Some Christians are expressing shock and hurt that the Pope is being, well, Roman Catholic. But Baptist minister Al Mohler is not offended by the recent statement by Papa Ratz re-stating his view that the Roman Catholic church is the only true church.
Says Mohler,
"I appreciate the document's clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.
The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church -- and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word -- the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true Church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.
I also appreciate the spiritual concern reflected in this document. The artificial and deadly dangerous game of ecumenical confusion has obscured issues of grave concern for our souls. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger...I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.
The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.
In addition to a Baptist's thoughts, here are some thoughts by presbyterian professor, Sean Lucas, who gets to the heart of the matter when he says...
For Roman Catholics, the only way to preserve unity is to point to apostolic succession, a line of ordination that goes back to the apostles. For Protestants, the means for unity is also apostolic succession, but it is a succession of commitment to the apostolic message and mission (Ephesians 2:11-22; Matthew 28:16-20).
And here's a perspective by an Orthodox minister on Papa Ratz's assertion:
Universal Primacy has a way of offering a [false] guarantee that transcends the cross [which can never be transcended]. No matter how badly we fail, the de jure Primacy of the Pope in every local Church, guarantees that no one can really mess it up. I think that is neat, and the product of human imagination. {brackets in the original quote}
No doubt, lots of folks--Christian & non--have a hard time hearing what Rome says today and taking her seriously. Perhaps a little humility might be in order, especially when she reflects the world & other religious entities so closely.
[HT: The Internet Monk, Between Two Worlds & Once More With Feeling.]
26 comments:
I disagree that the main issue is apostolic succession : although it is an important issue.
At the time of the Reformation, some people had doubts about the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
During the Middle Ages, Bégerenger de Tours denied the Real Presence.
Jean Calvin merely repeated the heresy of Béregner de Tours and denied transsubstantiation.
Martin Luther disagreed with Calvin on the issue bu adopted a poisition called consubstantiation which no less denied that the Bondy and Blood if Christ are really and substantially transformed during mass.
This brings us to the problematic definition of the word Church : what is a Church ?
For Catholics, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ : the faithful become One with the Man-God who is Christ. Therefore, they are saved through the grace of His faith and His supernatural life.
The Eastern Orthodox don not believe in original grace and deny some important aspects of original sin and savation : therefore they hold the semi-pelagian views of John Cassian and Gregroy Palamas.
However, the Orthodox believe in Real Presence and Apostolic Succession, which gives them some credit in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The schism of 1054 is believed to be a litteral wound in the body of Christ.
The picture is totally different for protestants : preaching the word is sufficient regardless of the salvific nature of the Churchly Body of Christ.
Even if protestants would be able to convert the whole world, it would mean noting from a catholic point of view because they would be totally deprived of the salvific elements found in the Eucharist : that is Jesus himself.
Mr. (or Mrs.?) Papist,
Thank you for taking the time to stop by and to make some comments. I appreciate the stimulation.
I must take issue with you on a several points.
1. The real presence.
Calvin did believe in the real presence of Christ, no matter how many people wish to parrot distortions about his view. I simply opened up Calvin’s Institutes to the page where he discusses “The Presence of Christ’s Body in the Lord’s Supper” (4.17.10) and there he says very plainly for all to see, “For unless a man means to call God a deceiver, he would never dare assert that an empty symbol is set forth by him. Therefore, if the Lord truly represents the participation in his body through the breaking of bread, there ought not to be the least doubt that he truly presents and shows his body. And the godly ought by all means to keep this rule: whenever they see symbols appointed by the Lord, to think and be persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is surely present there...when we have received the symbol of the body, let us no less surely trust that the body itself is also given to us.”
Now our disagreement with Rome and papists is with their insistence that “real” means “physical.” We insist that Christ is really spiritually present as the host and the feast at the Table.
As WCF #168 says, “…the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper…, yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to the outward senses….”
