One of the great figures of history meets us at this period, Augustine (354-430),[17] whose teachings have left an indelible mark on all succeeding ages. In his voluminous writings and especially in his "Confessions", Augustine reveals himself in so intimate a way as to give the impression of being an acquaintance and a friend. A native of Numidia, he describes his early surroundings, thoughts, and impressions. His saintly mother, Monica, lives again in his pages as we read of her
prayers for him, of her early hopes, and of her later sorrow as he grew up in a sinful manner of life, of her faith in his eventual salvation, strengthened by a vision and by the wise counsel of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. His father was more concerned for his material, worldly advancement.
Though seeking light he found himself hopelessly bound by a sinful, self-indulgent life. For a time he thought he had found deliverance in Manichaeism, but soon perceived its inconsistency and weakness. He was affected by the preaching of Ambrose, but yet found no peace. When he was 32 years of age and was employed as a teacher of rhetoric in Milan, he had reached a desperate state of distress, and
then, to use his own words: "I flung myself down, how I know not, under a certain fig-tree, giving free course to my tears.... I sent up these sorrowful cries, 'How long, how long? To-morrow and to-morrow? Why not now? Why is there not this hour an end to my uncleanness?' I was saying these things and weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when lo, I heard the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming from a neighbouring house and oft repeating, 'Take up and read, take up and read.' Immediately my countenance was changed, and I began most earnestly to consider whether it was usual for children in any kind of game to sing such words, nor could I remember ever to have heard the like. So, restraining the torrent of my tears, I rose up, interpreting it no other way than as a command to me from Heaven to open the book, and to read the first chapter I should light upon.... I grasped,
opened, and in silence read that paragraph on which my eyes first fell--'Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying, but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.' No further would I read, nor did I need, for instantly, as the sentence ended--by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart--all gloom of doubt vanished away."
This, his conversion, caused the greatest joy, but no surprise, to his praying mother Monica, who, as they were returning to Africa a year later, died in peace. Augustine was baptised by Ambrose in Milan (387) and became later Bishop of Hippo (now Bona) in North Africa (395).
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The Pilgrim Church: The Conversion of Augustine
Here's another excerpt from 'The Pilgrim Church' by E.H. Broadbent, about the conversion of Augustine, which sounds similar to the conversion stories of St. Patrick (who was not Roman Catholic, but came from the Celtic line which descended from very early evangelism in the British Isles) and of Charles Spurgeon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
91 comments:
Pope St. Celestine I, who rendered immortal service to the Church by the overthrow of the Pelagian and Nestorian heresies, and by the imperishable wreath of honour decreed to the Blessed Virgin in the General Council of Ephesus, crowned his pontificate by an act of the most far-reaching consequences for the spread of Christianity and civilization, when he entrusted St. Patrick with the mission of gathering the Irish race into the one fold of Christ. Palladius had already received that commission, but terrified by the fierce opposition of a Wicklow chieftain had abandoned the sacred enterprise. It was St. Germain, Bishop of Auxerre, who commended Patrick to the pope.
I wonder where you read or heard that St Patrick was not Roman Catholic?
Several sources I have read say that there were influences earlier than and outside of the Roman Church that spread the gospel in early europe and the British Isles. Following are a few articles that refer to a controversy of views about who Patrick was.
http://www.the-highway.com/patrick_Bennett.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Patrick
http://www.reformation.org/vol1ch24.html (in this book: http://www.reformation.org/vol1contents.html)
Jennie,
From the source of your first post:
"1. I, Patrick, a sinner, a most simple countryman, the least of all the faithful and most contemptible to many, had for father the deacon Calpurnius, son of the late Potitus, a priest,
51 More, I spent for you so that they would receive me. And I went about among you, and everywhere for your sake, in danger, and as far as the outermost regions beyond which no one lived, and where no one had ever penetrated before, to baptize or to ordain clergy or to confirm people. Conscientiously and gladly I did all this work by God's gift for your salvation. "
1.Okay, so his father was a deacon and his grandfather was a priest.
2.He baptized and ordained clergy(priests) and he administered the Sacrament of Confirmation. So let's think about this for a minute. If he baptized and confirmed(which only a bishop did)why did he bother to ordain clergy? To say Mass and to Consecrate the Eucharist and to hear Confessions. This may not be obvious to you, but it is to any Catholic who knows anything about the Faith.
Just so you know, I simply read the source Bennett posted in its entirety...
Leo,
If you read the section in Bennett's article 'His Mission Begins' you will see that there is evidence that Patrick arrived in Ireland in 405 AD, many years before Pope Celestine became Bishop of Rome, and before Palladius came to Ireland. The story of Palladius has apparently been confused with that of Patrick, according to some sources. Palladius was Roman Catholic.
Patrick's testimony mentions nothing that would make him specifically Roman Catholic.
Leo,
also Patrick was writing in another language, so 'priest' may in fact mean 'presbyter' or 'elder' which was the proper word used by the early church in scripture.
Patrick's testimony speaks not one word about being saved through sacraments or praying to saints or Mary, but only speaks of being saved directly by his encounter with Christ who called him out of sin and showed him great grace and mercy. He came directly to Christ, not through any church rituals.
Jennie,
It never ceases to amaze me how Protestants look for any evidence to discredit the Church. Look, St. Patrick was not mistaken for anyone else and there are numerous writings and histories within the Church to show that. He was ordained by St. Germanus, the Bishop of Auxerre and good records are kept within the Church to know who the bishops were. He did, in fact, visit the Holy Father to get the apostolic blessing and the mission. Here is one site that gives plenty of detail...
http://celticchristianity.org/library/patrick.html
And by the way,' priest' is the more correct interpretation than 'elder'. It is the English word for presbyter and comes from 'presbyteroi'.
All salvation comes from Christ and the Church has never claimed that it comes from any rituals.
However, the Sacraments were indeed instituted by Christ as the ordinary means of transmitting sanctifying grace
Oh, and here is his letter to Carotocus...he speaks of administering Confirmation as a bishop...
http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/p02.html
I see that he says 'I myself confirmed them in Christ.' He also says 'yet I am established here in Ireland where I profess myself bishop'. I think confirmed in old times may mean something much more informal and much more personal than the official practice today. My impression is that Patrick was 'bishop' or pastor under the direct authority of his call by Christ, rather than by official appointment.
This is a very interesting subject and I wish I could find more information about it. I think the truth is not exactly what you or I might think or understand. I sometimes feel that I am in a tug of war between the Catholics and the Calvinists. Not that I am being pulled toward either one, because I'm not. But that the understanding of each is so opposite, and the truth is somewhere other than either one thinks in many areas.
Why are you trying to create a scenario in which Patrick is not Catholic?
I'm not trying to 'create' a scenario, just offer a different point of view that is just as valid, given the information or lack of it.
There is controversy about the RCC claiming Patrick as one of their own. It isn't a given.
Jennie,
You are missing the obvious. He anointed them with oil before they were martyred. That is Confirmation.
Jennie,
You are missing the obvious. He anointed them with oil before they were martyred. That is Confirmation. He also said that he baptized them and then confirmed them, in that order.
Actually, you will hate me for this, but the Truth is totally within the Church. All of your sources are simply trying to find some desperate way to show that it just is not so...but...it is so.
You left yourself wide open for that one. Don't forget that these bishops and priests performed many mircacles which, by the way, cannot seem to be found amongst the heretics.
