The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att...
Reflections from the pastoral ministry of an Evangelical Catholic Priest.
The Mass is where Jesus gives us His Body and Blood in the most intimate of relationships and increases our desire daily to judge wisely the things of earth and live the things of Heaven. Mankind knows he must nourish his body to live...i wonder if sometimes he forgets he needs to nourish his soul.
ReplyDeleteTim, Michael, Lina, et al,
ReplyDeleteThe absurdity of claiming that the elements are changed into the body and blood of Christ can easily be demonstrated from Scripture and reason. For one thing, when Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood", Jesus was physically present at the last supper reclining at the table in His body, not in the elements. He even referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" acknowledging it was still wine.
But more importantly, eating someone's flesh and blood would be cannibalism, which is clearly condemned in the Bible. The elements clearly symbolize His broken body and shed blood. The apostle Paul makes this clear when he quotes Jesus' words "This do in remembrance of me". 1 Cor. ch11 vs 25.
The fact that Jesus said to take the elements in remembrance of Him shows that he would not be physically present, in flesh and blood, in the elements; otherwise why would he say take the elements in remembrance if it was his literal body and blood? By saying do this in remembrance, Jesus is saying it is a memorial, not some kind of magical transformation.
When people accept this as literal simply on the basis of claims of men without the support of Scripture, they have willingly put their God-given power of reasoning and searching the Bible aside. God wants us to use our power of reasoning that he gave us; not accept false teachings that do not have the support of Scripture. Scripture itself tells us to test everything by Scripture just as the Borean christians did. (Acts 17:11) If something is contrary to Scripture, it is to be rejected as the false teachings of men. Large numbers of people following a teaching does not make it true; there are probably several billion Muslims in the world believing in their false teachings. Does that make it true?
Figurative language was commonly used by Jesus in the New Testament. When someone shows us a photograph of a loved one and says this is my wife, or this is my son, do we think the photo is actually the wife or son? When Jesus said "I am the door" or "I am the vine" or "I am the good shepherd", do we take it literally or figuratively?
In the same way, when Jesus said in John chapter six that "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life" John 6:54.
Do we take this literally or figurately? Jesus gave the answer in verses 63, 64. Jesus was speaking of the spiritual relationship of those who have faith in Him, not literally eating his flesh and blood. The New Testament is full of figurative language.
Logic should be sufficient for someone to know that if the properties of the bread and wine are unchanged and it looks and tastes the same as bread and wine, that it is not changed. It is still only bread and wine. But the final authority is the Bible itself because it is written by the apostles writing under the inspiration of God, the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, there is no further sacrifice to be made for sin such as the Mass claims to be. Paul's epistle to the Hebrews makes this clear. (see Hebrews chap 7 to 10) Jesus paid the full price, once for all time.
blah blah blah.
ReplyDeleteJesus said: "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, YOU shall not have life within you." My translation of the Bible does not say at the end. "Just kidding. Got you there!"
Your personal discounting of and general ignorance of church history, except for the revised Reform version, and of the sincerity of Christ's words boils down to one thing you said.
"Logic should be sufficient." Logic is not sufficient with God. His ways are higher than our ways, or was that just another thing that should not be taken literally.
You, Dear Brother, spend too much time speaking (typing), and too little time listening (reading). You use a lot of words to say things that are really very simple. Here try it. Repeat after me: "I, Wayne do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist."
Is that so hard? Is your faith so weak that you have to make us believe what you believe, just because your personal interpretation of the Bible says so?
Give it a rest Wayne.
Michael
"When someone shows us a photograph of a loved one and says this is my wife, or this is my son, do we think the photo is actually the wife or son? When Jesus said "I am the door" or "I am the vine" or "I am the good shepherd", do we take it literally or figuratively?"
ReplyDeleteThat's a VERY good point!
"Is your faith so weak that you have to make us believe what you believe..."
Wayne isn't the only one doing that, Michael. You do it, too. So do pretty much all members of "revealed" religions.
Why? I wonder.
Lady Janus:
ReplyDeleteCurious Comments.
I think (and thought) that there was a difference between one who has been brow beating us all with his arguments against the Catholic Church, and one who is not prepared to lie down and take this kind of stuff without providing (or attempting to provide) cogent responses to it, that mirror the historical truth, and to the best of my ability the spiritual truth.
However, you may view that any way you choose. I do not require Wayne or you to believe in the Christian faith, as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church.
I appreciate that by and large you present your opinions on things, with some factual background as appropriate to make your own case for things, many of which are contrary to Catholic beliefs. Although you do not agree with Catholic Christianity, I find you a curious observer of what is said.
As a curious observer, how are you to filter truth from fluff and obfuscations of the truth when head bashing is going on right before your eyes?
Frankly, my concern about the dialogue that I have entered into with Wayne is more about what others, like yourself (hold off the head swelling for a moment) will observe, and you hit the nail on the head in the other posting on Aggie Catholics with your comments about "revealed religions" and the squabbling that goes on in them.
