "to be," can mean to symbolize or represent, as when Jesus said, "I am the good Shepherd," and, "I am the Door." He did not mean He literally, physically became either a Shepherd or a Door. So linguistically, there is no reason to believe He meant transubstantiation."
Wrong again. You obviously aren't reading Scripture very closely, as St. John himself tell us that Christ referring to Himself as a door is a figure of speech in John 10:6: "This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them." St. John says no such thing regarding the Eucharist in his Gospel. Jesus is "like" a door because men come through Him to come to the Father. And He is "like" a vine because he is the source of all life for Christians. If He was talking figuratively about eating His Body and Blood, this would make no sense, as the Hebrew figure of speech "to eat the flesh or drink the blood" means to violently assault or persecute someone. We see this used as a figure of speech in Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Rev. 17:6, 16, and in other places. So if we take Christ's words as a figure of speech in John 6 (as you want us to, Tom), then what Christ really means is "whoever persecutes or assaults Me will have eternal life". That is utterly ridiculous, as I'm sure you can see.
 |
| Christ the True Vine |
"You did explain that traditions should be traceable to Christ and His apostles. Transubstantiation cannot be traced to them. There is no reason to accept that doctrine as truth."
Really, Tom? "No reason"? Except the several reasons I've given you in these last two articles I've written, that you have yet to reply directly to? Show me why the several reasons I've given you are wrong. Just pick one from the Church Fathers or the Apostle Paul and explain why it is wrong to believe in it as truth. I've already shown how transubstantiation can be traced to Christ and the Apostles. You will have to reply directly to these reasons instead of shoveling them under the rug and simply saying "they're untraceable".
Nicholas...
"religious affiliation."
He is a Calvinist.
"You're mixing up impeccability and infallibility."
He knows the difference as he has been explained this numerous times before what Catholics believe. The problem is he is his own interpreter even of Catholicism and refuses to acknowledge our definitions.
Kevin, you are correct. I do know the difference between impeccability and infallibility. Nor have I been confusing them here.
Impeccability presents another problem for the Catholic Church. Paul wrote in I Timothy 3 that a bishop is to be blameless. That is one of the qualifications for the office of a bishop. Thus, the Borgia popes were disqualified from office. Any church official involved in the recent pedophile crisis has disqualified himself from office.
It seems to me that when the church teaches that a bishop is only infallible when he is teaching faith and morals, then infallibility should apply not only when he is teaching through the written or oral word but also when he is teaching by the example of his own life.
Tom, it may seem to you that a bishop should show infallibility not only through teaching but also through his life example. And indeed you are right - he should. But this has nothing at all to do with the infallibility of the Church. I really cannot see why you argue with Catholics when you refuse to argue on the ground we stand on. The Borgia papacy was in fact not disqualified from office. Sin does not disqualify anyone from office - though more seriously it may be a bar to heaven. Paul speaks of the qualities that are to be sought for in a bishop, and he naturally presents the ideal - which is rarely lived up to. Despite the scandalous example of their lives the worst of the Renaissance popes never taught anything that was not the teaching of Christ's Church. If anything this is a proof of infallibility.
Jesus tells us that we should follow the teaching of those who sit in the chair of Moses, by virtue of that fact alone, even when we should not follow the example that they give us.
Why on earth should you say that impeccability presents a problem for the Church? Yes, Paul says a Bishop should be blameless. But so should all Christians. The fact is that we are a Church of sinners. Who ever says he is without sin is a liar. So if we believed that sin disqualifies someone from Church leadership then we should have no leaders! If we were not sinners we should not need Christ's redemption. And it is precisely because that left to our own devices we are sinners that the gift of infallibility has been given to the Church.