Does it not seem strange that miracles are just not spoken of or evinced outside of the Church to the same degree that they are within?
Before you go there, Jesus said that He performed His miracles so that we would believe. He also said that believers would do even greater things. So, what do you suppose happened with Luther, Calvin, etc?
Confirmation is the same today, by the way. Each confirmand is anointing individually with oil. Each is prepared for the sacrament. Priests and bishops are ordained by Christ's calling, of course, THROUGH sacramental authority that IS Christ's and was GIVEN by Christ.
Why is it that John can give you wholehearted appreciation for Bonhoeffer without odd inventions of re-creating his denomination, but you cannot mention Patrick without a parenthetical clause that asserts without foundation that Patrick was not Roman Catholic? Why is that important to you? Why is it important, for YOU, to assert that the Catholicism of Patrick and Augustine are open to question? These are serious questions that I hope you will try to answer.
First of all, confirmation and anointing with oil are not confined only to Roman Catholicism. Secondly, the 'catholicism' of the fifth century is not the same as the catholicism of more recent times.
Well,
1. Christ instituted the 7 Sacraments and His apostles celebrated them from the beginning.
2. He celebrated the first Mass on Holy Thursday and commanded His apostles to likewise celebrate Mass in remembrance of Him.
3. He instituted the transferrence of His authority by the laying on of hands.
4. The Apostles Creed was written by...yep, the apostles to remind everyone what we believe. Remember that it is the #1 mission of the Church to pass on the deposit of Faith. Of course, to your point, the Nicene Creed was written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to address the new heresies as they came up. The earliest evidence of the Creed having come from the apostles is in the early 4th century. It has been written in fragmented places, however, that the elements at least all existed from apostolic times.
He celebrated the first Mass on Holy Thursday and commanded His apostles to likewise celebrate Mass in remembrance of Him.
That's a traditional belief that doesn't add up. Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
I believe what Jesus said, but the RCC says Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday morning. That doesn't leave room for three days and three nights. The Bible doesn't actually say what day Jesus died, or what day the last supper was on. It does say He rose on the first day of the week, which for the Jews actually began on what we would call Saturday evening. If Jesus died on Wednesday afternoon, and was put in the grave late on Wednesday (which to the Jews would be the beginning of Thursday), He would be in the grave Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night, and Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, until Saturday evening, which is the beginning of the first day of the week for the Jews. The Sabbath that is mentioned is not Saturday, but a special Sabbath related to Passover and the feast of unleavened bread. Tradition is not always correct, and often contradicts God's word.
Here's an interesting article about Patrick that I just found:
http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/donal/patricks_life.htm
It seems to support the idea that Patrick was not appointed by Rome, and was not educated by Rome, but went as a missionary appointed by God and possibly by the British church with which he was associated. Also, it brings out the possibility that there was a later attempt to associate Patrick with Rome and that his life events may have become confused with the life of Palladius, who was a bishop sent by Rome.
Jennie,
Once again, you need to interpret scripture in light of the faith and not on your own. Otherwise, you end up like a Seventh Day Adventist and worship on Saturday.
Here is a good excerpt from Licona, "Mike Licona covers this topic in his book Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection on pages 88-89, in the following way
"...the phrase 'three days and three nights' is a Jewish idiom meaning a short period of time and does not necessarily have to include three days and three nights. Today we might speak of a long task taking 'forever.' We mean that it will take a long time. We do not mean that it will take an infinite amount of time and is incapable of being completed. Likewise, someone may say that something will take 'only a minute' This means a very short time, not sixty seconds. These are simply English idioms. Idioms exist in all langauges."
He then goes on to give an example from the book of Esther where this idiom is also used, when Esther states the following:
"Go, assmeble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way.. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish." (Esther 4:16 NASB)
Two verses later, however, we read:
"Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king's rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." (Esther 5:1 NASB)
Licona comments: "Esther did not wait a full three days and three nights. She went to the king on the third day. So that would be two days plus a number of hours."
Licona also points out that from the Gospel of Matthew itself, the same place where we read the prophecy of "three days and three nights", we see that three days and three nights is not meant to be taken literally. After Jesus's crucifixion, the Jewish leaders went to Pilate and said:
"Sir, we remember that while living that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise.' Theresefore, order the grave to be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people, 'He was raised from the dead,' and the last deceit will be worse than the first." (Matthew 27:63-34).
Licona comments: "Notice that they say that Jesus predicted he would rise after three days. So what do they do? They request that the grave be secured by guards until the third day. If the term 'after three days' is a Jewish idiom that does not mean a full seventy-two hours, this passage has no conflict. But if by it Jesus meant he would be dead at least seventy-two hours, then the Jewish leaders are foolish to reqauest that the grave be secured 'until the third day' In other words, they intend to pull the guard just before Jesus said he would rise, which would leave nearly twenty-four hours for the disciples to steal his body. You see? Understanding 'three days' in a literal sense does not make sense. Therefore, when we consider two Jewish writings, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, the terms 'after three days' and 'three days and three nights' seem to be a Jewish idiom that is not in conflict with the earliest Christian claims that Jesus was raised 'on the third day'.
Tradition does 'add up'. The Church does not teach error. You do when you misinterpret according to your own misunderstanding. Do you honestly believe that somewhere along the way, the faithful simply forgot that it was really Thursday when the Last Supper was celebrated?
Jennie,
Tradition DOES 'add up' and does not 'contradict God's word'. Here is a good explanation for you.
"Mike Licona covers this topic in his book Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection on pages 88-89, in the following way
"...the phrase 'three days and three nights' is a Jewish idiom meaning a short period of time and does not necessarily have to include three days and three nights. Today we might speak of a long task taking 'forever.' We mean that it will take a long time. We do not mean that it will take an infinite amount of time and is incapable of being completed. Likewise, someone may say that something will take 'only a minute' This means a very short time, not sixty seconds. These are simply English idioms. Idioms exist in all langauges."
He then goes on to give an example from the book of Esther where this idiom is also used, when Esther states the following:
"Go, assmeble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way.. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish." (Esther 4:16 NASB)
Two verses later, however, we read:
"Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king's rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." (Esther 5:1 NASB)
Licona comments: "Esther did not wait a full three days and three nights. She went to the king on the third day. So that would be two days plus a number of hours."
Licona also points out that from the Gospel of Matthew itself, the same place where we read the prophecy of "three days and three nights", we see that three days and three nights is not meant to be taken literally. After Jesus's crucifixion, the Jewish leaders went to Pilate and said:
"Sir, we remember that while living that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise.' Theresefore, order the grave to be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people, 'He was raised from the dead,' and the last deceit will be worse than the first." (Matthew 27:63-34).
Licona comments: "Notice that they say that Jesus predicted he would rise after three days. So what do they do? They request that the grave be secured by guards until the third day. If the term 'after three days' is a Jewish idiom that does not mean a full seventy-two hours, this passage has no conflict. But if by it Jesus meant he would be dead at least seventy-two hours, then the Jewish leaders are foolish to reqauest that the grave be secured 'until the third day' In other words, they intend to pull the guard just before Jesus said he would rise, which would leave nearly twenty-four hours for the disciples to steal his body. You see? Understanding 'three days' in a literal sense does not make sense. Therefore, when we consider two Jewish writings, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, the terms 'after three days' and 'three days and three nights' seem to be a Jewish idiom that is not in conflict with the earliest Christian claims that Jesus was raised 'on the third day'.