Or, as one Calvin scholar has rightly observed, “Since Christ himself is the reality…the signs are nothing less than pledges of the real presence. Indeed, they are the media through which Christ effects his presence to his people. The sign cannot be or become the reality, but it is not the symbol of an absent reality either.”
2. Apostolic succession is the one of main issues.
I am not denying nor does Calvin nor Westminster deny the crucial and life-nurturing place of Mother Church. But Jesus does tell us (through preaching) that whoever believes in Him has eternal life and has crossed over from life to death. Now part of our calling of ‘coming out’ of the world is joining His Church through baptism by which He affixes visible signs to His promises. Thus, we are to become members of His mystical Body which takes on physical expression. This is the metaphor (along with other metaphors) that the Scripture gives us to use and understand. Hence your statement obscures the issue (for Protestants “preaching the word is sufficient regardless of the salvific nature of the Churchly Body of Christ.”). Most Protestants, I would think, insist Rome has it backwards: the salvific nature of the Churchly Body of Christ is sufficient regardless of the preaching of the word. That is why Rome can look, at times, like the synagogue of Satan in her practice & effect.
But my problem with Rome & with papists is their insistence that Christ’s Body has two heads, Jesus and the Pope. Rome & papists insist that we acknowledge the Pope or else we are not connected to the Christ’s Body, the “One True Church” (hence, our beef with Benedict). As for me, I will by faith take Jesus at His word that He is the Head. You can by faith take the Pope to be the head. But let us agree with what Mohler was saying: there are consequences to this decision.
John
Let me just comment on the Eucharist. The belief in the physical reality of the real presence was unanimous in the church fathers for 1600 years. Not the Calvin "quasi spiritual presence" notion....but the bread actually being blessed and becoming the body of Christ version.
Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. [{Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31} - Augustine
The very first heresy was formulated when men said: "this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?" {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66} Augustine
I only quote Augustine because I know how much the Reformers like to claim him as a Calvinist.
You see Augustine's sentiments as far back as AD 100. They stretch forth through the Church age all the way to the Reformation when a 26 year old John Calvin decided that everybody else got it wrong. The same councils that defined the Trinity, the incarnation and canonized the New Testament apparently got the Eucharist wrong? In light of strictly scriptural exegesis I don't see how the blessed sacrament can be denied.
On apostolic succession… You are wrong to characterize the Pope as the head of the Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
782 The People of God is marked by characteristics that clearly distinguish it from all other religious, ethnic, political, or cultural groups found in history:
- It is the People of God: God is not the property of any one people. But he acquired a people for himself from those who previously were not a people: "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation."202
- One becomes a member of this people not by a physical birth, but by being "born anew," a birth "of water and the Spirit,"203 that is, by faith in Christ, and Baptism.
- This People has for its Head Jesus the Christ (the anointed, the Messiah). Because the same anointing, the Holy Spirit, flows from the head into the body, this is "the messianic people."
792 Christ "is the head of the body, the Church."225 He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent,"226 especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.
The Pope is not the head of the church. Christ is. Please don't mischaracterize the dogmas of the Catholic Church.
"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing." - Fulton Sheen.
You just said that you take issue with the Catholic Church insisting that the Church has two heads. The Catholic Church insists that the church has one head...Jesus Christ.
An explanation of what the Pope actually is can be found here...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
In Christ...
I just re-read my comment and realize it may sound kind of rude or harsh...I didn't mean for it to so my apologies in advance if it did.
In Christ.
Hey Sean,
No offense taken (though thanks for being considerate).
First of all, did I misspeak when I said that Roman Catholics view the pope as the head of the church? Did I mis-characterize?
I thought this was common knowledge, even among papists. The New Catholic Dictionary under the entry "pope," gives this definition: "Title of the Supreme Head of the Church founded by Christ....He is entitled Vicar of Christ, Head of the Church...."