Without that gift how on earth could we know what God desires of us? You can say that the answer is in the Scriptures, but a hundred people can read Scripture and draw different conclusions. This is why the Church which Christ so earnestly desired should be one is so disastrously lacking in unity. And how could we ever determine who has found the truth? Yet Christ sent the Holy Spirit to lead us to the fullness of truth. Would He want us to seek the Truth when it was impossible to find it? Of course not - and the infallibility of the Church is the only way in which this can be so.
The Lord's Prayer has never been understood as conferring on us all the power to forgive sins - the power that belongs to God alone. Rather it urges us to be forgiving towards others because we ourselves are in need of forgiveness. But our human forgiveness cannot make those who sin against us righteous - and that is what is accomplished by God's forgiveness. Again, to suggest otherwise seems to suggest that we have no need of God's mercy.
Tom, [you said]:
"It could be that the church is being built and hell's gates are not prevailing, because Jesus is the One building it and preventing the gates from prevailing. After all, He has a long history of accomplishing His goals through fallible people and institutions."
When has a Catholic said that God is not the cause of the gate from prevailing? If not then what are you arguing against? Of course God is the cause using MEN as you say He has done time after time. Maybe this has been assumed that you knew but when it boils down to it it is God who is the cause. However, He has given the gift of infallibility to men before so why not now?
"Major premise: If the church is infallible, then Christ is building it and the gates of hell do not prevail against it.
Minor premise: Christ's church is being built and the gates of hell do not prevail against it.
Conclusion: Thefore, the church is infallible."
Your example here is not representative of any argument that I have seen. I believe you constructed it yourself to set up a straw man.
The setup would actually be
1. If the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church then the Church is infallible.
2, The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church.
Therefore, the Church is infallible.
That is using this form. There are other ways to say the same thing such as:
1. If the Church is infallible then the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church.
2. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church.
Therefore, the Church is infallible.
I am not going to go through every way to write it though. Most books define conjunction fallacy as "assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them." I just looked it up on Wiki and it says what you say. Either way you are requiring a different (less probable) subset to be used and is still a fallacy. You would have to show that anything else would be more probable and not assume that infallibility of the Church is not the most probable solution. You have yet to do so.
"Impeccability presents another problem for the Catholic Church. Paul wrote in I Timothy 3 that a bishop is to be blameless. That is one of the qualifications for the office of a bishop. Thus, the Borgia popes were disqualified from office. Any church official involved in the recent pedophile crisis has disqualified himself from office."
Actually it doesn't. Notice that this is for ordination and goes on to list how they should be blameless. It doesn't say that if they do not keep this way they lose their office just that they cannot be elevated (ordained) to this office. Context is key Tom and you take this far away from context.
"It seems to me that when the church teaches that a bishop is only infallible when he is teaching faith and morals, then infallibility should apply not only when he is teaching through the written or oral word but also when he is teaching by the example of his own life."
What seems to you isn't Doctrine though and does not degrade the infallibility of the Church. A Bishop should be a perfect example we know some are not. Nothing requires the Bishop to not sin. No verse in the Bible says it or infers it.
 |
| Seven Ecclesiastical Dignitaries |
Fr. Hill wrote, "Tom, you will also recall that Jesus promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church and lead it to the fulness of truth."
That is John 16: 13. But it is not evidence of either the infallibility of the church or of transubstantiation. The reason it is not evidence of these is that you have not shown that church infallibility and transubstantiation are truth into which the Holy Spirit has led you.
Fr. Hill wrote, "The Catholic approach to Scripture urges us to read Scripture not as isolated quotes but in its totality. Thus we use passages to shed light on one another. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, as we know at Pentecost and the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church ever since."
I am glad you are following the hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith which was taught by Martin Luther.
Fr. Hillwrote, "Also, if you argue against the infallibility of the Church, you need first to understand not just what you think that means but more importantly what Catholics believe it to mean."
I am well aware of what Catholics believe it to mean. That is, that the church is infallible when it teaches about faith and morals. I understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability. And I understand that infallibility is not perfection. My point still stands. Every argument I have read that was given by Catholics to prove church infallibility is invalid.