So you see, once again, the Church does not teach error. Do you honestly believe that the faithful would have somehow forgotten what day the Last Supper was? The way you interpret scripture, you should become a Seventh Day Adventist. You should go to the Holy Land someday and you will find something amazing. The locals know where everything in scripture took place. They have not 'forgotten'.
Jennie,
John said that if everything Jesus said and did were to be written down, all the world could probably not contain the books. Thus, I have a thought for you.
Man does not live by scripture alone, but by EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God.
Jennie,
Here is a good explanation of the 3 days.
"Mike Licona covers this topic in his book Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection on pages 88-89, in the following way
"...the phrase 'three days and three nights' is a Jewish idiom meaning a short period of time and does not necessarily have to include three days and three nights. Today we might speak of a long task taking 'forever.' We mean that it will take a long time. We do not mean that it will take an infinite amount of time and is incapable of being completed. Likewise, someone may say that something will take 'only a minute' This means a very short time, not sixty seconds. These are simply English idioms. Idioms exist in all langauges."
He then goes on to give an example from the book of Esther where this idiom is also used, when Esther states the following:
"Go, assmeble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way.. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish." (Esther 4:16 NASB)
Two verses later, however, we read:
"Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king's rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." (Esther 5:1 NASB)
Licona comments: "Esther did not wait a full three days and three nights. She went to the king on the third day. So that would be two days plus a number of hours."
Licona also points out that from the Gospel of Matthew itself, the same place where we read the prophecy of "three days and three nights", we see that three days and three nights is not meant to be taken literally. After Jesus's crucifixion, the Jewish leaders went to Pilate and said:
"Sir, we remember that while living that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise.' Theresefore, order the grave to be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people, 'He was raised from the dead,' and the last deceit will be worse than the first." (Matthew 27:63-34).
Licona comments: "Notice that they say that Jesus predicted he would rise after three days. So what do they do? They request that the grave be secured by guards until the third day. If the term 'after three days' is a Jewish idiom that does not mean a full seventy-two hours, this passage has no conflict. But if by it Jesus meant he would be dead at least seventy-two hours, then the Jewish leaders are foolish to reqauest that the grave be secured 'until the third day' In other words, they intend to pull the guard just before Jesus said he would rise, which would leave nearly twenty-four hours for the disciples to steal his body. You see? Understanding 'three days' in a literal sense does not make sense. Therefore, when we consider two Jewish writings, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, the terms 'after three days' and 'three days and three nights' seem to be a Jewish idiom that is not in conflict with the earliest Christian claims that Jesus was raised 'on the third day'.
Tradition is not in error. Do you really believe that the faithful simply got confused and forgot when the key events of our Faith took place?
Jennie,
Mike Licona covers this topic in his book Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection on pages 88-89, in the following way
"...the phrase 'three days and three nights' is a Jewish idiom meaning a short period of time and does not necessarily have to include three days and three nights. Today we might speak of a long task taking 'forever.' We mean that it will take a long time. We do not mean that it will take an infinite amount of time and is incapable of being completed. Likewise, someone may say that something will take 'only a minute' This means a very short time, not sixty seconds. These are simply English idioms. Idioms exist in all langauges."
He then goes on to give an example from the book of Esther where this idiom is also used, when Esther states the following:
"Go, assmeble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way.. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish." (Esther 4:16 NASB)
Two verses later, however, we read:
"Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king's rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." (Esther 5:1 NASB)
Licona comments: "Esther did not wait a full three days and three nights. She went to the king on the third day. So that would be two days plus a number of hours."
Licona also points out that from the Gospel of Matthew itself, the same place where we read the prophecy of "three days and three nights", we see that three days and three nights is not meant to be taken literally. After Jesus's crucifixion, the Jewish leaders went to Pilate and said:
"Sir, we remember that while living that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise.' Theresefore, order the grave to be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people, 'He was raised from the dead,' and the last deceit will be worse than the first." (Matthew 27:63-34).
Licona comments: "Notice that they say that Jesus predicted he would rise after three days. So what do they do? They request that the grave be secured by guards until the third day. If the term 'after three days' is a Jewish idiom that does not mean a full seventy-two hours, this passage has no conflict. But if by it Jesus meant he would be dead at least seventy-two hours, then the Jewish leaders are foolish to reqauest that the grave be secured 'until the third day' In other words, they intend to pull the guard just before Jesus said he would rise, which would leave nearly twenty-four hours for the disciples to steal his body. You see? Understanding 'three days' in a literal sense does not make sense. Therefore, when we consider two Jewish writings, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, the terms 'after three days' and 'three days and three nights' seem to be a Jewish idiom that is not in conflict with the earliest Christian claims that Jesus was raised 'on the third day'.
Tradition is not in error. Do you really believe that the faithful simply got confused and forgot when the key events of our Faith took place?
Jennie,
Mike Licona covers this topic in his book Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection on pages 88-89, in the following way
"...the phrase 'three days and three nights' is a Jewish idiom meaning a short period of time and does not necessarily have to include three days and three nights. Today we might speak of a long task taking 'forever.' We mean that it will take a long time. We do not mean that it will take an infinite amount of time and is incapable of being completed. Likewise, someone may say that something will take 'only a minute' This means a very short time, not sixty seconds. These are simply English idioms. Idioms exist in all langauges."
He then goes on to give an example from the book of Esther where this idiom is also used, when Esther states the following:
"Go, assmeble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way.. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish." (Esther 4:16 NASB)
Two verses later, however, we read:
"Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king's rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." (Esther 5:1 NASB)
Licona comments: "Esther did not wait a full three days and three nights. She went to the king on the third day. So that would be two days plus a number of hours."
Licona also points out that from the Gospel of Matthew itself, the same place where we read the prophecy of "three days and three nights", we see that three days and three nights is not meant to be taken literally. After Jesus's crucifixion, the Jewish leaders went to Pilate and said:
"Sir, we remember that while living that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise.' Theresefore, order the grave to be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people, 'He was raised from the dead,' and the last deceit will be worse than the first." (Matthew 27:63-34).
Licona comments: "Notice that they say that Jesus predicted he would rise after three days. So what do they do? They request that the grave be secured by guards until the third day. If the term 'after three days' is a Jewish idiom that does not mean a full seventy-two hours, this passage has no conflict. But if by it Jesus meant he would be dead at least seventy-two hours, then the Jewish leaders are foolish to reqauest that the grave be secured 'until the third day' In other words, they intend to pull the guard just before Jesus said he would rise, which would leave nearly twenty-four hours for the disciples to steal his body. You see? Understanding 'three days' in a literal sense does not make sense. Therefore, when we consider two Jewish writings, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, the terms 'after three days' and 'three days and three nights' seem to be a Jewish idiom that is not in conflict with the earliest Christian claims that Jesus was raised 'on the third day'.
Jennie,
Contrary to your espousal, the Truth has never left the Church. The sources you cite conveniently eliminate all of the miracles of St. Patrick. Your sources seem to have a real issue with miracles...perhaps because they don't take place so powerfully in their churches?
Heck, even JPII has already had several miracles attributed to him.
Many of the saints performed incredible miracles and I am seeing this firsthand through my travels. For example, St. Fracis Xavier converted more than 100,000 in Asia, starting with his first landing.
He was traveling with Portugese sailors who were pagan and quite taken with evil...not a Christian among them. Well, Francis used to preach from a large crucifix that he wore around his neck.