So is Jesus the Supreme Head, OR is the Pope, OR are both? Pardon me if I am so confused. The Reformers must have so misunderstood Rome & her political power plays as well with this claim as well. Are we really mis-characterizing Rome? If so, why does Rome get so nervous when we say that Christ is the only Head of His Body, the Church? Since I don’t acknowledge Papa Ratz as the head, I am not a part of Christ’s Body, so goes the logic. Rubbish.
Secondly, my friend, you attempt to rid Calvin's "quasi-spiritual presence" with the wave of your hand, but that doesn't dismiss it (and your quotes from St. Augustine don't really add anything to the discussion). Rome likes to jump up and down -- sometimes with Lutherans -- and insist that real can only mean physical . But real can equal spiritual/ mystical/ even sacramental, etc. If not, we have bigger fish to fry.
The dogma of transubstantiation did not arise until the late Middle Ages (and dogmatized by Trent 1215) after Rome had been imbibing from the fount of Aristotelian metaphysics which sought to separate accidents from substances. To read the late Medieval & Reformation debates into the earlier times is pure and simple anachronism, no matter what your buds over at Coming Home say. Real transubstantiation occurs when, say, Jesus changed the water into wine, not Rome’s ‘miracle of the mass’ that needs justification by pagan philosophy. What Rome desires is theologically absurd, not to mention fanciful & philosophically untenable.
In my reading of Calvin, he seeks to think about this afresh in light of post-Trent Rome’s scholastic intoxication on Aristotelian metaphysics and to strip away all the superstition that eventually led post-Trent Rome to keep the elements from the people (almost inconceivable). 16th century Rome’s problem, he says, is that they take Christ’s words literally rather than metaphorically, or even better, sacramentally (Calvin, Book 4.17).
If you want to think you are eating literal physical flesh and drinking literal physical blood, knock your socks off. As for me, I’m anticipating feasting by faith on Christ in the Word preached and upon the Real Presence at the Lord’s Table tomorrow with the Lord’s People on the Lord’s Day. Jesus gives me Himself in the Word and the Sacrament and I receive Him by faith. Am I missing something?
Thirdly, you said, “...when a 26 year old John Calvin decided that everybody else got it wrong....” My friend, this is text-book mis-characterizing. This tells me that you have been reading too many RC buddy-blogs and don’t really know much about Calvin.
Fourthly, I don’t hate the RCC. I just think she is filled with all sorts of doctrinal error and has hurried many souls to Hell. I live in a place where nearly everyone is a Roman Catholic, but hardly anybody can speak two intelligible sentences about who Jesus is and what he has done. I walk in beautiful cathedrals and see people putting money at the feet of statues crying over them and praying to them, weeping and crawling the inner circumference of the church with rosaries in hand. No, I don’t hate the RCC. I’m deeply saddened by her. And I’m just a bit slightly amused that she claims to be the only true church. And frustrated that folks who should know better suppress so much to defend her.
I’m praying for her repentance. Papa Ratz can and should lead the way.
At any rate, I’m sure we’re not going to make much progress over this medium. I much prefer face-to-face real life discussion which is why I don’t spend much time on blogs and message boards and such. I hope to catch up someday when we can have a real discussion.
Tell the wife & Hattie I said "Hola" (Peruvian for “Howdy”).
Blessings,
John
The question as to the head of Church is found in the catechism. Christ is the head. However, Christ gave the authority of a priestly office to his disciples..."As the Father sent me so I send you" (John 20 and elsewhere.) That authority was passed on through the sacrament of ordination which confers that Grace through the imposition of hands (2 Tim 1:6). The authority that the apostles carried was accepted in the New Testament which is why Paul, for example, was always admonishing the church to obey his teachings. Somehow many have a knee-jerk reaction these days to any ecclesiastical authority actually claiming authority. But you see the claiming of such authority even in the PCA although they don't really call it a "Pope" or "Magisterium."
But I am sure you've heard that argument before.
The Pope also didn't say that you weren't part of the body of Christ. He said that churches in schism from the Catholic church aren't true churches. There is a difference. The Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that all Trinitarian Christians are Christians and are understood as "separated brethren" to all Catholics. In other words, all Protestants are my brothers in Christ...