Fr. Hill wrote, "Linguistic tools may be of some help in understanding Scripture, but to say that Transubstantiation falls apart because it is possible to interpret Jesus' words at the Last Supper in another way really does not hold water."
Yes, it does hold water. It means that transubstantiation is not proven.
Fr. Hill wrote, "Again, we remember we must read Scripture as a whole - and John 6 makes it abundantly clear what Jesus meant when He spoke in this way."
The problem with using John 6 as a reference to the eucharist is that Jesus there says in verse 53, "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." This makes participation in the eucharist necessary for salvation. And look at verse 54, "Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him upon the last day." If that is about the eucharist, then if someone participates in the eucharist once in his life, he is saved. Neither faith nor works are necessary.
What I see constantly from Catholics is exactly the opposite of what you say the church practices. They do not know the Bible. They do not understand context or know how to interpret Scripture according to its context. They are very much into proof-texting without even trying to prove their interpretations correct.
...
There are way too many topics being brought up here, so instead I'd like to focus on this most glaring portion of your words Tom:
"The problem with using John 6 as a reference to the eucharist is that Jesus there says in verse 53, '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.' This makes participation in the eucharist necessary for salvation. And look at verse 54, "Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him upon the last day." If that is about the eucharist, then if someone participates in the eucharist once in his life, he is saved. Neither faith nor works are necessary."
This is where your theology of "once saved, always saved" causes you to misunderstand what Christ is saying here regarding the Eucharist. You can't have one event or one verse dictate a theology of salvation, as you do with John 3:16. Instead, as Fr. Hill mentioned with his very appropriate analogy, you have to look at the Scriptures in its entirety! There are many other places in the New Testament which deal with how we are saved and how we gain eternal life besides John 3:16 and John 6:54. Mark 16:16 is a great example: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." So let's see, we have to believe in Christ (which even the demons do) and be baptized. But wait, there's more; much more that we must do in order to be saved and justified:
We are saved by declaring with our mouths: (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9);
We are saved by keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17);
We are saved by our words (Matt 12:37);
We are saved by the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6);
We are saved by baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5);
We are saved by repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9);
We are saved by grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8);
We are saved by coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26);
We are saved by works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24);
We are saved by Christ's blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22);
We are saved by Christ's righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1).
Look at all these different ways that add up to our salvation! There are many different things we must do, many different actions we must perform in order to be saved. This is why this train of thought you posted is erroneous, Tom: "If that is about the eucharist, then if someone participates in the eucharist once in his life, he is saved. Neither faith nor works are necessary." Your theology tells you that one line, John 3:16 contains the whole totality of what a human must do to be saved. Therefore, faced with the clear words of John 6:54, you've created a false dilemma. There is no contradiction between Christ, Paul and James. It's not an either/or situation as you've made it to be in regards of salvation. It's both/and. Actually, it's both/and/and/and..., etc...
Tom, no Catholic or Orthodox Christian believes they are saved by only receiving the Eucharist. And no Catholic or Orthodox believes they are saved by faith alone. Catholics and Orthodox believe (as did the Apostles and the Church throughout history since its founding by Christ) that we are saved only by God's grace THROUGH our faith and works. If we were still under the old law, we'd have no hope of being saved and our works (like professing our faith, eating the Eucharist, etc.) would condemn us. But under the system of grace, God can look at us with mercy and love, forgive us our sins, and allow us to please Him by our faith and works. This selection from the Council of Trent plainly shows what the Church believes as far as salvation goes, and proves why your false dilemma does not work:
"...when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.[46] (Session 6, Chapter 8)
Think of it this way, Tom. One saying we're only saved by solely our belief in Christ is like saying, "We (as humans) are exuding a healthy lifestyle if we drink 8 glasses of water a day and exercise in the morning." This is a true statement, but if we're also eating 3 double bacon cheeseburgers every day, then all that exercise and drinking of water will be for naught. Someone can tell you you’re living healthy in one way, without explaining the totality of healthfulness. I just don't understand why or how John 3:16 can be seen as the end all; be all. I mean, what it says is absolutely true, and it's a hallmark of our faith. But I don't see anyone going around saying "hey we're gonna be justified by our words... because that's what Jesus said in Matthew 12." Yea, and... what else did Christ and the other New Testament writers say that we need to do? Well, everything that I listed from the Scriptures. "We are saved" by God's grace through these actions of ours enumerated in Scripture.