They were shipwrecked and all had to swim to the shore. When he was on the beach, he noticed that his crucifix was gone and cried out to God for help. A crab came walking out of the ocean, with his crucifix in its claw. He walked up to Francis and handed it to him. All of the men were converted on the spot.
His impact struck me, as you know that all believers were executed many years later and the Church was outlawed. Well, I went to Mass in Shanghai and it is St.Francis Xavier church. Thus, he is working from heaven now.
I also went to Mass this morning in Chennai, India, where St. Thomas the Apostle is buried.
It is amazing that Mass in Shanghai is identical to Mass in Chennai,which is identical to Mass everywhere on earth.
The faithfulness of the priest is irrelevant and I hear the same scriptures read that my family and every Catholic hears throughout the world.
We receive the same Body and Blood of our Lord and I feel completely one with my Indian brothers and sisters in Christ for we can all tell that we share the exact same Faith. By the way, it is the same with my Chinese brothers and sisters as well.
Leo, if Jesus died on Friday, then since the Jewish day begins at sunset Jesus would have been buried at the beginning of Saturday, would have been in the grave for all of Saturday and then rose Sunday morning, which was actually halfway through Sunday. This is only one and a half days. Also, the Jews don't count 'one day plus parts of two days' as 'three days'. It would have to be two full 24 hour days, plus at least part of either the first day or the third day. Friday doesn't fit that no matter how you count it.
I believe Jesus really meant 'three days and three nights' and that Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three full days and three full nights. That's what scripture says.
I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you didn't answer my questions about why you NEED to make Patrick over in your image. What purpose does that serve for you? Do you want Patrick and Augustine to be in the exclusive remnant club with you - the real Christians? You want to claim a common church-view with those who received and performed sacraments as bishops who answered to a pope? Are you saying that they were bishops of some other denomination that also had a hierarchy and sacraments? What in the world would that denomination be?
I AM surprised however at your taking issue with the three days business. Do you not celebrate Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday - as Christianity has done for two thousand plus years?
Jennie,
There are many perspectives to explain His death on Good Friday and His resurrection on Sunday. It has been believed from the beginning. Believers did not go brain dead and lose track any more than you would forget when your birthday is. Here is yet another perspective:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/3days3n.htm
Honestly, you sound like a Seventh Day Adventist.
Why is it that John can give you wholehearted appreciation for Bonhoeffer without odd inventions of re-creating his denomination, but you cannot mention Patrick without a parenthetical clause that asserts without foundation that Patrick was not Roman Catholic? Why is that important to you? Why is it important, for YOU, to assert that the Catholicism of Patrick and Augustine are open to question? These are serious questions that I hope you will try to answer.
There is no question of Bonhoeffer's denomination. The reason I mentioned Patrick is because I have read several sources, which I shared, that contended that Patrick was not Roman Catholic. I didn't go looking for it originally, but just ran across it and then looked up more information. I think it's interesting, and seeing the things Patrick says that I can relate to, such as quotes from scripture which he uses constantly, shows me that he is my elder brother in Christ, and I love him for it. I don't see anything specifically Roman Catholic in anything he says, such as references to Mary or saints or purgatory, etc.
Actual writings that can be safely attributed to Patrick are very few. The fact that we have nothing that from Patrick that tells us with certainty he is Catholic in no way proves that he was not Catholic. With the little we do have it seems the safer assumption is that he is Catholic. To believe otherwise is to ignore the long history of that belief, as if there is or was some sinister plan to make Patrick Catholic. But then, sinister plans are sort of the stuff that Richard Bennett pitches all the time. Without trying to prove Patrick's Catholicism, I must admit that to me to think that he is not Catholic just seems a bit silly.
By the way I did finish the Bonhoeffer book a few days ago. What a great book. Hard not shed a tear at the end even though I knew long before what the end would be for Bonhoeffer. Everyone would benefit from reading his story.
If you all read the posts I've done on 'The Pilgrim Church' you may understand why it is exciting to me to find out that an early Christian may have just as much, or more, in common with me as he does with Roman Catholicism. It is important to me to know that there has always been an element that did not hold to use of images in worship, praying to Mary and saints, purgatory, the primacy of the pope, salvation through the sacraments, etc. The thing that makes someone ROMAN Catholic, as opposed to just Catholic, or something else, is mainly the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and then the other things I listed, many of which followed from that.
Leo,
this page has some interesting things about the 'three days and three nights' issue: http://www.biblebell.org/apol/3daysP2.html
The reason it is important to study this issue and believe what Jesus said is because it is necessary to know that we can trust what Jesus said, and that we can trust scripture to be true and accurate. Jesus literally said 'the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth' and I see no reason to take that as an expression that doesn't literally mean that unless one has to believe one's tradition over what Jesus said. 'In the heart of the earth' I take to mean that He was buried, but also that He went down into Hades and preached to the dead there, as scripture says. Hades is always seen as being downward in the earth. I think Jesus literally meant what He said, and that Jonah being in the whale is a foreshadowing of this.
So, you do not believe in the common celebrations of Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday? Just to be clear.
Christine,
Baptists pretty much stick to Easter, and remember Christ's death and resurrection during that time. Our family also likes to study about Passover during that time as well.
Jennie,
First of all, there were not many saints in the beginning. There has been a growing cloud of witnesses since the Resurrection.
Second of all, what makes you think that St. Patrick did not believe in purgatory? Of course he did, since he is Catholic. He is just safe for you to assume many incorrect things about him because he wrote so little that is known today.
Regarding scripture, where did he get the bible? There were no printing presses. What makes you think that he had all of scripture in his possession?
By fleeing to a 'sola scriptura' approach, you have sacrificed much. I cannot imagine making it through life without the sanctifying grace I receive freely from the Sacraments.
Purgatory is an example of God's mercy. If I need to be perfect to enter heaven, I most certainly appreciate the grace of final purification.
I thank God for the saints, as I do for my guardian angel and all of the other angels such as St. Michael, St. Gabriel, and St. Raphael. They have been assigned by God to protect us as well.
You need to be freed from your completely warrantless fear of the Catholic Church which Jesus gave us as family.
It is pretty obvious that Catholics believe all that you do about God, and yet so many things in addition. You should look at St. Patrick and think that "wow, he believes so much the way I do and yet he was a bishop and priest and came from a Catholic family. Perhaps there is so much more to the Faith than I ever realized. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Truth all along. Perhaps I should find out."
You diligently study the scriptures, thinking that by them you possess eternal life.
It just does not work that way...
Amen to Leo's words. We all have so much in common! Why wouldn't Patrick be a worthy hero and saint as a Catholic? I'm sorry that your caricature-like view of us still carries the day, after all that we've discussed.
The Passover is of crucial importance to Catholics. Holy Thursday is the New Passover - where believers first ate of the True Lamb of sacrifice. It was part of the Passover ritual, right? They HAD to literally eat the lamb that was sacrificed.
But let's not go too far afield - this is about Patrick. I guess I was thinking that whatever you have to do in your mind to make it okay, it is good for anyone to study Patrick.
"Jesus literally said 'the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth' and..."
He also said at the last supper, "this is my body." He also said, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood you have no life in you." Of course you do not take that literally.