As far as the Eucharist is concerned, any reading of any church father from Ignatius to Luther affirms the current doctrine on the Eucharist held by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Does it not give us a little pause when a church father in AD 110 says:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
How can I read those and buy the line that Transubstantiation was a middle age invention? In the previous quote by Augustine he even says that the blessed bread becomes the body. That is Transubstantiation. Is this a hard saying? Yes. But so is the resurrection of the dead, the virgin birth and feeding the 5000.
If I could be convinced that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ from the scriptures or church history than I'd cease being Catholic.
When I looked at the question from the scriptures alone I couldn't deny it. When I read church history I couldn't deny it. When I sat in the presence of the blessed sacrament I couldn't deny it.
What Rome says about the sacrament is by far the most theologically sound doctrine that I hang my hat on. Maybe I am missing something?
I agree that the medium of blog land isn't suited for any kind of discussion like this. At the same time I honestly don't feel like I am suppressing anything in defending the church. I don't know of any other recent Catholic from the reformed church either who are suppressing things in defending the church.
I am comfortable in knowing what the church is and what it isn't. It isn't perfect. There are abuses. There are bad catholics, bad bishops and even bad priests. But I have hope. Even the early church that Paul and Peter preached to was filled with sinners. This is because the church is full of sinners, which is something on which we can both agree.
It is by Grace that we can even have this discussion and it is by Grace that we love the savior.
We're excited for you in Peru with your growing family. Andy just had his first, as you know and Josey is even getting married. Exciting times.
I'd love to meet face to face and discuss many of the issues over brew and prezels. I might bring back up though, in the form of other converts...haha. Maybe we can have a mini ecumenical council?
(I think Papist is another former AggieRufer...maybe she can come?)
In Christ,
Sean
John,
If the elect are all predestined to salvation, how is it that the Catholic church has "hurried people to hell?"
Sean,
I do find it interesting that your are hanging your hat on what Rome says about the Eucharist. What Justin Martyr and Ignatius and others are saying in the early centuries is not a problem for me, or I think, to Calvin (please, I'm begging you to read Calvin, 4.17 on this; I do think it would help advance the discussion). I believe Jesus when he says, This is my Body, This is my Blood. You must eat it and drink it. We believe all this by faith. The debate, as we all know, is over the definition of what "is" is (and thanks to Clinton, we can't say this without snickering.)
We do need to discuss this face to face and I'll buy the Guinness if you bring the pretzels. Thanks for the generous tone of your posts. It gives me great encouragement and causes me to long for good times with the D'hon family. I always remember you all with much affection.
I remain, your separated brother in Christ,
John
Dear "Anonymous,"
You ask, "If the elect are all predestined to salvation, how is it that the Catholic church has 'hurried people to hell?'"
Uh...either (1) you are a hyper-calvinist; (2) your question really should be asked TO a hyper-calvinist; or (3) both. Which ever the case, there are none here.
Cordially,
John
So I had a pretty good comment all lined up but apparently it got killed between Texas and Peru. I'll try and recapture what I said:
When it comes to transubstantiation (TS) as a theory for the doctrine of RP, I think it fails. It certainly has it's roots in Aristotelian metaphysics where the substance of the bread/wine is changed to that of Christ; however, the accidents remain unchanged. Christ cannot be relegated only to the substance; He wants the accidents as well. After all, not only did He bear our sin in His substance, but His accidents were nailed to the Tree. They too were broken for us.
Excellent point, Ben. Thanks.
Ben,
Surely you aren't claiming that Catholics don't believe that Christ was nailed to the cross?
Dan, you've missed the point entirely. And don't call me surely.
Are you saying that it's impossible to "relagate" the substance of Christ from his person?
Like, Christ can't do that?
dan(d): I really have no desire to argue but I will ask two questions: (1) why would the substance of Christ be decoupled from the body He already has, and (2) Why would we want to believe that? To me, this introduces a God who acts capriciously, and a few centuries of studying the "two books" has lead us to safely conclude that God does not act capriciously.
Ben,
We believe it because it is.
Your statement about the Eucharist reminds me of an argument made to me by a Muslim recently while trying to deny the deity of Christ. He said, "If Jesus is God and God is all-present, than how did Jesus descend into hell after his crucifixion? Who was running the world when Jesus was in hell?" Was the Trinity reduced to "two" because Jesus was in hell?"
Obviously that argument is faulty because it suggests that Christ somehow is bound by the constraints of His creation.
In like manner, the Lord's Supper cannot be dissected to the point of unbelief.
How does one accept the feeding of the 5000 or manna from heaven but proclaim that the doctrine of the real presence in the blessed sacrament is impossible?
Again, it is a "hard saying." Do you really think Jesus diciples who saw him perform miracle after miracle abandoned him in John 6 because they couldn't accept the symbolic presence of the Lord's Supper?
Catholic Real Presence defenders,
The question isn't just whether or not it is logically possible, but also whether or not the Scriptures certainly teach it.
God's miracles may run counter to naturalistic empiricism, but it does not run counter to logic. The feeding of the 5000 does not accord with our knowledge of physics, science, etc. but the purpose of the miracle (to reveal Christ's authority over nature and power to provide) it does not contradict what the Bible teaches about the nature of God and His power and authority.
The feeding of the 5000 is evidence of Christ's deity because of its connection to the manna provided by God in the Old Testament. Christ's miracle was evidence, it served a logical purpose. Again, it may contradict naturalism and empirical science, but it does not contradict the propositions of Scripture or the nature of God or Christ.
Now the real presence doesn't stand or fall upon naturalism or scientific empiricism, but upon the propositions of Scripture in regard to the nature of God and of Christ. When Scripture says that Christ ascended to sit at the right hand of God, we can only deduce from this statement that Christ truly is sitting at the right hand of God in His glorified body. The dual nature of Christ has been understood to mean that Christ is fully God and fully man possessing all the attributes and qualities of both without infringing upon or contradicting either.
The physical body of Christ cannot be everywhere present at once, nor can it be divested of its full form and still exist as His own body. Christ did not disintegrate Himself into the Supper that he fed the disciples, otherwise he would have multiplied his own flesh while similarly reintegrating it into bread and wine, which are not human.
If you believe that Christ's body is not disintegrated, but rather multiplied, upon what Scripture do you deduce this and upon what logical definitions and premises are you defending your conclusions? If not Aritotelian metaphysics, then what system? Does the Bible indicate a multiplication or division of Christ's body? How about some exegesis from the original languages?
We believe it because it is. welp, that settles it. I wish I could make authoritative statements on the basis of my own worldview. If this was the case, I would be able to fly, know everything, and have a large harem.
Your statement about the Eucharist reminds me of an argument made to me by a Muslim recently while trying to deny the deity of Christ. He said, "If Jesus is God and God is all-present, than how did Jesus descend into hell after his crucifixion? Who was running the world when Jesus was in hell?" Was the Trinity reduced to "two" because Jesus was in hell?" I don't care what my statement sounds like. I care about what my statement actually says. Please deal with my questions as they actually are.
Obviously that argument is faulty because it suggests that Christ somehow is bound by the constraints of His creation. Not what I'm arguing. God made an external, real world for a reason. Why would He then violate the way it works instead of using the processes within them to His purpose(s)?
In like manner, the Lord's Supper cannot be dissected to the point of unbelief. fine, I don't disbelieve in the Lord's Supper. I disbelieve in your theory on the Lord's Supper.
How does one accept the feeding of the 5000 or manna from heaven but proclaim that the doctrine of the real presence in the blessed sacrament is impossible? I'm sorry, but I would appreciate it if you answered my questions. The fact that you never did makes me think that you are more interesting in telling me what to believe on the basis of authority and not actually interested in dialoguing with the issue at hand.
Again, it is a "hard saying." Do you really think Jesus diciples who saw him perform miracle after miracle abandoned him in John 6 because they couldn't accept the symbolic presence of the Lord's Supper? once again, you have deviated from the question at hand.
"The question isn't just whether or not it is logically possible, but also whether or not the Scriptures certainly teach it."
--It is absoultely what the scriptures teach. This is the main reason why the Christian church has taught it since the very beginning. This is why the earliest Christians were called "canibals." This is the "hard saying" that the diciples couldn't accept "Why didn't Jesus correct them?"
Do you really want heavy duty scriptural exegesis on the topic here on this blog? I can do that.
Ben,
What if I apply your logic to Calvin's view of the sacrament?
Instead of the real bodily presense held by the church for over a millenia, Calvin postulated rather a secret relocation of the worshipper through faith and the ministry of the Spirit. In other words, rather than Christ coming down in a barely recognizable human form, the worshipper is transported to heaven by the Spirit, where Christ in the full integrity of His humanity is seated.
Wait a second. Doesn't that mean that our souls would be departed from our bodies? Our substance apart from our accidents?
Dan:
With respect to the issue at hand, I've tried to have a respectful dialog. Granted, I was sarcastic when it came to "We believe it because it is" but vague statements made in an authoritative way never further a dialog. But I your last question is, in my opinion, disrepectful. And once again, you have not dealt with the questions I asked initially. So, I'm finished with this exercise.
I fail to see how I was disrespectful, nevertheless, my apologies.
I think it aptly demonstrates the double standard being held by the church's faithful teaching on the sacrament.
Point is, whether you accept the church's teaching or Calvin's teaching faith is necessary because either doctrine transcends "common sense."
I meant to say of course the double standard being applied to the church's teaching on the sacrament...typo.
Dan,
The evidence that others considered Christians to be cannibals does not represent confirmation of the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence. It could just as easily be said that these pagans misunderstood the doctrine in the same way that Catholics have. Do we believe that Gnostic interpretations of the Johannine Logos represent an accurate assessment of its meaning?
The Pharisees could not understand how Jesus could raise the temple in three days after its being destroyed because they did not understand that he spoke of the temple as a metaphor for his own body. In a sense the temple is his body, but surely we do not believe that the actual temple in Israel was the body of Christ--yet this is what the Scriptures say is it not? Surely this would be a hard saying to accept, but not because it is true. The same applies to your understanding of the real presence.
I don't see why an exegesis of the doctrine has to be "heavy duty." If children can be catechized to understand your view surely you can present an adequate explanation of how Scripture teaches this doctrine in a format such as this can you not? What insurmountable difficulty do you suspect is present?
As for your attribution of inconsistency in Calvin, you should note that he does not begin from Aristotelian metaphysics, so the problem of "substance" and "accidents" are irrelevant to his position as is the problem of individuation, which is the insoluble problem of Aristotle's metaphysics and, by extension, the insoluble problem (of logic) for the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence.
The reasoning minds we have been made to be as the image of God are eternal and immaterial and have no difficulty "ascending" to the heights of Heaven to commune with Christ. There is no height, depth, or spatial dimension whatsoever for that which is immaterial. Your claim is a false dilemma.
Every time you think about an unsensible idea, such a "love" or "brother" or even the quadratic equation your "soul" leaves your "body" in the sense that your mind is attending to things that cannot be attended to by sensation. Your body cannot observe by its senses things like "friend" or "faith" etc. because only minds can apprehend ideas. But now we are getting into the manifold misconceptions of body/soul that extend at least from Plato and still persist today.
Interesting comments on the Papacy John. I've wondered about that all my life and wondered how anyone could possibly be Catholic. (!) Have't had a chance to follow the links but thanks for posting this. I was thinking you were coming to the states in August for some reason. Oh well, I know you were on a tight schedule, see you maybe soon.
Love,
Dad & Geannie
Post a Comment