You then asked, Tom: "How frequently must I receive the sacrament in order to have eternal life? Once a day? Once a year? Once every ten years? How many total times in my life must I receive the sacrament in order to be feeding and drinking so that I have eternal life? Those questions have no answers."
Actually, these questions do have answers. That is, they have answers if you believe in the authority of the infallible Church founded by Christ; the Church which holds the keys given to Peter by Christ. We must receive the Eucharist at least once a year. As it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season" (CCC 1389) And in the Code of Canon Law: After being initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year. This precept must be fulfilled during the Easter season unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at another time during the year" (Canon 920).
But then, if one doesn't believe in the authority of the Church, which is where Moses' seat is made manifest today, then this means nothing. But it surely answers your question which you said were unanswerable. We are obliged to fulfill this precept; if we as the faithful do not, this becomes grave matter, and leads to mortal sin, i.e., total separation from God. Truly, the Eucharist is life-giving in so many ways, and surely makes us capable of attaining eternal life, just as Christ said.
...
Nicholas wrote, "There are way too many topics being brought up here, so instead I'd like to focus on this most glaring portion of your words."
Sounds good to me.
I wrote, "The problem with using John 6 as a reference to the eucharist is that Jesus there says in verse 53, "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." This makes participation in the eucharist necessary for salvation. And look at verse 54, "Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him upon the last day." If that is about the eucharist, then if someone participates in the eucharist once in his life, he is saved. Neither faith nor works are necessary."
Nicholas responded, "This is where your theology of "once saved, always saved" causes you to misunderstand what Christ is saying here regarding the Eucharist. You can't have one event or one verse dictate a theology of salvation, as you do with John 3:16. Instead, as Fr. Hill mentioned with his very appropriate analogy, you have to look at the Scriptures in its entirety!"
Which means that John 6 cannot refer to the eucharist. That interpretation puts John 6 into contradiction with the rest of the New Testament.
 |
| Baptism of Christ- Nicolas Poussin |
How? How does such an interpretation of John 6 put it into contradiction with the rest of the New Testament? Will you say the same for Matt 12:37, that we aren't justified by our words since that goes against what you erroneously believe John 3:16 is saying? Because Matt. 12:37 is pretty darn clear. Or any of the other verses I posted? I think the assertion made earlier about you is right...
You are like the people spoken of in Acts 13:44. There is no contradiction found in the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church's teaching on John 6 and the rest of the New Testament. You only perceive that there is one, it only seems like a contradiction in your eyes because you choose not to grasp the Truth. Such an interpretation of John 3:16, as you hold it, is ridiculous. And once you see and understand the totality of Scripture, and not ONLY one verse out of context, you will see that we are saved by our words, by the Eucharist, by our faith, and by our works. Again, I will post the list I provided again with selections that specifically tell us how we as human beings are saved and justified. Here's the rub, John 3:16 and John 6:54 are just TWO of these conditions:
We are saved by declaring with our mouths: (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9);
We are saved by keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17);
We are saved by our words (Matt 12:37);
We are saved by the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6);
We are saved by baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5);
We are saved by repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9);
We are saved by grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8);
We are saved by coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26);
We are saved by works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24);
We are saved by Christ's blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22);
We are saved by Christ's righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1).
Nicholas, "Tom... did you actually read anything I just wrote, or did you gloss over it? You've posted the exact same thing again, and I've already refuted it."
