http://www.chnetwork.org/
a great resource for lots more info.. there's a link for conversion stories or factual links.. about the theological/doctrinal differences of protestantism and catholicism.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
the eucharist
last night, I had dinner at the old house on Winifred with Jill and Liz. It was great. Liz asked how the RCIA process/class was going. I was expressing to them how difficult it is for me to explain to family/friends why i see myself converting, because i've learned so much in all of my reading and classes and conversations that its merely impossible to reiterate in a 5 minute response, or even if i had all the time in the world.. i could never re-explain all of the amazing explations, history, facts, etc.. that i've read and learned. liz said, so simply, "Do you ever just explain how you feel?" how great is that? it was a beautiful moment. so when i think of it that way i think...
i have felt called to something. to explore, defintely.. to search... more. i've felt as though something has been missing for a long time.. since i really started to care, i think. in my 6 years of attending churches on my own and searching out a home congregation.. something was always lacking for me. i thought it was just the red hymnal!!!! :) but i finally found a church that used the red hymnal. i greatly appreciated this small LCMS church with its high church reverence.. but still something missing. i then attributed it to the lack of community in the congregation as i had attended a few things i thought might bring makes me feel at home in a community. nope. church after church. while helping with steve's youth in hudson, i attended there a few times throughout the year. something missing. reverence? the fact that steve could be the pastor for the day and give communion. craziness! though it was sweet and endearing, it seemed off and i hesistate to say this, but somewhat disrespectful of that sacrement. :-/
then linds asked me to help with WLC. that has been amazing and full of blessings.. all of the beauty of being with kids, watcing a dear friend teach, getting to know her life there.. joel, derrek, pastor ben, genesis worship, mission trip, deep impact, etc. i found myself smitten with the genesis worship though i was still uncomfortable with style of music. i'd actually show up 20 minutes late so i could arrive just in time for one of pastor ben's amazing sermons while missing the first set of songs! :-/ eventually, the music grew on me a bit, and after the mission trip i definitely felt a part of this community.. but STILL!!! something was missing. i figured it was just me, but in the back of my mind, for the last 3 years i've been pondering this whole Catholicism deal. its been a slow, slow process.. a few things revealed at a time.. all in all.. its been sending me to learn. figure out why i feel this way. what's missing? is anything missing? what is this feeling? what am i longing for? there were times when i was in tears.. confused by how i could agree with the Catholic church and still commune as a lutheran. was i doing wrong by not fully committing to either? its been an interesting journey, that with the help of a fellow blogger, i could sum up by saying, "..the deeper I searched for the truth, the further into the ancient Church I was drawn.." the more i read the more i feel called to the origination of the church.. the more i realize i was being called to further explore catholicism.
i've recently been attending a catholic church close to my apartment, at first, simply because of its proximity. i've seen this beautiful church for 7 years as its quite close to CSP. :) finally, i stepped foot in the doors. i've learned a bit about the mass so i appreciate the blessing of the holy water, genuflecting, kneeling, etc. i sit in the back, happy that no one knows me. i get excited.. i feel something.. i feel hunger but satisfuied.. not fully, but not the deep hole. something feels alive. i feel a sense of community amongst this group of people whom i do not know. i feel a congregation excited to love each other, to honor God, recieve the eucharist, to recieve each other into the Catholic body.. wow. i'm in love with this church! i was so sad that i had to miss Mass this weekend because I worked 12 hour shifts sat and sun. now i am longing for daily mass, but not sure that i should go because the focus is on receiving the eucharist and i am not ready for that, on my own terms, or the church's. but i think i'll go today...
if anyone else is reading this, besides lindsey! :) i wanted to share this thought too, as oft times people who move from one demonination to another do so out of hurt. I recall a conversation with a friend in which she said something about me having been hurt by the Lutheran church. but oh contrare.. not only is that not the reason, its quite the opposite. i loved the lutheran church in which i was raised. my family was incredibly active.. it was my community.. my extended family. it is largely the basis of my first 18 years of existence. yes, the pastor and some of the congregation deeply wounded my parents which wounded me.. i'd like to say i hold no grudges, but that would be untruthful. unfortunately (and i know i need to work on this), when i think back on the times i saw my parents and other friends of the familiy suffering... i'm still angry. so many families who were running the church, left it and are now scattered at different congregations, and no longer celebrate in communion together. however, i've always recognized that it was one pastor, human beings.. not the entire Lutheran church -MS. even the fact that the district president was conspiring in his affair did not make me think the entire LCMS was corrupt or wrong or worthy of leaving. heck at that point i was still thinking of being a lutheran church worker. And i think the reverence, the old/high church style of service that i grew up with, is one of the very reasons i feel "at home" in the catholic church. its quite intriguing, actually.
so i guess all i have to say when people ask is, "I feel called.. and I feel at home, with Christ as the center, more than ever."
