Calling all Catholics.

[37818]

Check out chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html), the Vatican II Constitution on the Church.

Certainly well thought out and well written. I would like you to respond on a few matters:

. . . (6) As often as the sacrifice of the cross in which Christ our Passover was sacrificed, is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried on, and, in the sacrament of the eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ (8) is both expressed and brought about.

It can be construed to deny, ". . . by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. . . . For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . . . By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. " Hebrews 9:12, 24-26, 10:10.

Comment?

And the thanks giving [the eucharist] is not any kind of sacrament. Comment?

And there are more issues to address. Let's look at this first. Thanks.

[Spartacus]

It can be construed to deny, ". . . by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. . . . For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . . . By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. " Hebrews 9:12, 24-26, 10:10.

Comment?

The most common apologetical response, iirc, is that the sacrifice is not repeated, but re-presented. No well-catechized Catholic believes that Jesus dies again at every Mass.

The way I usually explain it to myself goes something like this: the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ are the most significant moment in all of human history: it changed everything. Because of this one earth-shattering event, humans throughout history have been given new life and the possibility of true union with God: Christ's saving sacrifice reaches across time. The celebration of the Eucharist doesn't make the sacrifice happen again, but rather, it makes that sacrifice present to us. It brings us together in wonder and gratitude at this event, not just with our local congregation, but with the entire Church across space and time. I think you would already acknowledge that Christ's sacrifice must reach across time and space to be effective for us: the doctrine of the Real Presence can be understood as the belief that the mere remembrance of such a powerful event is enough to make it present to us.

And the thanks giving [the eucharist] is not any kind of sacrament. Comment?

And there are more issues to address. Let's look at this first. Thanks.

Define "sacrament" before you deny it

[37818]

The most common apologetical response, iirc, is that the sacrifice is not repeated, but re-presented. No well-catechized Catholic believes that Jesus dies again at every Mass.

The way I usually explain it to myself goes something like this: the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ are the most significant moment in all of human history: it changed everything. Because of this one earth-shattering event, humans throughout history have been given new life and the possibility of true union with God: Christ's saving sacrifice reaches across time. The celebration of the Eucharist doesn't make the sacrifice happen again, but rather, it makes that sacrifice present to us. It brings us together in wonder and gratitude at this event, not just with our local congregation, but with the entire Church across space and time. I think you would already acknowledge that Christ's sacrifice must reach across time and space to be effective for us: the doctrine of the Real Presence can be understood as the belief that the mere remembrance of such a powerful event is enough to make it present to us.

I like that explanation. But how do you get a reenactment out of the remembrance? How do you see a "Real Presence" in, which to me is, the metaphor? And if it is merely a reenactment what difference does that make? As far as across space and time, Isaiah's prophecy of that then yet future event as a past event (Isaiah 53:6). God is the one who gives the new birth to those who believe (James 1:18; 1 John 5:1; John 1:12, 13; John 10:28, 29).

Define "sacrament" before you deny it

To me it has no real meaning in that the term is not a biblical concept. The saved are saved by God alone (Ephesians 2:8, 9). Eternal life is a current possession (1 John 5:12, 13).

"All who believe Jesus is the Christ is born of God, . . ." -- 1 John 5:1. (Matthew 16:16. 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.)

[Spartacus]

I like that explanation. But how do you get a reenactment out of the remembrance? How do you see a "Real Presence" in, which to me is, the metaphor? And if it is merely a reenactment what difference does that make? As far as across space and time, Isaiah's prophecy of that then yet future event as a past event (Isaiah 53:6). God is the one who gives the new birth to those who believe (James 1:18; 1 John 5:1; John 1:12, 13; John 10:28, 29).

Not re-enactment, re-presentation and participation. And we get the idea from St. Paul.
1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

The act of remembrance is not just reminiscence: it is a participation in the original act. This reading of St. Paul is only reinforced by the following chapter, in which he writes (and in doing so, makes it VERY clear that he is not just saying this on his own),

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

How would they be drinking judgment on themselves unless this act of remembrance carries some very real significance??

To me it has no real meaning in that the term is not a biblical concept.

The term may not be Biblical (the word is Latin), but the concept of a ritual, given to us by God through which He chooses to act so as to make His Grace present to us, is hardly un-Biblical. You'll find plenty of evidence of that in just the first 5 books of the Bible. As long as the Books of Exodus and Leviticus are in the Bible, I have a pretty strong argument

The saved are saved by God alone (Ephesians 2:8, 9).

And the idea of sacraments in no way contradicts this. God chooses to act in certain ways, and has told us so. A sacrament only has power because it is the means through which God has chosen to act: it is nothing more than God's power at work.

Eternal life is a current possession (1 John 5:12, 13).

"All who believe Jesus is the Christ is born of God, . . ." -- 1 John 5:1. (Matthew 16:16. 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.)

Our salvation is perfectly accomplished through Christ's saving sacrifice on the cross. No deed beyond that is necessary. No act of generosity to the poor, no martyrdom-inducing profession of faith is necessary to complete what Christ has already accomplished. The only thing we need to do-- the only thing we CAN do-- is accept the saving power of Christ's sacrifice and allow it to take effect. Accept it, enter into it, participate in it, immerse ourselves in it, allow it to transform us such that it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us.

We have been saved, we are being saved, we will be saved. It is already accomplished in the past, it is being effected now, and it will be perfected in the fulness of time.

[37818]

Not re-enactment, re-presentation and participation. And we get the idea from St. Paul.
1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

That is "Because we, being many, are one bread, one body; for we all partake of that one bread."

The act of remembrance is not just reminiscence: it is a participation in the original act.

It no where says that. But that being how you understand that. We do not agree. At least not yet on this point

This reading of St. Paul is only reinforced by the following chapter, in which he writes (and in doing so, makes it VERY clear that he is not just saying this on his own),

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

How would they be drinking judgment on themselves unless this act of remembrance carries some very real significance??

A number of issues here, I understand "This is my body" the bread a metaphor for Jesus' body. And the words "In the same way" to mean "This cup" to be understood as metaphor of the new covenant in His blood. As for eating and drinking "in an unworthy manner," it is my understanding, that is to eat and drink as if this observance were just a meal and not the remembrance of the body and blood of Christ in His death for us. Otherwise I thank you for taking the time to explain this as you did. Others can read this and decide for themselves. [If we remove the Greek verb εστιν, translated "is" meaning it is metaphor, it would be a direct statement. And the Greek word, ωσαυτως denoting the following to be understood the very same way with or without the use of this verb εστιν.]

The term may not be Biblical (the word is Latin), but the concept of a ritual, given to us by God through which He chooses to act so as to make His Grace present to us, is hardly un-Biblical. You'll find plenty of evidence of that in just the first 5 books of the Bible. As long as the Books of Exodus and Leviticus are in the Bible, I have a pretty strong argument

We do not agree on this. Since God's grace is through faith alone without works in my understanding [Romans 4:5; Romans 11:6]. And the Law never bestowed God's grace.

And the idea of sacraments in no way contradicts this. God chooses to act in certain ways, and has told us so. A sacrament only has power because it is the means through which God has chosen to act: it is nothing more than God's power at work.

I do not believe that is true. For God does not give any grace through any ordinance which are to accompany the gospel. They are not part of the gospel. (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.)

Our salvation is perfectly accomplished through Christ's saving sacrifice on the cross. No deed beyond that is necessary. No act of generosity to the poor, no martyrdom-inducing profession of faith is necessary to complete what Christ has already accomplished. The only thing we need to do-- the only thing we CAN do-- is accept the saving power of Christ's sacrifice and allow it to take effect. Accept it, enter into it, participate in it, immerse ourselves in it, allow it to transform us such that it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us.

We have been saved, we are being saved, we will be saved. It is already accomplished in the past, it is being effected now, and it will be perfected in the fulness of time.

And the truth of 1 John 5:1a requires no "sacrament." (1 John 5:12; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8:9.)

Thank you for your explanations.

[robrecht]

Personally my current view is "the rock" is the revelation (v.17) given Peter upon which Christ is building His church.

It is my view that was origial to Christian thought. It changed with interpretation that Peter was the rock. Only after the reformation did what was deemed Christian thought to reconsider, in what is in my view the truth.

In the Greek text it does not say that. Petros, masculine, a stone (John 1:42) is the rock. So I do not hold that Peter's faith is the rock, rather God's personal revelation to the believer (John 6:45). As for the rock being Peter's faith is post reformation, as far as I know. Again in my view, it always existed. It is in that text, what the text does and does not say.
OK, then let us look at the reason for believing Peter is that rock v.18

Can you point to any early (or late) interpreter of the text who first interpreted this text to mean that 'the revelation given to Peter and not Peter' is the rock on which Christ is building his church? I still do not see a reason for this dichotomy so I would not argue for one against the other or vice versa. Your view, which would seem to want to diminish the importance of Simon Peter in this passage, seems to ignore the very name that Jesus gave to Simon in this passage. "You are Rock and upon this rock ...". If Jesus wanted to distinguish between Peter as Rock and some other rock upon which he would build his church, why would he give Peter the name Rock in the first place? Why would he then immediately refer to this rock, as the rock upon which he would build his church? If Jesus did not want to single out Peter as an important part of the foundation of his church, why would he give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven? Why would he tell him, and later the other apostles, that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven, whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven?

[tabibito]

Not sure what you're asking. I was just giving the meaning of the word 'catholic'. Do etymologies require biblical authority? Or are you asking about whether or not various ancient churches trace their origins back to apostles? The gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus gave authority to all apostles what he had previously given first to Peter, as the rock upon which he would build his church, thus Peter was considered the first among equals, a primacy of honor at least, though politically popes have tried to exercise other kinds of primacy. So it would seem that the author and community of the gospel of Matthew traced its origins back to the authority of Jesus, Peter, and the apostles. That good enough for you?

Yet Paul gave no support for the idea that Peter was a superior, and declared that he was neither greater nor lesser than Peter or Apollos. Interpreting "Upon this rock I will build my Church" to mean "the church will be built upon Peter" turns upon an interpretation of "this (ταυτη)" to mean "this very", which is only one of two possible applications of the word, the alternative being "this kind of".

[robrecht]

Yet Paul gave no support for the idea that Peter was a superior, and declared that he was neither greater nor lesser than Peter or Apollos. Interpreting "Upon this rock I will build my Church" to mean "the church will be built upon Peter" turns upon an interpretation of "this (ταυτη)" to mean "this very", which is only one of two possible applications of the word, the alternative being "this kind of".

Where did I ever say that Peter was superior? I referred rather to the traditional understanding of Peter as the first among equals.

[tabibito]

"First among equals" implies having a higher status or additional powers while remaining equal in important senses. And this is the sense meant by Rome when it claims at once "first among equals" and "the church is built on Peter" (rather than on the apostles and prophets generally)

[robrecht]

"First among equals" implies having a higher status or additional powers while remaining equal in important senses.

You can draw whatever implications you want, but please do not attribute opinions to me that I do not express.

[tabibito]

When you state that the church is built on Peter, rather than on the apostles and prophets generally - you have indeed affirmed that your meaning is what I stated.

[robrecht]

When you state that the church is built on Peter, rather than on the apostles and prophets generally - you have indeed affirmed that your meaning is what I stated.

I have never stated that the church is built on Peter rather than on the apostles and prophets generally. I merely quoted Jesus, as recounded in the gospel of Matthew. Jesus first gives Peter and then later the other apostles the power of binding and loosing. Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If you have an issue with that, take it up with Jesus or St Matthew.

[tabibito]

Can you point to any early (or late) interpreter of the text who first interpreted this text to mean that 'the revelation given to Peter and not Peter' is the rock on which Christ is building his church? I still do not see a reason for this dichotomy so I would not argue for one against the other or vice versa. Your view, which would seem to want to diminish the importance of Simon Peter in this passage, seems to ignore the very name that Jesus gave to Simon in this passage. "You are Rock and upon this rock ...". If Jesus wanted to distinguish between Peter as Rock and some other rock upon which he would build his church, why would he give Peter the name Rock in the first place? Why would he then immediately refer to this rock, as the rock upon which he would build his church? If Jesus did not want to single out Peter as an important part of the foundation of his church, why would he give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven? Why would he tell him, and later the other apostles, that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven, whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven?

"You are the rock and on such a rock I will build my church" by no means excludes Peter, but identifies him as one who meets the criteria necessary for a church to be built upon. Can you identify where Peter was given the keys, keeping in view Rome's interpretation of what they are?
(nor does the passage identify Peter as "the" rock.)

[robrecht]

"You are the rock and on such a rock I will build my church" by no means excludes Peter, but identifies him as one who meets the criteria necessary for a church to be built upon. Can you identify where Peter was given the keys, keeping in view Rome's interpretation of what they are?

Here in this very passage, Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of God. The symbol of the keys has been variously interpreted. You are welcome to whatever interpretation of this symbol you prefer.

[tabibito]

Insofar as I can tell, Rome's claim that Peter was pre-eminent is based on a single verse, and an ambiguous one at that. The interpretation of "Keys" is undecided, but may take one or another interpretation according to personal choice. Peter was conferred a special office when another name was bestowed on him by Christ, though Christ bestowed names on other disciples.

But
the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Peter was subject to the decisions of the church in council at Jerusalem. Paul denied that Peter and the other apostles were in any sense superior in rank, and even had the audacity to publicly rebuke his (supposed) superior.