Yes, I read it.
Nick wrote, "How? How does such an interpretation of John 6 put it into contradicition with the rest of the New Testament?"
That is exactly what you are saying, Nick. If John 6 is speaking about the eucharist, then the eucharist is sufficient for salvation which contradicts the rest of the New Testament, as you have pointed out. Therefore, John 6 is not about the eucharist.
Nick wrote, "Will you say the same for Matt 12:37, that we aren't justified by our words since that goes against what you erroneously believe John 3:16 is saying? Because Matt. 12:37 is pretty darn clear. Or any of the other verses I posted? I think the assertion made earlier about you is right..."
John 6: 54, "Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." If "feeds" here refers to the eucharist, since God's word is always true, then it is clear that whoever participates in the eucharist has eternal life. If someone participates in the eucharist but is not baptized or has not repented, he still has eternal life, because Jesus said whoever participates in the eucharist has eternal life. That must be the Roman Catholic position if that church is consistent in its use of reason and interpretation of Scripture.
On the other hand, if according to Matthew 12: 37, we are justified by our words, and if justified here means having eternal life, then all we have to do is speak the right words in the right way, and we don't have to take the eucharist. That throws the whole Bible into contradiction. But that is an inevitable result of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture and of the way it uses reason.
Nick, you have to look at the list you gave and decide whether the relationship between the different items on it is "either... or" or "both... and." If "either... or" is true, and someone has eternal life, because he participates in the eucharist or says the right words, then everything else on your list is unnecessary. If "both... and" is true, then even though every item on the list is found in a person's life, but one item is missing, then he is damned. Are either of these options really what you think the Bible teaches?
Or you could consider the Protestant way of interpreting Scripture. We realize that some words have more than one definition. Which definition is intended in a passage is dependent on the context. Sometimes words are used literally, and sometimes they are used figuratively. Sometimes words are addressed to believers and sometimes to all people, including unbelievers.
Have you ever studied hermeneutics?
Tom, I hope you realize I was not being facetious when asking if you had read my previous post. Thanks for your clarification that you did read it. Sometimes, when engaging in discourse with you, it appears that you jump over certain statements, zero in on others, and disregard whatever you don't like. This is why I felt I need to ask if you read what I said. I believe you, but I still feel that you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching, and I'll tell you how so.
You said: If John 6 is speaking about the eucharist, then the eucharist is sufficient for salvation which contradicts the rest of the New Testament, as you have pointed out. Therefore, John 6 is not about the eucharist."
False. You don't believe the Eucharist is sufficient for salvation. I don't believe the Eucharist is sufficient for salvation. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not believe the Eucharist is sufficient for salvation. The words I've spoken show no such thing. You still have your Protestant glasses on, Tom. I must ask, what is necessary for salvation? Is it only what is contained in John 3:16, that we believe in Christ and profess it? Because if that's so, you've turned justification into something God is obligated to do for us.
 |
| Peter's Vision With a Sheet of Animals- Domenico Fetti |
You also said, Tom: "If someone participates in the eucharist but is not baptized or has not repented, he still has eternal life, because Jesus said whoever participates in the eucharist has eternal life. That must be the Roman Catholic position if that church is consistent in its use of reason and interpretation of Scripture."
No. This is not the Catholic (or Orthodox) position on the Eucharist. Again, we take Scripture in its entirety, and we realize that Scripture cannot contradict itself. St. Paul tells us plainly that one can be condemned by partaking of the Eucharist:
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned" (1 Cor. 11:27-34).
Would you like to tell St. Paul that he is contradicting Christ? That one inspired writer is contradicting another inspired writer? The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have taught since the Church's birth that the Eucharist. When I go to the Byzantine Catholic Church near me, the prayer we recite before the reception of the Eucharist includes this section: "May the partaking of Your Holy Mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment or condemnation, but for the healing of soul and body."
