Sunday, February 22, 2004
re: Real Presence [Rick Barry]
Morning Joe and everyone else.
I will respond to those things you said which seem easier to answer now, and try to deal with the more difficult questions later, as they require further study.
First, many of you will be proud of me, since Rachel and I went to a Tridentine Mass this morning (Latin Mass). It was quite fascinating, I look forward to telling you about it sometime Joe.
Anyway, the first thing you said, Joe, that seems plainly incorrect was that transubstantiation is not official church doctrine. I don't know what makes you think that, but the Catechism seems to suggest otherwise. I quote:
"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." (1376)
It seems doctrine to me. Please let me know if I am wrong.
Secondly, you say I dismissed too quickly Jack's invitation to prayer. First of all, I did not mean to dismiss the suggestion at all, but truly wish I did spend more time in prayer about this question and many others. However, one of my problems with the miracle is that it scandalizes the senses. It suggests that God is performing a great miracle, but that he is hiding the work from each of the five senses. This is unprecedented in Biblical history, and to me seems to contradict the nature of God as I understand Him.
Now, Joe, you know that there is natural and revealed law. You say that I will not find physical proof for the existence of God. I refer you to the Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Section 3. Here Saint Thomas provides six proofs of God's existence in from nature. There is plenty of physical proof for God, this seems pretty orthodox. What about the trinity? You are right, this is revealed law, and could only be discovered through God's revelation.
Regardless, there are certain things that can be known about God without revelation, just by honest reflection. Things that have been known by all people at all times. Anyway, I am dancing around my main point: your definition of faith seems to be "mental assent". This, I do not believe, is the proper or traditional definition. I started to research this point, but have too much to do to finish it now. I will get back to you on it.
Regardless, if I present arguments against real presence, suggesting that the concept may contradict the nature of God in some way, then, assuming you believe in a reasonable, coherent God who does not suffer from contradiction, you do have to respond. It is not enough to fall back on faith if there is a contradiction. Indeed, to suggest that the one true faith has at its core a practice that is seemingly contradictory but that God requires us to assent to the practice on "faith" is a weak argument. I know this is not your argument, but it could be read that way. The Christian faith is a reasonable one, God is a reasonable God.
Anyway, third point, Joe you say that it was one sacrifice but that, from God's perspective, Christ is still suffering on the cross. This view requires a certain understanding of time, and God's relation to it, that I am not convinced of. Even so, I will quote Hebrews 9:12. It reads, "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." He entered, Joe, once and for all. And you will notice the past tense.
Also Hebrews 10:22--"But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." Again, notice the past tense. He HAD offered for all time ONE sacrifice. And then what? He sat down. As he said, "It is finished." Therefore, how can the sacrifice I observed on the alter today be this same sacrifice? The same sacrifice that Chrsit HAD offered before he sat down?
Joe, you say the sacrifice is continual from God's perspective, but even if it is, we are not in God's perspective. We are in our perspective, and it is certainly not continual for us. If it is, how could the author of Hebrews write it in the past tense? Can God take an event that happened 2000 years ago and plant in into different other periods of time? When you said this, it is meaningful for a moment, but as I think about it, the idea seems nonsense. Please expound upon what you believe.
Hope you had a holy and blessed Sunday!
I will respond to those things you said which seem easier to answer now, and try to deal with the more difficult questions later, as they require further study.
First, many of you will be proud of me, since Rachel and I went to a Tridentine Mass this morning (Latin Mass). It was quite fascinating, I look forward to telling you about it sometime Joe.
Anyway, the first thing you said, Joe, that seems plainly incorrect was that transubstantiation is not official church doctrine. I don't know what makes you think that, but the Catechism seems to suggest otherwise. I quote:
"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." (1376)
It seems doctrine to me. Please let me know if I am wrong.
Secondly, you say I dismissed too quickly Jack's invitation to prayer. First of all, I did not mean to dismiss the suggestion at all, but truly wish I did spend more time in prayer about this question and many others. However, one of my problems with the miracle is that it scandalizes the senses. It suggests that God is performing a great miracle, but that he is hiding the work from each of the five senses. This is unprecedented in Biblical history, and to me seems to contradict the nature of God as I understand Him.
Now, Joe, you know that there is natural and revealed law. You say that I will not find physical proof for the existence of God. I refer you to the Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Section 3. Here Saint Thomas provides six proofs of God's existence in from nature. There is plenty of physical proof for God, this seems pretty orthodox. What about the trinity? You are right, this is revealed law, and could only be discovered through God's revelation.
Regardless, there are certain things that can be known about God without revelation, just by honest reflection. Things that have been known by all people at all times. Anyway, I am dancing around my main point: your definition of faith seems to be "mental assent". This, I do not believe, is the proper or traditional definition. I started to research this point, but have too much to do to finish it now. I will get back to you on it.
Regardless, if I present arguments against real presence, suggesting that the concept may contradict the nature of God in some way, then, assuming you believe in a reasonable, coherent God who does not suffer from contradiction, you do have to respond. It is not enough to fall back on faith if there is a contradiction. Indeed, to suggest that the one true faith has at its core a practice that is seemingly contradictory but that God requires us to assent to the practice on "faith" is a weak argument. I know this is not your argument, but it could be read that way. The Christian faith is a reasonable one, God is a reasonable God.