John,
Jesus also said in John 6:
40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
The first two passages are parallel, and equate believing with eating. In the third passage Jesus says He is speaking of the Spirit and not the flesh. The Spirit gives life, not material bread. We eat His flesh and drink His blood by coming to Him and believing in Him by faith. He isn't speaking of the Eucharist, but the Eucharist is a remembrance of the sacrifice which we accept by faith and then remember by faith, as well as becoming 'one flesh' or 'one loaf' with Christ and His body by faith. The word and the Spirit sanctify us and save us, not eating bread, as the Israelites ate manna and died. That's what I believe Jesus is saying
Leo,
You diligently study the scriptures, thinking that by them you possess eternal life.
Jesus isn't saying that one can't find eternal life by studying the scriptures. He is talking to the Jewish leaders who thought they were saved because they 'knew' the scriptures, but they actually didn't know anything, and didn't recognize the Savior that the scriptures told of. They were self-righteous. If we hear the word of God and believe it, and study to show ourselves approved unto God, that's a good thing. Jesus said 'Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth.' God's word sanctifies us along with the work of the Spirit. The Spirit works through the word to teach and sanctify us.
You said:
Jesus isn't saying that one can't find eternal life by studying the scriptures. He is talking to the Jewish leaders who thought they were saved because they 'knew' the scriptures, but they actually didn't know anything, and didn't recognize the Savior that the scriptures told of. They were self-righteous.
Yes, that is the point that Leo is making about some "Bible Christians".
Then you said:
If we hear the word of God and believe it, and study to show ourselves approved unto God, that's a good thing. Jesus said 'Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth.' God's word sanctifies us along with the work of the Spirit. The Spirit works through the word to teach and sanctify us.
Catholics would wholeheartedly agree, obviously. Although we would not limit the "your word is truth" part to be speaking about the the written "word" only, of course, since God did not limit Himself in any such way.
The Passover is of crucial importance to Catholics. Holy Thursday is the New Passover - where believers first ate of the True Lamb of sacrifice. It was part of the Passover ritual, right? They HAD to literally eat the lamb that was sacrificed.
Yes, the Israelites literally ate the lamb, and the literal lamb was not what saved them. It was God that saved them. It was their faith in God and obedience to His command to put the blood on the doorposts, etc., that saved them. They trusted in God, and the lamb was a picture or symbol of the future Lamb that would be sacrificed, though they could not know this yet. They only knew the word that God had given and obeyed it, as Abraham did by faith many years before them. When we see the Lamb and hear His word and obey the gospel (believe and submit in repentance), then we are saved from death as well. Eating the lamb, for all the years after that, was a remembrance by faith of what God had originally done for them on that first Passover. And it was also a foreshadowing of what God would finally do for all of us who believe. The Lord's Supper is a remembrance by faith of what Jesus did for us on Calvary. Jesus' sacrifice and our response of faith is what saves us, not eating the bread and drinking the wine.
I wasn't talking about "what saves us".
Protestants and Catholics alike recognize Jesus as the true Passover Lamb. We all recognize him in his having shed blood and having been innocent and yet slain, just as the Passover lamb. I was just pointing out that Jesus completes that parallel when he says "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you", etc. Protestants choose not to take Jesus' words literally, thereby breaking off the Jesus/Lamb parallel before its fulfillment in the Eucharist.
The Jesus/Lamb parallel wasn't fulfilled in the Eucharist, but in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross on the day of Passover. Just as all subsequent Passovers remember the first Passover when God saved His people, so all subsequent Suppers remember the Cross where God saved His people. Nothing has been broken off. God's word has been fulfilled in Christ, and in the Body of Christ which is the church. The Eucharist is the promise of Christ and His Bride united completely, as we are now united spiritually by faith. The Bride and Bridegroom are not united physically until the Wedding takes place.
To complete the picture, just as the Passover Lamb was a remembrance of the salvation of God yet also a foreshadowing of the future fulfillment by Christ, so the Eucharist is a remembrance of the salvation of God yet also a foreshadowing of the future fulfillment in the Bridegroom and Bride united in one flesh, one Body. It is a material picture of what we now have by faith, but will someday have in completeness.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The whole idea of Christ ascending to heaven and sending the Holy Spirit is that the betrothed Bride must live in faith and hope without physically seeing or touching her beloved until He comes to claim her. The Holy Spirit is the promise and help and comfort that He will return. The idea of the bread and wine physically being Christ is against this scriptural theme of living by faith and not sight, being faithful until He comes.
Faith doesn't seek to bring Christ physically before His time, but keeps His word in our hearts by faith.
Romans 10:6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”(that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Interesting. Yes, Catholics believe in and experience a here-and-now union in the Eucharist. But we only believe it because of His words at the Last Supper and His teaching which is expressed in John 6. Paul seems to make the literal interpretation clear as well. Not because we made it up just to be annoying.
I never looked at the Eucharist as a conjugal union, and I don't think that is part of the Passover analogy that we were discussing, but I could be wrong. Other commenters?
But we only believe it because of His words at the Last Supper and His teaching which is expressed in John 6. Paul seems to make the literal interpretation clear as well. Not because we made it up just to be annoying.
Yes, I believe the idea of the 'real presence' and later the 'physical presence' of Christ in the Eucharist developed gradually starting very early in the church history. It is understandable based on the scriptures, yet based on the whole of scripture as we see it, we don't believe transubstantiation is the Biblical doctrine of the Apostles.
"The idea of the bread and wine physically being Christ is against this scriptural theme of living by faith and not sight, being faithful until He comes."
Not so...We, like the apostles, must believe that the bread and wine actually become Jesus Christ at the Consecration. That is by faith and not by sight. It obviously still looks and tastes like bread and wine. We know by faith that this is no longer so. Thus, it is NOT against the theme of faith vs. sight but actually bolsters it infinitely.
Think about it. We can have Jesus inside of us physically, just as Mary did. We then give birth to Him as He trasforms us into likenesses of Himself.
Each Eucharist is united outside of time and space as the same Passover meal celebrated on Holy Thursday.
To believe in Jesus means to believe ALL that He taught and obey all that He commands. He does this through His Church and salvation is through her alone. The fact that the Holy Father prays for ALL people and prayers are offered up at Mass for the entire world provides All a chance to get to heaven. Whether you like it or not, Pope Benedict has the full authority of Jesus Christ on earth.
You also mentioned that they did need to obey for the angel of death to pass over. Thus, they needed to eat the lamb or they would wake up to dead first borns.
Since every Mass is one and the same with Calvary, we must eat the Lamb to pass over from death into everlasting life.
The words to "eat my body" are unmistakable and mean to chew as an animal chews its food. That is why Jesus was placed in a manger.
That is where a higher being places food for a lower being and the latter eats the food for sustenance.
That is where God placed Jesus the Lamb, showing that we will eat him physically for spiritual sustenance.
This is why He is the Lamb of God. Eating is a mandatory part of the ritual. The completion of the ritual for satisfaction demands it.
This is why Bethlehem means 'house of bresd'.
This is why Jesus is a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine.
Unless you eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, you shall have no life within you.
I wonder if anyone dared not eat the lamb at the first Passover. We will never know from them because they certainly did not live to tell about it...
Leo, you clarified that superbly, and I thank you.
And Jennie, I am heartened by this from you "It is understandable based on the scriptures" - not that you are agreeing, but that you can, as Steelikat would say, "put yourself in our shoes" a bit.
It obviously still looks and tastes like bread and wine. We know by faith that this is no longer so. Thus, it is NOT against the theme of faith vs. sight but actually bolsters it infinitely.
Ok, but does scripture say that our faith is to be in whether the bread is actually Jesus body, or in the fact that Jesus has died and risen and will come again for us? In the Lord's supper we are remembering by faith His death and looking forward by faith to His coming, as well as knowing by faith that we are the body of Christ which is represented by the bread. We are to love each other and love God because of what He has done for us.
Think about it. We can have Jesus inside of us physically, just as Mary did. We then give birth to Him as He trasforms us into likenesses of Himself.
I believe scripture teaches that Mary bearing Christ is a physical picture of a spiritual truth, that when we believe, Christ comes to dwell in us in Spirit, until the time when we will be together as He promised, and see Him face to face. The Spirit in us does bring forth fruit as we obey Him by faith and become like Him. What has been puzzling me for a long time is, if I am right and you are wrong in our understanding of this (or vice versa), does God count this as faith even though our understanding is faulty, if we truly believe and trust in Him?
You also mentioned that they did need to obey for the angel of death to pass over. Thus, they needed to eat the lamb or they would wake up to dead first borns.
Since every Mass is one and the same with Calvary, we must eat the Lamb to pass over from death into everlasting life.
Leo,
Yes, they needed to eat the lamb, and that is parallel to coming to Christ and believing in Him by faith, as it says in John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."
I believe Jesus was speaking of Spiritual hunger and thirst and Spiritual eating and drinking, which is believing and receiving Him by faith. The Spirit then dwells in us, and we by faith look forward to the time when we will be with Him forever.
Scripture never says that we are saved by eating the bread every week or however often you do it. It says we are saved by coming to Him by faith and believing in Him, knowing that He has provided for us what we can't do for ourselves. It says if we continue to walk by faith in obedience and love, then we will remain in Him. I don't see anywhere that Scripture stresses going to communion as our salvation. If we have come to Christ, then we take communion out of faith and obedience and love, in remembrance of Him as He commanded.
The words to "eat my body" are unmistakable and mean to chew as an animal chews its food. That is why Jesus was placed in a manger.
That is where a higher being places food for a lower being and the latter eats the food for sustenance.
That is where God placed Jesus the Lamb, showing that we will eat him physically for spiritual sustenance.
Leo, look at this passage:
Jeremiah 15:16 Your words were found, and I ate them,
And Your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart;
For I am called by Your name,
O LORD God of hosts.
God is always comparing 'eating' with faith and with taking in His word as our sustenance. Jesus is our bread spiritually by faith, and gives us Spiritual life as well as physical life by providing everything for us that we need.
I believe we 'eat' Him by believing in Him for our Spiritual sustenance. I don't believe we eat physically for spiritual sustenence.
Eating is a mandatory part of the ritual. The completion of the ritual for satisfaction demands it.
I don't understand what you mean by 'the ritual for satisfaction.' Jesus died on the cross to satisfy God's requirement. No other satisfaction is needed.
This is why Bethlehem means 'house of bresd'.
It need not be physical bread to be significant. I believe it is speaking of Jesus as our Spiritual bread that gives us life when we believe in Him, and are regenerated, becoming new creations in Christ. Paul said "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." It doesn't say 'someday you will be a new creation.' It says 'is a new creation.' So we don't take communion to be saved, but because we are saved.
You said: Ok, but does scripture say that our faith is to be in whether the bread is actually Jesus body, or in the fact that Jesus has died and risen and will come again for us?
Another false dichotomy. It's not either/or. The latter is the basis for our faith, the former is what Jesus told us ("this is my body") and what he told us to do ("Do this in memory of me").
From Jeremiah we hear that we are nourished by the word. Yes! From Jesus we hear that unless we literally "chew" his body, as Leo said, and drink his blood, we have no life in us. Yes!
There's no either/or. Can you see that the question of whether or not a passage is to be taken literally is just arbitrary for Protestants? Just one person's interpretation among so many. And it is often based on presuppositions. The presupposition in this case is "We can't believe in the Eucharist as Catholics see it", so every verse that relates to this must be rationalized/redefined/trivialized/made figurative in order to fit the presupposition.
Having presuppositions is not necessarily a problem, but it is a conflict with sola scriptura.
The plain truth is that non-Catholic Christians often feel a need to continually justify their separation from the Catholic Church - hence the need for blogs such as Beggars All and T-fan. If they are so very confident in their position, they wouldn't need to fight, fight, fight every day.
Because one thing is clear. They don't do what they do out of love for Catholics. That would look and sound and feel very different. They are needing to justify their position.
"What has been puzzling me for a long time is, if I am right and you are wrong in our understanding of this (or vice versa), does God count this as faith even though our understanding is faulty, if we truly believe and trust in Him?"
Jennie, we are all called to seek Truth above all things in order to find God. He knows each of our hearts and our limitations and judges us accordingly. This is why we can never judge anyone, including ourselves. Only He knows our hearts and the extent of our faithfulness.
He wants all to be saved and we must follow where our consciences lead us. However, we are also obligated to properly form our consciences. Thus, a person who persists in sin or pride will ultimately deaden their conscience and fall prey to the admonition from the saints, "If you do not behave as you believe, you will eventually believe as you behave."
To believe in and to trust Him goes beyond the scriptures, however, He is a real person and knows our deepest thoughts. If we submit ourselves completely to His will, He will most certainly lead us to Himself, with our without scriptures. He can never deny yourself. Thus, if your heart is pure, He will lead you home.
Sorry, should read that "He can never deny Himself".
"Ok, but does scripture say that our faith is to be in whether the bread is actually Jesus body, or in the fact that Jesus has died and risen and will come again for us?"
Jennie, this is not an 'either/or' question. Rather, it is a 'both/and' requirement.
"We eat His flesh and drink His blood by coming to Him and believing in Him by faith. He isn't speaking of the Eucharist,..."
No, we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood by eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood...and, yes, He is absolutely speaking of the Eucharist.
"Yes, the Israelites literally ate the lamb, and the literal lamb was not what saved them. It was God that saved them. It was their faith in God and obedience to His command to put the blood on the doorposts, etc., that saved them."
Well, the literal lamb did not save them, but it was a foreshadowing of the ultimate Lamb who was to come, and He does indeed save us. The difference is that the new Lamb IS God.
As you said, their obedience also played a role. Part of the demand was to physically eat the lamb which was slain.
Again, this is why He was placed in a manger. It was not a cute coincidence; it was by design to show that He really becomes food for us. He is the main course at the heavenly banquet through the transubstantiation.
"Jesus' sacrifice and our response of faith is what saves us, not eating the bread and drinking the wine."
Again, you need to understand that it is no longer bread and wine. If it were, then you would be correct. This is why it is the only place in the entire NT that disciples left him in multitudes over a teaching.
Think about it objectively. These disciples had left jobs, families, and homes to be with Jesus. They would not have gone back just because He was talking figuratively. They clearly understood that He was commanding what they saw as cannibalism and the drinking of blood which was forbidden based on scripture alone.
This is why He chastised them for 'dilligently studying the scriptures, thinking that BY THEM they possess eternal life." They were refusing to come to Him because it seemed to them that He was contradicting scripture according to their own misinterpretation.
"But we only believe it because of His words at the Last Supper and His teaching which is expressed in John 6."
To clarify what Christine said, we also believe it because it is precisely what Jesus meant. This teaching has come directly from the apostles. It is a mistake to assume that it was not apostolic in practice. Remember that they gathered for the 'breaking of the bread' on Sunday which was the Eucharist.
He did not say 'this is in remembrance of my body'. He said "This IS my Body." If He said "this is a bowling ball", it would have become a bowling ball.
"Jeremiah 15:16 Your words were found, and I ate them,
And Your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart;"
The word for 'eat' is not the same. The word used in John 6 is similar to 'masticate' which means to 'chew with the jaws'. It is a very explicit word to get the point across.
"It doesn't say 'someday you will be a new creation.' It says 'is a new creation.' So we don't take communion to be saved, but because we are saved."
Well, yes, to a point...We must be born of the water and of the spirit(baptized) and this allows us to enter the kingdom. However, we are commanded to eat His Body and drink His Blood if we want His life within us. This is the ordinary means He uses to transmit sanctifying grace to us. I am not saying that He will not act outside of ordinary means. He is God and can do whatever He pleases, whenever He pleases.
We absolutely need sanctifying grace to be made holy, as this is an action of God upon us. He makes us clean through our consumption of the Eucharist. Christ is the food that assimilates us into Himself. Just as He made the unclean clean, so too He makes us into likenesses of Himself.
We are indeed a new creation and He has given us Himself as food for the journey. It is not a coincidence that He multiplied the loaves before His teaching on the Eucharist. This was also a foreshadowing that He would multiply Himself to feed us.
Christine,
Actually, I see that you answered one of Jennie's points and I ended weakly repeating your point without realizing it. I had opened the window earlier and did not update it before answering...sorry.
Jennie, I also appreciate your comment on Beggars All to address their approach. If we are all children of God, we should act like it while trying to understand what we all believe and why we believe it.
I must say that I sense a profound difference in your approach towards us lately, and it is most appreciated.
Jennie, I also appreciate your comment on Beggars All to address their approach. If we are all children of God, we should act like it while trying to understand what we all believe and why we believe it.
I must say that I sense a profound difference in your approach towards us lately, and it is most appreciated.
Leo,
Thanks; I felt like that title was unnecessarily offensive, but also that John B. didn't intend it the way it came across. But I've objected before to things like that on Reformed blogs. If one has to tell the truth and that offends someone, that's one thing; but if one is just being a smart-aleck or reacting to someone else in sarcasm, then that's not good. I think our society has been permeated with that attitude of 'sarcasm for effect' by all the entertainment we've been exposed to. That's why I don't let my children watch alot of recent movies and shows. They are full of just plain rudeness and narcissism.
I don't know that my attitude has changed. I think for a while, back when we had some intense discussions, that I was overwhelmed by the contentiousness that came out from some of my posts. I am easily overwhelmed when I feel attacked on all sides, especially when no one is helping me. But I've always felt strongly that people should make an effort to be civil and kind.
As I said on another thread, I'll be otherwise occupied this weekend and may not be able to comment much, so I'll try to answer the other comments as soon as I can. Thanks!
There's no either/or. Can you see that the question of whether or not a passage is to be taken literally is just arbitrary for Protestants? Just one person's interpretation among so many. And it is often based on presuppositions. The presupposition in this case is "We can't believe in the Eucharist as Catholics see it", so every verse that relates to this must be rationalized/redefined/trivialized/made figurative in order to fit the presupposition.
Actually, in the classical protestant understanding of Scripture, I believe interpretation is based upon comparing scripture to scripture, and considering the whole of scripture, as well as considering the understanding of the historical church on different doctrines, though scripture is always the final authority. In post-modern evangelical churches that have begun departing from the truth, who knows what they will come up with, or what they base their ideas on, but that was not the case historically and is not the case for many still.
So, since it IS the case that historically there has been a variety of degrees of understanding on the 'presence of Christ' in the Eucharist, I would say that the fact that Catholics have solidified the doctrine on the most extreme side without any leeway for individual conscience and guidance by the Holy Spirit for individual believers, that the burden is upon the RCC to show that this extreme view is correct; and that it is correct to say that salvation depends upon compliance with this view.
The plain truth is that non-Catholic Christians often feel a need to continually justify their separation from the Catholic Church - hence the need for blogs such as Beggars All and T-fan. If they are so very confident in their position, they wouldn't need to fight, fight, fight every day.
First of all, that 'non-Catholic Christians often feel a need to continually justify their separation from the Catholic Church' is a false assumption. Certainly we see a few of them online on blogs, writing books and articles, etc., but how many of them do you never hear of that are just living their lives quietly out there somewhere?
It's also a false assumption that the ones you do see online are doing it because they have to justify themselves (they say often enough that we CAN'T justify ourselves :) for leaving the Catholic Church. I think they are doing it because they feel strongly that they came out of a false system and into the truth, and want to share this understanding. Of course, some of the bloggers have never been Catholic but come from a strong tradition of protestantism that has always stood against Roman Catholicism and feels it is right to continue to do this as long as the two sides exist. I myself am not an apologist nor a scholar, but was just wanting to understand something better and to share what I was learning.
Maybe you weren't talking about just non-Catholics who had left the Church, but about all non-Catholic Christians supposedly feeling like they have to justify not being Catholic. I think that's even more far-fetched, since most Christians I know never give a thought to Catholicism and think it's a little weird that I'm interested in that subject at all if I mention it. They don't care one way or another about it. I think the guys online or writing books about it are in a very small minority.
He wants all to be saved and we must follow where our consciences lead us. However, we are also obligated to properly form our consciences. Thus, a person who persists in sin or pride will ultimately deaden their conscience and fall prey to the admonition from the saints, "If you do not behave as you believe, you will eventually believe as you behave."
To believe in and to trust Him goes beyond the scriptures, however, He is a real person and knows our deepest thoughts. If we submit ourselves completely to His will, He will most certainly lead us to Himself, with our without scriptures. He can never deny yourself. Thus, if your heart is pure, He will lead you home.
Leo,
I believe scripture teaches that before we are regenerate we cannot follow our consciences because they are not trustworthy. I believe that even after salvation, our hearts can deceive us if we stray from God's word, and we can end up going the wrong way. We have Scripture and the Spirit to guide us after we are converted, but if we listen to other voices then we can be led astray and get into trouble.
'To believe in and to trust Him goes beyond Scriptures' but only in the sense that we must begin to act upon what we know by faith and not just remain as 'hearers of the word only.' But we do not go beyond Scripture in the sense that somehow Scripture doesn't give us all we need. I don't believe we can 'submit ourselves completely to His will' apart from Scripture. He uses Scripture to lead people to Himself by the Spirit. And our hearts cannot be pure apart from His righteousness and His word and His Spirit in us, so our hearts can lead us astray if we don't listen to His word, His voice as our Shepherd.
Here's another passage that shows that God brings us to Himself by scripture:
Romans 10:13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Maybe you weren't talking about just non-Catholics who had left the Church, but about all non-Catholic Christians supposedly feeling like they have to justify not being Catholic.
I'm not talking about all who've left the Catholic Church. I'm not talking about all non-Catholics.
No, just talking about non-Catholic Christians who blog on a DAILY basis about only one thing, namely the Catholic Church, and do so in a way that is biased, disrespectful, arrogant and even sometimes hateful.
As I said before, when people want to "share" their new understanding in a constructive way, that looks/sounds/feels different than the tone of the blogs of which we were speaking. So it makes it look as though they are obsessed with maintaining the strongest anti-Catholicism possible, NEVER conceding ANY point, never sincerely listening.
Whereas at blogs like Called to Communion and the like, it is so obvious how they take each poster very seriously and respectfully.
In your comments to Leo, there is nothing for Catholics to disagree with, except for a couple of tweaks - "hearing by the word of God" you interpret "word" as scripture alone, maybe, while we would take it as all the ways God speaks plus the original Word, Jesus himself. I would think you could see it that way too.
And this of yours But we do not go beyond Scripture in the sense that somehow Scripture doesn't give us all we need. I'm sure you don't mean that we don't need God himself, or that we don't need prayer, or that we don't need repentance, etc. Wouldn't you agree that IF a person somehow never had access to the bible, they could still know God?
But all this is never to diminish the all-important inerrancy of scripture that Catholics revere as Christ's own body.
Again, Jennie, we share so very much. The love of God and his word in all its forms, especially in scripture.
Jennie, to follow up on Christine's comments, you are missing something quite basic about God. He wants EVERYONE to be saved, and the vast number of people in the world will never see or read scripture...some due to availability, some because they are illiterate, etc.
Everyone who seeks God with all of their heart, mind, soul and strength, will surely find Him. We must first follow our consciences and we do not need scripture to find God. He seeks us out and gives every single person enough grace to get to heaven.
Please try to broaden your perspective on this issue.
"So, since it IS the case that historically there has been a variety of degrees of understanding on the 'presence of Christ' in the Eucharist, I would say that the fact that Catholics have solidified the doctrine on the most extreme side without any leeway for individual conscience and guidance by the Holy Spirit for individual believers, that the burden is upon the RCC to show that this extreme view is correct"
Jennie, there is no burden upon the Church to prove anything. She merely teaches Truth and some falls on rocky soil, etc.
There has always been a variety of beliefs and understandings by many...not, however, by the Church. What you miss is the fact that the Church teaches nothing on her own. She is merely the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. And,no, to your point, there is NO leeway for people to interpret their own versions of Truth when it comes to dogma.
This is why the Apostles' Creed was written and why the Holy Spirit later defined it further to the Nicene Creed. There are specific truths about God and what we are to believe.
Think about it this way. If the Eucharist really is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, why should there be any leeway in defining it?
On the other hand, in the Protestant churches, it remains bread and wine and it can indeed be a simple memorial and everyone is free to view the ritual as they choose. However, every Protestant would be quick to say that it is still bread and wine and they would be right. If a Catholic were to say that your bread in your church became Jesus according to my interpretation, you would be most correct in saying that it did not. I would not be free to interpret that it did.
So too, you are not free to interpret that the bread and wine consecrated by a priest is not Jesus Christ. You would simply be wrong and saying something which was not true.
Leo,
There is a burden on the church to stand on the truth and keep faithful to it. I disagree that the RCC is teaching the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and we can go back and forth saying "Does not!" "Does too!" until eternity, but it won't convince either of us. I have given examples in the past, but you just deny that it's possible that the Church can err. Yet the Old Testament church erred again and again, and the churches throughout the centuries have erred, are erring, and will err until Christ judges and finally purifies them. There is a reason Jesus spoke to 'the churches' in Revelation, and not 'the Church'. The RCC is not the one and only church, nor is she perfect, and nor are any of them.
Again, we can go back and forth saying the bread and wine are or are not physically the body and blood of Christ, but how can we prove it? I believe the bread and wine in the Catholic Eucharist is just bread and wine just the same as that in the protestant Eucharist. Our faith must be in Christ and in His sacrifice on the Cross to save us, and if it is, it doesn't matter whether we think the bread and wine is physically the body and blood of Christ or whether we think the significance is that WE are the body of Christ washed by His blood. Unless we are trusting in the Church to save us, or eating a piece of bread to save us. That's my concern.
You believe something is bread and wine, when Jesus said it was his body and blood and commanded us to eat and drink, in remembrance of Him. And it is our joy to do so.
In memory of Him, in perpetuity, amen.
Dear Lord, heal us according to your will.
So then since your joy is in Him then your faith is in Him, and it doesn't matter if you're mistaken about the essence of the bread and wine, or in turn, if I am mistaken, since my faith is in Him, and my joy is to be part of His body as well.
But we have to trust in Him, not in being in the right church, or doing anything.
"I have given examples in the past, but you just deny that it's possible that the Church can err."
You have not given any viable examples where the Church has ever erred in an official teaching on Faith and Morals, or where she ever changed an official teaching. You even so much as accepted that the teachings on Morals have never changed. That would be most amazing to me, since the Church had a perfect chance to make friends with the world on divorce, contraception, etc.
When we have rebutted your examples, you did not provide what I would consider to be logical and fair defenses. I too, can find plenty of fictitious examples created by the heretics and enemies of the Church.
"The RCC is not the one and only church, nor is she perfect, and nor are any of them."
You are correct if you say that no one IN the Church is perfect. If that were a requirement, none of us would be allowed to join.
However, she is absolutely incapable of officially teaching error on Faith and Morals. Please try to separate actions of people in the Church from Church teaching. The role of the Church is to hand down the deposit of Faith and to provide the Sacraments.
Jennie - What Leo is saying is so right. But it's not so hard to accept, when you think that the scripture authors themselves were not infallible, but what they wrote WAS.
I know you do not AGREE that the Church teaches infallibly, but you believe the identical thing about scripture, as we do also. On what grounds can you condemn it (the magisterium) without also condemning the idea of an infallible canon of scripture that was produced by men.
"Again, we can go back and forth saying the bread and wine are or are not physically the body and blood of Christ, but how can we prove it?"
Well, I can give you information on dozens of Eucharistic miracles where science has given up trying to explain the impossible. Scientists even became Catholics over some of these. I have personally seen and visited such, which are more than 1300 years old, in some cases. But, you would probably refuse to believe, attributing them to false signs. Yet, Jesus performed supernatural signs constantly to prove that He is God. The disbelievers likewise attributed His signs to the evil one.
"I believe the bread and wine in the Catholic Eucharist is just bread and wine just the same as that in the protestant Eucharist. Our faith must be in Christ and in His sacrifice on the Cross to save us, and if it is, it doesn't matter whether we think the bread and wine is physically the body and blood of Christ or whether we think the significance is that WE are the body of Christ washed by His blood."
Oh really? If the bread and wine become Jesus in the flesh, it does not matter? Jennie, what we think does not matter. It is only what is, that matters. Here is a quote from Ignatius of Antioch at the end of the first century: Charity is no concern to them, nor are widows and orphans or the oppressed . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised . . .Here is another:Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my fellow-servants the deacons.
"Unless we are trusting in the Church to save us, or eating a piece of bread to save us."
Jennie, we are trusting in Jesus Christ, who comes physically to us through that which was once bread and wine. If it were really still bread and wine, then we are the greatest of fools...please stop laughing...it is not polite...
It is always Faith and Reason working together. Go back to the basics. If Jesus were talking figuratively in John 6, He would not have lost most of His disciples who had already left home and family to follow Him. Just be logical about it. This was the ONLY teaching in the entire NT that He lost His followers over. It is precisely because they did not believe it any more than you do. You are walking away too; you are just doing it 2000 years later.
By the way, this is not something you can force yourself to believe. Faith in the Real Presence can only come from the Holy Spirit...if it is given by the Father in heaven...
Post a Comment