last night, i sat down to read but quickly realized i'd blog again.. from the book, "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic." (clever..) by Davide B. Currie
He writes an entire chapter on the Eucharist which is amazing me just pages in.. the following are a bunch of excerpts i've borrowed. hopefully you can piece it together.. if not, its a good read! forgive the typos.. i'm not re-checking it. =)
"Since my childhood, I remember sitting in the communion service once a month and hearing the words, "This is my body," and "This is my blood." What exactly did Jesus mean by these words spoken the night before his crucifixion? He knew that his words were to be repeated throughout the entire world for the rest of time. Surely he put a tremendous amount of thought into how he would express himself during this crucial night. If Jesus had meant to teach Lutheranism, he could have said in a clear way, "This bread contains my body." If he had meant to teach Evangelicalism, he could have said in a clear way, "this bread only represents my body." but he didn't say either. Yet he was clear. In the clearest way he could say it, he said, "This is my body" (Mt 26:26-28).
---(the writer then goes on to compare the loaves and fishes sermon which is recorded in the following John 6:26-59 excerpt. He shows the similarities of the words used exactly one year before the last supper, on Passover). "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world..... I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty..... but here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man east of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.... I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I wil raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blod is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. ..."
Jesus explains his analogy.. "this bread is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world." Jesus says the bread of life is his flesh. Lest we not understand whether he means "flesh" in a real, physical, touchable way, he tells us next that it is the same flesh that will be given up on the Cross! He goes on to say that this flesh must be eaten by his followers. '
The analogy has been clearly explained. There is no doubt about its meaning. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a figurative way or spiritually speaking, then so is the flesh of the curcifixion! Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal, or the are both figurative.
....Jesus taught that in order for us to have eternal life we must "eat his flesh." He repeates this phrase, or its variations, six times. Four of the times, the Greek word used is very graphic; it can be translated, "to chew". This word is never used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in the anctient secular literature.
...In the early Church, everyone who wrote anything about the Eucharist believed in the Real presence of Christ in the elements of Communion..
...For a full millennium of Christianity, there were no exceptions to this belief of the early Chruch in the Real Presence. It was the univeral teaching of the entire Church. Not until Rationalism... had started to transform the thinking of Europe would any movement call into question the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist... With Rationalism, something that could not be understood through reason was rejected. It has been said that mystery is an embarassment to the modern mind....
(laura here stating.. i like that the eucharist is the center of the mass. there is a homily, but the whole purpose of the mass in to prepare and receive the eucharist. for a great book on the mass in relation to Revelations, read "The Lamb's Supper," by Scott Hahn).
(then there's a verse in Zecharia, "On that day... all who come to sacrafice will take some of the pots and cook in them," (14:20,21). Evangelicals are adament that a priesthood here on earth is no longer needed; the need for sacrifices has ended. The crucifixion of Christ was the last sacrifice ever needed. But if the Evangelicals are correct on this issue of sacrafice, why would God reinstitue something superseded by the work of Calvary? Why perform sacrifices that are unnecessary?
Catholics believe that the Eucharist is a real, unbloody sacrafice that brings into the present time the saving effects of the once-for-all-time crucifixion of Jesus. The work of Christ on the Cross is finished. The crucifixion need never be repeated. But its benefits are applied to me in today's timeframe through the real sacrifice of the Eucharist.
...Karl Keating has pointed out in his book Cathohlicism and Fundamentalism: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek'" (Ps 110:4). By definition a priest offers a sacrifice. What did Melchizedek offer? Some Evengelials are unaware of the fact that it was bread and wine that Melchizedek brought out to Abraham as an offering (Gen 14:18).
The next logical question is, "When did Jesus offer bread and wine as a sacrifice?" the only stance recorded in the Gospels is the Last Supper. Isn't it logical then, that unless Evangelicals can point to another time Jesus fulfilled this function of the Melchizededian pristhood, Jesus saw the Last Supper as the isntitution of a sacrifice? Otherwise the imagery of Psalm 110:4 is emptied of meaning.
This idea of Mass as sacrifice also explains best why 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 quotes jesus as saying during the last supper, "this is my body, which is for you; do this in rememberance of me." As Scripture scholar Father Mitchell Pacwa, S.J., has pointed out, the Greek word for "rememberance" in this passage is a very technical world. Interestingly, it is also a relatively rare word in Scripture. Outside of its uses in the Last Supper, it is used only one other time in the New Testament. This is in Hebrews 10:3, where the rememberance is the act of carrying out a sacrifice. "those sacrifices are an annual reminder [remeberance] of sins." If an Evangelical were to check his Greek Old Testament, he would find that word is used only twice. Both times the remeberence is actually a sacrifice: "Put some pure incense as a memorial... to be an offereing" (Lev 24:7) and "Sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offereings, and they will be a memorial for you (Nb: 10:10). (This word occurs two other times in the Old Testament--in the headings to Psalm 37 abd 69. These were added later by commentators and so are obviously not actual Scripture, but they can indicate the meaning of the word Jesus used. Both speak of the Psalm as being used in conjunction with a memorial sacrifice. the Catholic Old Testament has one jmore occurrence, of a different nature, in Wisdom of Solomon 16:6)
This Greek word "rememberance" is more than just "think about me by recalling this event to mind." It is a word fraught with sacrificial overtones, used in the Bible to mean "remind yourself of something by participating in a sacrifice." What a strange word for Jesus to use if he did not intend to set up the Eucharist as a sacrifice. In fact, Jesus' choice of this rather rare word is unexplainable if he did not view the Last Supper as a sacrifice.
....The very core of Catholicism is the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the Eucharist.
SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY:
"On this subject of scriptural authority, let me being by quoting from a letter i wrote to one of the pastors of the Baptist church we attended immediately before reconciling to Catholicism....
'So that you better understand, let me explain the progression of my thinking to you. When I started this pilgrimage, I accepted the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura, or "only Scripture" (Scripture is the Christian's final authority for his faith.)
Several years ago I set a goal for myself of reading the entire Bible through in a year. I chose the NIV Bible because I had not done much reading in that version up to that time. As I read the Old Testament, I was struck by several major issues. The most revolutionary for me was that I saw that no one could have established or maintained Judaism in the way God desired from the data found only in the Bible.there wee too many holes and gaps: so much was assumed. i saw that a gtremendous amount of what was involved in being a God-fearing, God-pleasingj Israelite must have been passsed down from generation to generation in an oral instruction (tradition). You want just one example? try to reconstruct the process of offereing a sin offering from the Old Testament alone. You can't get to first base! Reconstructing worship that would be pleasing to God from the OT alone is impossible. There are many such examples.
this fact bothered me tremendously. It is hard for me to express in writing how unsettling the implications fo that insight were to me. The God-ordained religion that Moses had helped to set up required the faithful transmission of oral tradition from generation to generation. Otherwise the practice of Judaism in a way pleasing to God would ahve been impossible. I had always thought of the Jews as "people of the Book", yet the Book was not enough! This flew in the face of everything I had ever been taught. I knew it struck at the very heart of sola scriptura by illustrating the necessity of an authorititative oral tradition.
And yet, for us Christians in this age of grace, had not Jesus changed all that Hadn't Jesus condemned all the traditions (binding oral tradition) of the Jews and when he taught here on earth? the next step in my thinking came when I udnerstood that the answer to that question is an emphatic "No." This was not my own insight; I encountered it in a verse that had been pointed out by Scott Hahn.
Jesus actually commanded the Jewish people of his day to obey the Pharisees' traditional teachings, orally transmitted: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees set in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you" (Mt 23:2-3). But the seat of Moses itself is not to be found anywhere in the OT! The seat of Momses was a product of that historic oral tradition so important to the Isrealite faith. Jesus gives the authority of tradition his unqualified approval and commands his contemporaries to obey the tradition's precepts. Theya re not given the option of obeying only those traditions that they could justify with a "chapter and verse." Jesus explicitly includes "everything they tell you". Nor are there any "ifs, ands, or buts" to qualify the obligation to obey. The main problem Jesus had with the Pharisees is evidenced in the rest of the passage; they did not obey their own teaching. The authoritative nature of tradition is expressly taught here by Jesus himself.
ok, laura writing now. all in all, as i trudge through all the literuare.. i find that for myself, as as lutheran, Bible verses were, meh.. there. they were honored and beautiful as the Scripture, but i just sort of passed over the ones that didn't make sense... now, they make sense.. they tie together.. the are what the Catholic church teaches.. because the Catholic church was the church that Christ and his disciples and the early father started. examples that were important to me:
the Tradition of the Papacy:
"In the Book of Isaiah, god promises that he will appoint a new mastor of the royal household of his people: "He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open" (22:21-22).
The book of Revelation refers to this prophecy to Jesus as the new master of God's household the "new Jerusalem" (21:2), which is the Church. St. John calls him "the holy one, the true who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open' (3:7).
These passages take an additional significance when we read int he Godpel according to Matthew that Jesus gies a special commission to his chief apostle: "You are Peter [meaning literally, "Rock"], and upon this rock I will build my church" (16:18). This is the most direct biblical reference to the papacy. in this moment, our Lord establishes Pter as the first pope, leader of the Church, whose role is indespensable to its mission.
Now notice what Jesus goes on to say to Peter as his commission, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (16:19).
Here Jesus tells more about what it means for Peter to be the "Rock" of the Church: Peter and his successors will have a unique share in Christ's authority as the keeper of the "keys." Alluding to the prophecy in Isaiah, Jesus foretells the role of the pope as a father to Gop's people (the word "pope" literally means "father"), the head of God's royal household, the one with divine authority to open and close the way to the heavenly kingdom.
If such an office was needed in the first generation of the Church, then it is also necessary in every generation, as in the case of priests and bishops. St. peter became the first bishop of Rome, so his unique office in the Church as been passed downt o his episcopal successors there. " (The New Catholic Answer Bible, NAB, M-3).
SAINTS:
The first of the Ten Commandments makes it clear that worship is due to God alone. In Deuteronomy, the Lord tells his people through Moses: "You shall not have other gods besides me... You shall not bow down before them or worship them" (5:7,9).
Catholics affirm this truth. Only the all-mighty creator of the universe, the one in whome "we live and moe and have our being" (Acts 17:28), is worthy of our worship-- of the adoration that involves giving ourselves completely to him. No saint or even aangel should ever be adored in that sense.
At the same time, however, we obey the biblical instruction to "pay to all their dues,.. honor to whom honor is due" (Rom 13:7). Through we don't worship the saints and agnels in heaven, we do in fact honor (or venerate) them, because they are worth of great honor. This is a biblical distinction.
Why do they deserve such honor? Because they now stand before him in heaven face-to-face, and they have become like him ("Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall belike him, for we shall see him as he is. 1jn 3:2). They have become, by God's grace, his glorious image (2Cor3:18), partakers in his divine nature ("Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so taht through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" 2Pt1:4), They share in his holiness ("...but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness." Hebrews 12:10), his glory ("Now if we are children, then we are heirs-- heirs of god and co-heirs with christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in the glory" Romans 8:17), his knoledge (see 1Cor 13:12), and his authority to judge and rule (1 Cor 6:2-3: "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you hare to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?" or Rev 3:21: "To him who overcomes, i will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcameand sat with my Father on his throne.").
Are we somehow denying god the honor due him when we honor saints? By no means! They bare his perfected handiwork ("For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Ep2:10)-- and when we praise the craftmanship, all the accolades go to the Craftsman. If even the "heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builders craft" (Ps 19:2), how much more so do human beings who have been perfected in wisdom and justice, who "shall shine brightly like the splendor of the fimament, and... shall belike the stars forever (Dn 12:3)?
Finally, we should note that, as the old saying goes, "imitation is the sincerest form of praise." Of all ways we can honor God's saints, the best way is to imitate their faith in him ("We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end,in order to make your hope sure. We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised" Heb 6:11-12; "Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their fatih" Heb: 13:7).
MARY:
laura: there is so much information about Mary that ties to the old testament (creation, the arch of the covenant) that shows reaons for the great honor given to Mary.. in trhe books i've read.. that i am unable to even put it into this blog.. but perhaps the most meaningful Bible verse is John's vision of heaven in Rv 12 the "woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.... (the serpent tried to sweep the woman away but was overcome..) then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make ar against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." "destined to rule all the nations"
as for the assumption: "The assumption is consistent with mary's role as Theotokos ("God-bearer") and immaculate sinless one, who was granted a singular divine grace to bear God himself in her body. If indeed she was free from sin [as, i might note, luther and early reformists believed], then it follows that she would not have to undergo the decay of death, which was the penalty for sin (Gn 3:16-19). If not for the fall of the human race, no one would have died. (the New Catholic Answer Bible, NAB).
well i better stop for now.. i have so many books here i could go on and on forever.. if you've even made it this far, i'm amazed.
i have felt called to something. to explore, defintely.. to search... more. i've felt as though something has been missing for a long time.. since i really started to care, i think. in my 6 years of attending churches on my own and searching out a home congregation.. something was always lacking for me. i thought it was just the red hymnal!!!! :) but i finally found a church that used the red hymnal. i greatly appreciated this small LCMS church with its high church reverence.. but still something missing. i then attributed it to the lack of community in the congregation as i had attended a few things i thought might bring makes me feel at home in a community. nope. church after church. while helping with steve's youth in hudson, i attended there a few times throughout the year. something missing. reverence? the fact that steve could be the pastor for the day and give communion. craziness! though it was sweet and endearing, it seemed off and i hesistate to say this, but somewhat disrespectful of that sacrement. :-/
then linds asked me to help with WLC. that has been amazing and full of blessings.. all of the beauty of being with kids, watcing a dear friend teach, getting to know her life there.. joel, derrek, pastor ben, genesis worship, mission trip, deep impact, etc. i found myself smitten with the genesis worship though i was still uncomfortable with style of music. i'd actually show up 20 minutes late so i could arrive just in time for one of pastor ben's amazing sermons while missing the first set of songs! :-/ eventually, the music grew on me a bit, and after the mission trip i definitely felt a part of this community.. but STILL!!! something was missing. i figured it was just me, but in the back of my mind, for the last 3 years i've been pondering this whole Catholicism deal. its been a slow, slow process.. a few things revealed at a time.. all in all.. its been sending me to learn. figure out why i feel this way. what's missing? is anything missing? what is this feeling? what am i longing for? there were times when i was in tears.. confused by how i could agree with the Catholic church and still commune as a lutheran. was i doing wrong by not fully committing to either? its been an interesting journey, that with the help of a fellow blogger, i could sum up by saying, "..the deeper I searched for the truth, the further into the ancient Church I was drawn.." the more i read the more i feel called to the origination of the church.. the more i realize i was being called to further explore catholicism.