We truly will have eternal life as Christ says if we receive the Eucharist, but if we have deadly sin on our souls, or mortal sin as St. John calls it (1 Jn 5:16-17), we will be cut off from the vine (Jn 15:6) and be condemned to eternal separation from god. However, as St. Paul makes clear, we can be "grafted" back into the true Vine (Rom. 11:23) since we are no longer under the system of Law, but the system of grace where god can forgive us our sins, and bring us into life everlasting. Remember, you believe that salvation is a one time deal that God is obligated to uphold. Catholics and Orthodox alike believe we are redeemed, and our salvation is not assured, as we must reach it in fear and trembling, as St. Paul tells us. The Eucharist is truly capable of giving us life, but we can lose it too.
You wrote, Tom: "On the other hand, if according to Matthew 12: 37, we are justified by our words, and if justified here means having eternal life, then all we have to do is speak the right words in the right way, and we don't have to take the eucharist."
Again, you are using your foggy, Protestant lenses.
"That throws the whole Bible into contradiction. But that is an inevitable result of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture and of the way it uses reason."
It is certainly not inevitable. And that reason is clear by what you posted next:
"Nick, you have to look at the list you gave and decide whether the relationship between the different items on it is "either... or" or "both... and." If "either... or" is true, and someone has eternal life, because he participates in the eucharist or says the right words, then everything else on your list is unnecessary."
You do believe in the "either...or" position; this is why it's so difficult for you to reconcile your belief in John 3:16 encompassing the totality of what salvation means with the entirety of Scripture. It is indeed a "Both/and/and/and/and as I mentioned before, in regards to how our faith and works cooperates with God's grace, but not in the way you posit your question.
You said, "If "both... and" is true, then even though every item on the list is found in a person's life, but one item is missing, then he is damned. Are either of these options really what you think the Bible teaches?"
I don't believe a person is damned if one item is missing. So in response to your question, the answer is no; the two options you've given me do not reflect what I (and the Catholic Church) think the Bible. As I mentioned before, we are not under the system of Law anymore. If we fail in one requirement, it will not condemn us because we now have the opportunity under the system of grace to have our sins held in abeyance until rectified; they can be forgiven! If we don't please God in this new system of grace brought about by Christ's fulfillment (either by falling into mortal sin or not repenting), God will again bring the exacting standards of law against us and condemn us for our sin.
"Or you could consider the Protestant way of interpreting Scripture."
Trust me, I have.
"We realize that some words have more than one definition."
Protestants aren't the only ones. Catholics realize this as well.
"Which definition is intended in a passage is dependent on the context. Sometimes words are used literally, and sometimes they are used figuratively. Sometimes words are addressed to believers and sometimes to all people, including unbelievers."
Catholics also recognize this.
"Have you ever studied hermeneutics?
 |
| St. John the Evangelist |
We know that John's gospel is historical in nature and I think we can both agree that John was striving preserve both the words, as well as the actions, of Jesus.
Where John is clearly biographical, the literal sense of Scripture is emphasized by a certain linguistic psychology: multiple repetition of the message in different words. Where a literal reading is intended, intended meaning is then reinforced by recording the reaction of the people to the literal meaning without the speaker's correction. The best way any person can make a crystal clear, literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. We see that Jesus did this in John 6:
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." (Jn 6:51)
"Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you'." (Jn. 6: 53)
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day." (Jn 6:54)
"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." (Jn 6:55)
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (Jn 6:56)
Pretty clear, no? A rupture in hermeneutics comes from the various Protestant doctrines which try to make Christ's declaration of the Real Presence, and the change that effects the Real Presence, into some kind of allegory. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying; one needed to eat the Son of Man's Body and Blood. But being against Mosaic Law, many rejected Christ. Christ obviously would've stooped them if it was just a misunderstanding. But Christ knew He was talking literally, so did His audience, and so did the Early Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment