Calling all Catholics.

[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]

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]

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.

[37818]

I'm still curious why you feel it necessary to endorse a dichotomy between the person of Simon Cephas (Peter) and his personal faith in the revelation granted to him?

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

Can you point to the origin of this dichotomy in the history of Christian thought?

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.

Where do you first see anyone saying Cephas is not the rock but his faith is the rock?

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.

Who introduced this dichotomy?

Again in my view, it always existed.

Until you present an adequate description of this view, I'm not inclined to refute something that is perhaps not adequately understood by either one of us.

It is in that text, what the text does and does not say.

Give me the origin of the idea. I may indeed very well agree with it, depending upon how it is expressed. I do not disagree with Mt 16,17 or Jn 6,45, if you are trying to say that these verses are the origin of this dichotomy.

OK, then let us look at the reason for believing Peter is that rock v.18

[robrecht]

Listen, there are more than one view which denies that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His church. I have held two of those views. That Christ was that Rock was one of them and now the view is the personal revelation given the believer. As in the case of Peter (Matthew 16:17; John 6:45). I would be interested in your refutation of the different views that contradict your church's view that it was built upon Peter. But you do not need to do that here.

I'm still curious why you feel it necessary to endorse a dichotomy between the person of Simon Cephas (Peter) and his personal faith in the revelation granted to him? Can you point to the origin of this dichotomy in the history of Christian thought? Where do you first see anyone saying Cephas is not the rock but his faith is the rock? Who introduced this dichotomy? Until you present an adequate description of this view, I'm not inclined to refute something that is perhaps not adequately understood by either one of us. Give me the origin of the idea. I may indeed very well agree with it, depending upon how it is expressed. I do not disagree with Mt 16,17 or Jn 6,45, if you are trying to say that these verses are the origin of this dichotomy.

[37818]

First, I would not necessarily endorse an artificial dichotomy between the two views that you mention. When in the history of the church is this dichotomy first introduced? That the person of Peter himself (and his faith) was considered important seems obvious from the fact that he continued to bear the name Cephas & Peter, which prior to this time was not a name in Aramaic or Greek. Even Paul, who was perhaps not the greatest fan of Peter and other apostles, refers to Peter by these names. And he bears the same witness to Peter's authority, and that of others among the earlier apostles, by going to visit Peter for two weeks and then later presents more developed and mature gospel preaching before Peter and the pillars of the church to confirm that he was not and had not been running in vain in his ministry. Paul was very conscious and perhaps even a bit defensive of his own calling by God himself and his own status as an apostle, but he has no problem acknowledging this sense of seeking confirmation of his gospel.

Listen, there are more than one view which denies that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His church. I have held two of those views. That Christ was that Rock was one of them and now the view is the personal revelation given the believer. As in the case of Peter (Matthew 16:17; John 6:45). I would be interested in your refutation of the different views that contradict your church's view that it was built upon Peter. But you do not need to do that here.

[robrecht]

My agreement was not an essential here. Rather the arguments as to why you believe as you do were. Thanks.

If you were to contrast the view between Peter being the rock and an opposing view that the revelation the Father gave Peter that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God was the rock. How would you support the former against the latter view? Thanks.

First, I would not necessarily endorse an artificial dichotomy between the two views that you mention. When in the history of the church is this dichotomy first introduced? That the person of Peter himself (and his faith) was considered important seems obvious from the fact that he continued to bear the name Cephas & Peter, which prior to this time was not a name in Aramaic or Greek. Even Paul, who was perhaps not the greatest fan of Peter and other apostles, refers to Peter by these names. And he bears the same witness to Peter's authority, and that of others among the earlier apostles, by going to visit Peter for two weeks and then later presents more developed and mature gospel preaching before Peter and the pillars of the church to confirm that he was not and had not been running in vain in his ministry. Paul was very conscious and perhaps even a bit defensive of his own calling by God himself and his own status as an apostle, but he has no problem acknowledging this sense of seeking confirmation of his gospel.

[Spartacus]

How so? Thanks.

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

[37818]

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?

My agreement was not an essential here. Rather the arguments as to why you believe as you do were. Thanks.

If you were to contrast the view between Peter being the rock and an opposing view that the revelation the Father gave Peter that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God was the rock. How would you support the former against the latter view? Thanks.

[37818]

The intersections and resonances between ecclesiology and mariology are pretty cool.

How so? Thanks.

[Spartacus]

Thank you. Please, can you give some specific as to why you believe this?

The intersections and resonances between ecclesiology and mariology are pretty cool.

[robrecht]

Can you support this (catholic) from the Apostolic authority known as Holy Scripture?

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?

[37818]

The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, all trace their origins back to Jesus and his apostles or disciples', 'though things are a little fuzzy in the first couple of centuries. 'Catholic' only means 'according to/throughout the whole' (καθ᾽ ὅλοςholic. Originally, the word church was used for individual, local gatherings, but any concern, missionary or pastoral, for all believers throughout the world would be the origins of the catholic church. Those who seek to recognize their communion with all Christians throughout the world are catholic; those who seek to claim legitimacy only for an exclusivist group that refuses to recognize the status of other groups as true Christians are not particularly catholic, but rather sectarian in some sort. The rest is just politics.

Can you support this (catholic) from the Apostolic authority known as Holy Scripture?

[37818]

I am a convert to the Catholic Church, but that's what happens if you start out protestant but then becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus.

Thank you. Please, can you give some specific as to why you think this?

Beautiful, complex, coherent theology. The idea of visible signs of unity among Christians and of consistent historical witness.

Thank you. Please, can you give some specific as to why you believe this?

[robrecht]

The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, all trace their origins back to Jesus and his apostles or disciples', 'though things are a little fuzzy in the first couple of centuries. 'Catholic' only means 'according to/throughout the whole' (καθ᾽ ὅλοςholic. Originally, the word church was used for individual, local gatherings, but any concern, missionary or pastoral, for all believers throughout the world would be the origins of the catholic church. Those who seek to recognize their communion with all Christians throughout the world are catholic; those who seek to claim legitimacy only for an exclusivist group that refuses to recognize the status of other groups as true Christians are not particularly catholic, but rather sectarian in some sort. The rest is just politics.