i've recently been attending a catholic church close to my apartment, at first, simply because of its proximity. i've seen this beautiful church for 7 years as its quite close to CSP. :) finally, i stepped foot in the doors. i've learned a bit about the mass so i appreciate the blessing of the holy water, genuflecting, kneeling, etc. i sit in the back, happy that no one knows me. i get excited.. i feel something.. i feel hunger but satisfuied.. not fully, but not the deep hole. something feels alive. i feel a sense of community amongst this group of people whom i do not know. i feel a congregation excited to love each other, to honor God, recieve the eucharist, to recieve each other into the Catholic body.. wow. i'm in love with this church! i was so sad that i had to miss Mass this weekend because I worked 12 hour shifts sat and sun. now i am longing for daily mass, but not sure that i should go because the focus is on receiving the eucharist and i am not ready for that, on my own terms, or the church's. but i think i'll go today...
if anyone else is reading this, besides lindsey! :) i wanted to share this thought too, as oft times people who move from one demonination to another do so out of hurt. I recall a conversation with a friend in which she said something about me having been hurt by the Lutheran church. but oh contrare.. not only is that not the reason, its quite the opposite. i loved the lutheran church in which i was raised. my family was incredibly active.. it was my community.. my extended family. it is largely the basis of my first 18 years of existence. yes, the pastor and some of the congregation deeply wounded my parents which wounded me.. i'd like to say i hold no grudges, but that would be untruthful. unfortunately (and i know i need to work on this), when i think back on the times i saw my parents and other friends of the familiy suffering... i'm still angry. so many families who were running the church, left it and are now scattered at different congregations, and no longer celebrate in communion together. however, i've always recognized that it was one pastor, human beings.. not the entire Lutheran church -MS. even the fact that the district president was conspiring in his affair did not make me think the entire LCMS was corrupt or wrong or worthy of leaving. heck at that point i was still thinking of being a lutheran church worker. And i think the reverence, the old/high church style of service that i grew up with, is one of the very reasons i feel "at home" in the catholic church. its quite intriguing, actually.
so i guess all i have to say when people ask is, "I feel called.. and I feel at home, with Christ as the center, more than ever."
last night, i sat down to read but quickly realized i'd blog again.. from the book, "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic." (clever..) by Davide B. Currie
He writes an entire chapter on the Eucharist which is amazing me just pages in.. the following are a bunch of excerpts i've borrowed. hopefully you can piece it together.. if not, its a good read! forgive the typos.. i'm not re-checking it. =)
"Since my childhood, I remember sitting in the communion service once a month and hearing the words, "This is my body," and "This is my blood." What exactly did Jesus mean by these words spoken the night before his crucifixion? He knew that his words were to be repeated throughout the entire world for the rest of time. Surely he put a tremendous amount of thought into how he would express himself during this crucial night. If Jesus had meant to teach Lutheranism, he could have said in a clear way, "This bread contains my body." If he had meant to teach Evangelicalism, he could have said in a clear way, "this bread only represents my body." but he didn't say either. Yet he was clear. In the clearest way he could say it, he said, "This is my body" (Mt 26:26-28).
---(the writer then goes on to compare the loaves and fishes sermon which is recorded in the following John 6:26-59 excerpt. He shows the similarities of the words used exactly one year before the last supper, on Passover). "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world..... I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty..... but here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man east of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.... I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I wil raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blod is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. ..."
Jesus explains his analogy.. "this bread is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world." Jesus says the bread of life is his flesh. Lest we not understand whether he means "flesh" in a real, physical, touchable way, he tells us next that it is the same flesh that will be given up on the Cross! He goes on to say that this flesh must be eaten by his followers. '
The analogy has been clearly explained. There is no doubt about its meaning. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a figurative way or spiritually speaking, then so is the flesh of the curcifixion! Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal, or the are both figurative.
....Jesus taught that in order for us to have eternal life we must "eat his flesh." He repeates this phrase, or its variations, six times. Four of the times, the Greek word used is very graphic; it can be translated, "to chew". This word is never used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in the anctient secular literature.
...In the early Church, everyone who wrote anything about the Eucharist believed in the Real presence of Christ in the elements of Communion..
...For a full millennium of Christianity, there were no exceptions to this belief of the early Chruch in the Real Presence. It was the univeral teaching of the entire Church. Not until Rationalism... had started to transform the thinking of Europe would any movement call into question the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist... With Rationalism, something that could not be understood through reason was rejected. It has been said that mystery is an embarassment to the modern mind....
(laura here stating.. i like that the eucharist is the center of the mass. there is a homily, but the whole purpose of the mass in to prepare and receive the eucharist. for a great book on the mass in relation to Revelations, read "The Lamb's Supper," by Scott Hahn).