Anyway, third point, Joe you say that it was one sacrifice but that, from God's perspective, Christ is still suffering on the cross. This view requires a certain understanding of time, and God's relation to it, that I am not convinced of. Even so, I will quote Hebrews 9:12. It reads, "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." He entered, Joe, once and for all. And you will notice the past tense.
Also Hebrews 10:22--"But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." Again, notice the past tense. He HAD offered for all time ONE sacrifice. And then what? He sat down. As he said, "It is finished." Therefore, how can the sacrifice I observed on the alter today be this same sacrifice? The same sacrifice that Chrsit HAD offered before he sat down?
Joe, you say the sacrifice is continual from God's perspective, but even if it is, we are not in God's perspective. We are in our perspective, and it is certainly not continual for us. If it is, how could the author of Hebrews write it in the past tense? Can God take an event that happened 2000 years ago and plant in into different other periods of time? When you said this, it is meaningful for a moment, but as I think about it, the idea seems nonsense. Please expound upon what you believe.
Hope you had a holy and blessed Sunday!
Saturday, February 21, 2004
re: The Mystery of Transubstantiantion [Rick Barry]
I have been looking forward to having a spare hour to comment on some of the discussion that has been happening here. I am glad to finally have the chance.
First, Joe, on John Kerry, what a shame that he is Catholic (by birth, at least). I think most evangelicals are pretty pleased to have President Bush representing them, even though he is not being as conservative as most of us would like (especially with gay marriage). John Kerry, on the other hand, is not a good model of what a Catholic should be at all. He is divorced, that is one thing, but remarried outside of the church! I wonder if any reporter would ever ask him about that in light of his supposed Catholic faith. Then there is the who abortion issue. And others. Amazing!
Anyway, on to the issue of transubstantiation. Jack, nice to talk to you. In your last message to the group, you prescribed prayer and contemplation (especially before the exposed sacrament) as a method by which God can reveal to me the truth of the Church's teaching. I appreciate the suggestion, and wish I spent more time in honest prayer on this issue. Naturally, yours is not an intellectually satisfying response to the objections, but an honest one. Objections, however, remain. Two came to mind as I read your post.
First, the quote from Saint Thomas where he says the Body and Blood 'cannot be apprehended by the senses.' Indeed! This is a major objection to the miracle. When Christ healed the blind, the blind could see. When Christ healed the lame, they could walk. Those with bleeding problems stopped bleeding. When he multiplied the loaves, there was more bread to eat. I know of no miracle in the Bible where one had to accept it had happened without any evidence that it did.
Transubstantiation is a miracle with no physical evidence. As you know, the bread continues to taste and feel like bread. The wine as wine. One is to believe that the bread and wine retain their accidents, but their substance changes. God in creating us gave us five senses so that we can explore the world and see Him in it. Most of us have been blessed with five wonderfully working senses, each a gift from God. In the Gospel's, when Christ came upon one whose gift of sight was not functioning, he restored that man, made him whole again.
As Saint Thomas confesses, the centerpiece of Catholic faith, the pinnacle of Catholic worship, is based on a miracle that cannot be verified by any of the five senses. Now, this requires a higher amount of faith, and that is to be admired. If I am wrong, I will join the disciple Thomas as a person who simply did not have enough faith. That would be a sad day. Even so, I don't currently believe I am wrong. Why has God put as the center of his church a miracle that directly contradicts every sense that he has blessed us with. Everything about the Body says that it is bread. Why the seeming deception? And what does it say to us, if anything, about the nature of God?
Second point. You commented (it may have been a slip of the tongue) that the sacrifice of Calvary is "relived" daily on the alter. I take this to mean "to live again." Therefore, it seems to me that you are suggesting that Christ lives and dies over and over again on the alter.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that you pray over the following Bible verses, from the author of Hebrews. Chapter 7 verse 27 says, "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." Chapter 9, verse 26 says, "Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." Chapter 9:28, "so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."
The author of Hebrews seemed to want to stress the word "once." So I wonder what you mean by the sacrifice being "relived". The Bible says, pretty plainly, that there was one sacrifice for all time. Am I wrong to believe that by continually breaking the body of Christ, you are continuing that sacrifice even though it is finished, complete. Christ said, "It is finished." Do you agree?
Joe, seems to me that I have a few things to respond to from your post. I will get to that next study break, maybe tomorrow.
A fond farewell!
Rick
First, Joe, on John Kerry, what a shame that he is Catholic (by birth, at least). I think most evangelicals are pretty pleased to have President Bush representing them, even though he is not being as conservative as most of us would like (especially with gay marriage). John Kerry, on the other hand, is not a good model of what a Catholic should be at all. He is divorced, that is one thing, but remarried outside of the church! I wonder if any reporter would ever ask him about that in light of his supposed Catholic faith. Then there is the who abortion issue. And others. Amazing!
Anyway, on to the issue of transubstantiation. Jack, nice to talk to you. In your last message to the group, you prescribed prayer and contemplation (especially before the exposed sacrament) as a method by which God can reveal to me the truth of the Church's teaching. I appreciate the suggestion, and wish I spent more time in honest prayer on this issue. Naturally, yours is not an intellectually satisfying response to the objections, but an honest one. Objections, however, remain. Two came to mind as I read your post.
First, the quote from Saint Thomas where he says the Body and Blood 'cannot be apprehended by the senses.' Indeed! This is a major objection to the miracle. When Christ healed the blind, the blind could see. When Christ healed the lame, they could walk. Those with bleeding problems stopped bleeding. When he multiplied the loaves, there was more bread to eat. I know of no miracle in the Bible where one had to accept it had happened without any evidence that it did.
Transubstantiation is a miracle with no physical evidence. As you know, the bread continues to taste and feel like bread. The wine as wine. One is to believe that the bread and wine retain their accidents, but their substance changes. God in creating us gave us five senses so that we can explore the world and see Him in it. Most of us have been blessed with five wonderfully working senses, each a gift from God. In the Gospel's, when Christ came upon one whose gift of sight was not functioning, he restored that man, made him whole again.
As Saint Thomas confesses, the centerpiece of Catholic faith, the pinnacle of Catholic worship, is based on a miracle that cannot be verified by any of the five senses. Now, this requires a higher amount of faith, and that is to be admired. If I am wrong, I will join the disciple Thomas as a person who simply did not have enough faith. That would be a sad day. Even so, I don't currently believe I am wrong. Why has God put as the center of his church a miracle that directly contradicts every sense that he has blessed us with. Everything about the Body says that it is bread. Why the seeming deception? And what does it say to us, if anything, about the nature of God?
Second point. You commented (it may have been a slip of the tongue) that the sacrifice of Calvary is "relived" daily on the alter. I take this to mean "to live again." Therefore, it seems to me that you are suggesting that Christ lives and dies over and over again on the alter.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that you pray over the following Bible verses, from the author of Hebrews. Chapter 7 verse 27 says, "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." Chapter 9, verse 26 says, "Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." Chapter 9:28, "so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."
The author of Hebrews seemed to want to stress the word "once." So I wonder what you mean by the sacrifice being "relived". The Bible says, pretty plainly, that there was one sacrifice for all time. Am I wrong to believe that by continually breaking the body of Christ, you are continuing that sacrifice even though it is finished, complete. Christ said, "It is finished." Do you agree?
Joe, seems to me that I have a few things to respond to from your post. I will get to that next study break, maybe tomorrow.
A fond farewell!
Rick
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
ABC Primetime and The Passion [Rick Barry]
Joe and Greg, I look forward to discussing the various issues you raise concerning (1) the role of priests and (2) real presence in the sacrament. Joe, I am assuming (unless I missed something where you said this explicitly) that you are using the following logic: defend real presence, and if you do that then you can defend the priesthood more easily. It makes some sense, however I would still challenge you, even if I were forced to acknowledge real presence, on whether or not there is a sacrifice. If a priest exists to make sacrifices, traditionally, then it seems this added step is central to the current office of the priesthood.
Anyway, all that to say I will look at what everyone wrote more closely soon and try to respond, if I can. What I wanted to see was if anyone else caught Mel Gibson on Primetime Live last night?
It was very good, and Mel was a good spokeman for the Catholic Faith. He had a quick wit and defended his beliefs very well. He argued for the Christian belief in peace, hope, love, and forgiveness. He said we are all responsible for Christ's death. He talked about how Christ died for us and gives us hope. All in all, it was an amazing thing to have Gibson, a Hollywood star, defend the Catholic Faith so beautifully on national television.
Only one thing he said caused an uproar among my friends. He seemed to say that Jews and Muslims could go to heaven, but Christianity was just the most direct root. I am not sure if Gibson would have articulated this differently if given the chance, or added some extra information to make it more clear, or if that is simply what he believes. I am surprised he said that, and wonder exactly where he was coming from. I might be able to agree with him, under certain circumstances. Anyway, overall, it was a great interview.
Anyway, all that to say I will look at what everyone wrote more closely soon and try to respond, if I can. What I wanted to see was if anyone else caught Mel Gibson on Primetime Live last night?
It was very good, and Mel was a good spokeman for the Catholic Faith. He had a quick wit and defended his beliefs very well. He argued for the Christian belief in peace, hope, love, and forgiveness. He said we are all responsible for Christ's death. He talked about how Christ died for us and gives us hope. All in all, it was an amazing thing to have Gibson, a Hollywood star, defend the Catholic Faith so beautifully on national television.
Only one thing he said caused an uproar among my friends. He seemed to say that Jews and Muslims could go to heaven, but Christianity was just the most direct root. I am not sure if Gibson would have articulated this differently if given the chance, or added some extra information to make it more clear, or if that is simply what he believes. I am surprised he said that, and wonder exactly where he was coming from. I might be able to agree with him, under certain circumstances. Anyway, overall, it was a great interview.