(then there's a verse in Zecharia, "On that day... all who come to sacrafice will take some of the pots and cook in them," (14:20,21). Evangelicals are adament that a priesthood here on earth is no longer needed; the need for sacrifices has ended. The crucifixion of Christ was the last sacrifice ever needed. But if the Evangelicals are correct on this issue of sacrafice, why would God reinstitue something superseded by the work of Calvary? Why perform sacrifices that are unnecessary?
Catholics believe that the Eucharist is a real, unbloody sacrafice that brings into the present time the saving effects of the once-for-all-time crucifixion of Jesus. The work of Christ on the Cross is finished. The crucifixion need never be repeated. But its benefits are applied to me in today's timeframe through the real sacrifice of the Eucharist.
...Karl Keating has pointed out in his book Cathohlicism and Fundamentalism: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek'" (Ps 110:4). By definition a priest offers a sacrifice. What did Melchizedek offer? Some Evengelials are unaware of the fact that it was bread and wine that Melchizedek brought out to Abraham as an offering (Gen 14:18).
The next logical question is, "When did Jesus offer bread and wine as a sacrifice?" the only stance recorded in the Gospels is the Last Supper. Isn't it logical then, that unless Evangelicals can point to another time Jesus fulfilled this function of the Melchizededian pristhood, Jesus saw the Last Supper as the isntitution of a sacrifice? Otherwise the imagery of Psalm 110:4 is emptied of meaning.
This idea of Mass as sacrifice also explains best why 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 quotes jesus as saying during the last supper, "this is my body, which is for you; do this in rememberance of me." As Scripture scholar Father Mitchell Pacwa, S.J., has pointed out, the Greek word for "rememberance" in this passage is a very technical world. Interestingly, it is also a relatively rare word in Scripture. Outside of its uses in the Last Supper, it is used only one other time in the New Testament. This is in Hebrews 10:3, where the rememberance is the act of carrying out a sacrifice. "those sacrifices are an annual reminder [remeberance] of sins." If an Evangelical were to check his Greek Old Testament, he would find that word is used only twice. Both times the remeberence is actually a sacrifice: "Put some pure incense as a memorial... to be an offereing" (Lev 24:7) and "Sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offereings, and they will be a memorial for you (Nb: 10:10). (This word occurs two other times in the Old Testament--in the headings to Psalm 37 abd 69. These were added later by commentators and so are obviously not actual Scripture, but they can indicate the meaning of the word Jesus used. Both speak of the Psalm as being used in conjunction with a memorial sacrifice. the Catholic Old Testament has one jmore occurrence, of a different nature, in Wisdom of Solomon 16:6)
This Greek word "rememberance" is more than just "think about me by recalling this event to mind." It is a word fraught with sacrificial overtones, used in the Bible to mean "remind yourself of something by participating in a sacrifice." What a strange word for Jesus to use if he did not intend to set up the Eucharist as a sacrifice. In fact, Jesus' choice of this rather rare word is unexplainable if he did not view the Last Supper as a sacrifice.
....The very core of Catholicism is the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the Eucharist.
SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY:
"On this subject of scriptural authority, let me being by quoting from a letter i wrote to one of the pastors of the Baptist church we attended immediately before reconciling to Catholicism....
'So that you better understand, let me explain the progression of my thinking to you. When I started this pilgrimage, I accepted the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura, or "only Scripture" (Scripture is the Christian's final authority for his faith.)
Several years ago I set a goal for myself of reading the entire Bible through in a year. I chose the NIV Bible because I had not done much reading in that version up to that time. As I read the Old Testament, I was struck by several major issues. The most revolutionary for me was that I saw that no one could have established or maintained Judaism in the way God desired from the data found only in the Bible.there wee too many holes and gaps: so much was assumed. i saw that a gtremendous amount of what was involved in being a God-fearing, God-pleasingj Israelite must have been passsed down from generation to generation in an oral instruction (tradition). You want just one example? try to reconstruct the process of offereing a sin offering from the Old Testament alone. You can't get to first base! Reconstructing worship that would be pleasing to God from the OT alone is impossible. There are many such examples.
this fact bothered me tremendously. It is hard for me to express in writing how unsettling the implications fo that insight were to me. The God-ordained religion that Moses had helped to set up required the faithful transmission of oral tradition from generation to generation. Otherwise the practice of Judaism in a way pleasing to God would ahve been impossible. I had always thought of the Jews as "people of the Book", yet the Book was not enough! This flew in the face of everything I had ever been taught. I knew it struck at the very heart of sola scriptura by illustrating the necessity of an authorititative oral tradition.
And yet, for us Christians in this age of grace, had not Jesus changed all that Hadn't Jesus condemned all the traditions (binding oral tradition) of the Jews and when he taught here on earth? the next step in my thinking came when I udnerstood that the answer to that question is an emphatic "No." This was not my own insight; I encountered it in a verse that had been pointed out by Scott Hahn.
Jesus actually commanded the Jewish people of his day to obey the Pharisees' traditional teachings, orally transmitted: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees set in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you" (Mt 23:2-3). But the seat of Moses itself is not to be found anywhere in the OT! The seat of Momses was a product of that historic oral tradition so important to the Isrealite faith. Jesus gives the authority of tradition his unqualified approval and commands his contemporaries to obey the tradition's precepts. Theya re not given the option of obeying only those traditions that they could justify with a "chapter and verse." Jesus explicitly includes "everything they tell you". Nor are there any "ifs, ands, or buts" to qualify the obligation to obey. The main problem Jesus had with the Pharisees is evidenced in the rest of the passage; they did not obey their own teaching. The authoritative nature of tradition is expressly taught here by Jesus himself.
ok, laura writing now. all in all, as i trudge through all the literuare.. i find that for myself, as as lutheran, Bible verses were, meh.. there. they were honored and beautiful as the Scripture, but i just sort of passed over the ones that didn't make sense... now, they make sense.. they tie together.. the are what the Catholic church teaches.. because the Catholic church was the church that Christ and his disciples and the early father started. examples that were important to me:
the Tradition of the Papacy:
"In the Book of Isaiah, god promises that he will appoint a new mastor of the royal household of his people: "He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open" (22:21-22).
The book of Revelation refers to this prophecy to Jesus as the new master of God's household the "new Jerusalem" (21:2), which is the Church. St. John calls him "the holy one, the true who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open' (3:7).
These passages take an additional significance when we read int he Godpel according to Matthew that Jesus gies a special commission to his chief apostle: "You are Peter [meaning literally, "Rock"], and upon this rock I will build my church" (16:18). This is the most direct biblical reference to the papacy. in this moment, our Lord establishes Pter as the first pope, leader of the Church, whose role is indespensable to its mission.
Now notice what Jesus goes on to say to Peter as his commission, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (16:19).
Here Jesus tells more about what it means for Peter to be the "Rock" of the Church: Peter and his successors will have a unique share in Christ's authority as the keeper of the "keys." Alluding to the prophecy in Isaiah, Jesus foretells the role of the pope as a father to Gop's people (the word "pope" literally means "father"), the head of God's royal household, the one with divine authority to open and close the way to the heavenly kingdom.
If such an office was needed in the first generation of the Church, then it is also necessary in every generation, as in the case of priests and bishops. St. peter became the first bishop of Rome, so his unique office in the Church as been passed downt o his episcopal successors there. " (The New Catholic Answer Bible, NAB, M-3).
SAINTS:
The first of the Ten Commandments makes it clear that worship is due to God alone. In Deuteronomy, the Lord tells his people through Moses: "You shall not have other gods besides me... You shall not bow down before them or worship them" (5:7,9).
Catholics affirm this truth. Only the all-mighty creator of the universe, the one in whome "we live and moe and have our being" (Acts 17:28), is worthy of our worship-- of the adoration that involves giving ourselves completely to him. No saint or even aangel should ever be adored in that sense.
At the same time, however, we obey the biblical instruction to "pay to all their dues,.. honor to whom honor is due" (Rom 13:7). Through we don't worship the saints and agnels in heaven, we do in fact honor (or venerate) them, because they are worth of great honor. This is a biblical distinction.
Why do they deserve such honor? Because they now stand before him in heaven face-to-face, and they have become like him ("Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall belike him, for we shall see him as he is. 1jn 3:2). They have become, by God's grace, his glorious image (2Cor3:18), partakers in his divine nature ("Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so taht through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" 2Pt1:4), They share in his holiness ("...but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness." Hebrews 12:10), his glory ("Now if we are children, then we are heirs-- heirs of god and co-heirs with christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in the glory" Romans 8:17), his knoledge (see 1Cor 13:12), and his authority to judge and rule (1 Cor 6:2-3: "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you hare to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?" or Rev 3:21: "To him who overcomes, i will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcameand sat with my Father on his throne.").
Are we somehow denying god the honor due him when we honor saints? By no means! They bare his perfected handiwork ("For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Ep2:10)-- and when we praise the craftmanship, all the accolades go to the Craftsman. If even the "heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builders craft" (Ps 19:2), how much more so do human beings who have been perfected in wisdom and justice, who "shall shine brightly like the splendor of the fimament, and... shall belike the stars forever (Dn 12:3)?
Finally, we should note that, as the old saying goes, "imitation is the sincerest form of praise." Of all ways we can honor God's saints, the best way is to imitate their faith in him ("We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end,in order to make your hope sure. We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised" Heb 6:11-12; "Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their fatih" Heb: 13:7).
MARY:
laura: there is so much information about Mary that ties to the old testament (creation, the arch of the covenant) that shows reaons for the great honor given to Mary.. in trhe books i've read.. that i am unable to even put it into this blog.. but perhaps the most meaningful Bible verse is John's vision of heaven in Rv 12 the "woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.... (the serpent tried to sweep the woman away but was overcome..) then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make ar against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." "destined to rule all the nations"
as for the assumption: "The assumption is consistent with mary's role as Theotokos ("God-bearer") and immaculate sinless one, who was granted a singular divine grace to bear God himself in her body. If indeed she was free from sin [as, i might note, luther and early reformists believed], then it follows that she would not have to undergo the decay of death, which was the penalty for sin (Gn 3:16-19). If not for the fall of the human race, no one would have died. (the New Catholic Answer Bible, NAB).
well i better stop for now.. i have so many books here i could go on and on forever.. if you've even made it this far, i'm amazed.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
another "why catholic" guy!!
mmm.. not sure if anyone reads this, since i never log in.. or blog on here. but i found an interesting site today. its actually a blog, as well, written by a former baptist minister converted to catholicism.. there were a few things he said that struck a cord. his conversion story, though different, is quite similar to many of the other post-prostestant minister convert to catholicism that i've read... here were afew things that i related with..
his blog sit is: http://why_catholic.blogspot.com/
i'd love it if you read it and told me what you thought. :) its a lot about his conversion but there are some things i'm sure you'd find interesting.. here goes with some quotes i copied off his blog:
"...the deeper I searched for the truth, the further into the ancient Church I was drawn.."
"I don't mean to paint such a negative picture. Most all protestants I know are godly people who love and serve Jesus Christ the best they know how. They want nothing more than to please Christ with their lives, but Catholicism is something truly foreign to them. They have only vague knowledge and assumptions on Church teaching and practice based on what they see in the media (and we all know how accurately the media portrays the Church). Catholicism makes them uncomfortable because of the unfamiliarity.
The Eucharist is one of the largest reasons for my conversion to Catholicism. In seminary, we studied the two ordinances observed by Baptists, namely Communion and Baptism. The more I studied Scriptures, the reformers, and the early Church, the more I realized that there was more to Communion than "just" a memorial. Too many of these sources were teaching that Christ was present in a real way during this activity. Scripture was also clear that the rituals prescribed for His people always had a deeper meaning than a mere observance. They were times of drawing nearer to God. And why would people be sick and dying for not "discerning the body correctly" if it was just a memorial piece of bread?
John 6:52-59
The Jews disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came from Heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." This He said in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.
It amazes me now to think how anyone could attempt a defense of a symbolic reading of this passage. This is merely their own theology dictating to them the meaning of the passage, and that flawed process is called eisegesis. They are putting their own meaning and thoughts into the Scripture rather than accept the truth as Christ plainly teaches.
I realized my own errors in this regard while still a protestant minister. I was not yet willing to become Catholic, but I believed that the Eucharist was exactly as Christ and His disciples taught. There were still many questions, but I was running out of excuses to avoid converting. Scripture was so clear and I was finding that everything in history echoed the truth about the authority of Christ's Church, the Eucharist, Baptism, and more.
I find this typical of many Catholics today. You don't know your faith and that is why many of you leave for protestant congregations, or leave when controversy strikes. If you knew what you have as a Catholic, not only would you not leave BUT you would also share and defend your rich faith."
his blog sit is: http://why_catholic.blogspot.com/
i'd love it if you read it and told me what you thought. :) its a lot about his conversion but there are some things i'm sure you'd find interesting.. here goes with some quotes i copied off his blog:
"...the deeper I searched for the truth, the further into the ancient Church I was drawn.."
"I don't mean to paint such a negative picture. Most all protestants I know are godly people who love and serve Jesus Christ the best they know how. They want nothing more than to please Christ with their lives, but Catholicism is something truly foreign to them. They have only vague knowledge and assumptions on Church teaching and practice based on what they see in the media (and we all know how accurately the media portrays the Church). Catholicism makes them uncomfortable because of the unfamiliarity.
The Eucharist is one of the largest reasons for my conversion to Catholicism. In seminary, we studied the two ordinances observed by Baptists, namely Communion and Baptism. The more I studied Scriptures, the reformers, and the early Church, the more I realized that there was more to Communion than "just" a memorial. Too many of these sources were teaching that Christ was present in a real way during this activity. Scripture was also clear that the rituals prescribed for His people always had a deeper meaning than a mere observance. They were times of drawing nearer to God. And why would people be sick and dying for not "discerning the body correctly" if it was just a memorial piece of bread?
John 6:52-59
The Jews disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came from Heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." This He said in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.
It amazes me now to think how anyone could attempt a defense of a symbolic reading of this passage. This is merely their own theology dictating to them the meaning of the passage, and that flawed process is called eisegesis. They are putting their own meaning and thoughts into the Scripture rather than accept the truth as Christ plainly teaches.
I realized my own errors in this regard while still a protestant minister. I was not yet willing to become Catholic, but I believed that the Eucharist was exactly as Christ and His disciples taught. There were still many questions, but I was running out of excuses to avoid converting. Scripture was so clear and I was finding that everything in history echoed the truth about the authority of Christ's Church, the Eucharist, Baptism, and more.
I find this typical of many Catholics today. You don't know your faith and that is why many of you leave for protestant congregations, or leave when controversy strikes. If you knew what you have as a Catholic, not only would you not leave BUT you would also share and defend your rich faith."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