I would prefer, if the dialogue were really necessary, to debate Wayne privately, on the matters of faith on which we disagree.
Catholic Christians for many years sat back while Fundamentalist Christians took a hammer to them and their faith. It was a "If we ignore them, they will eventually go away," combined with a lack of understanding on the part of Catholics of the essence of their own faith. That boat has sailed long ago, and so debates are inevitable where in the past they were avoided.
But, Wayne's point using the picture analogy was NOT A GOOD POINT. It amounted to the stupidest thing he has said to date, and portrayed the major difference between fundamentalists and Catholics. Where we see Jesus calling himself the door, and picture what that means, and tie it into the scripture, the context of the day, the context for today, and what it might mean to us as individuals, the fundamentalists do not.
We Catholics take the words of Jesus Christ as reported in the Bible to be literal when study of the language indicates it is so, and as a metaphor or type when the language of the day mitigates for it.
On my own blog, I present things, usually Catholic in nature, that interest me. Sometimes I add my own opinion, and sometimes I carefully research the Catholic teaching to be sure that what I say is consistent with the Catholic Church. I do not require agreement just because I have given my best shot at explaining something.
I think you might be confusing presenting a case for something in defence of attack against it with the actual attacking going on. Or, maybe you have it right.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Regards
Michael
The sad part is the headline "Freedom through truth - The most holy sacrifice of the Mass".
ReplyDeleteThis is a bizzare statement because the second half of the statement is not biblical truth and is in fact a deception. Something that contradicts the truth of the Bible cannot be "freedom through truth".
Only God's Word, the Holy Bible, is the truth.
Today many believe they should give credence to spiritual experiences such as visions, trances, even cooincidences that happen, and think that if they are associated with the their church or mass, that it must be of God. People forget the first person to any church on Sunday and who probably has a well-worn seat is the devil himself. Who said that the devil could not be behind many of the deceptive experiences? God has allowed the devil a certain amount of leeway in this world for a limited period of time. Just take a look around you and see how many have been deceived in countless ways in the world. Various false religions, cults, devilish associations, and workings. Yet some would be so bold to proclaim that God was behind some experience that has absolutely no proof of that being the case. The only sure source of truth is God's inspired Word. If you believe you have some better source of truth or way of knowing something is of God, you may have been deceived as billions of others have.
God has inspired the apostles to teach his people how to test the spirits to see if they or their teachings are of God or the devil. if you want to have a power from God which is not of this world, study, and I mean prayerfully ask God to reveal his truth to you through his word.
Here is a what God has said through the apostle John.
"Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of antichrist that, as you heard, is to coome, but in fact is already in the world." 1 John ch4 1 to 3. When it talks about Jesus Christ here it is not talking about the Jesus of the host, which is a false interpretation of who Christ is; it is talking about the Jesus Christ of the Scriptures. All the doctrine about Christ and who He is as revealed in Holy Scripture. False prophets can come in all varieties, shapes, and forms. The only way to combat the false teachings and avoid being deceived is through the truth God has revealed in His Word. Jesus gave us the example when He was taken by Satan and offered all the kingdoms of the world if He would only bow down and worship Satan. How did Jesus deal with him? Not by earthly power or by destroying him which He could have done in a flash. No, Jesus dealt with Satan by speaking the Word of God to him. He quoted scripture to Satan. That is how Jesus dealt with the devil and his lying temptations.
Michael, I did not mean to give the impression that you tout your own religious beliefs with the same vigor that Wayne does, but you do insist on trying make sure that everyone knows exactly what you believe. Most members of revealed religions do that to some degree or other, as if what you believe would have any impact on what someone else believes. As if you have a personal stake in "being right" -- and that having someone else outside yourself actually acknowledge it publicly is to your ultimate benefit.
ReplyDeleteEach of you calls his own version of religious belief "Truth" -- as if calling it that were some kind of weapon with which to vanquish your opposition. But who is your opposition? He's your neighbor, your friend, your family member, your spouse/lover, the guy who hauls your garbage and serves you at the local eatery. Most of the time, he's a comrade, but in matters of religion, he becomes the enemy. This comparing and displaying of religious views reminds me of the strutting displays of cock birds of all types, meant to intimidate and dominate others so the "winner" gets his prize...the female. Except with religion, females also engage in the strutting display, and I don't understand what the "prize" is at all.
From Wayne's point of view, his analogy about the photograph was pretty close to being perfect. You may not agree with what he said, and I don't think he meant it literally (he'll correct me if I'm wrong about that, I'm sure), but as far as making his point goes, I understood exactly what he meant. He got the message across with an illustration I understood. That's communication!
But as for what "all" Catholics believe or don't believe about the words of Jesus as "spoken" (reportedly) in the book, I'm afraid I have to call you on that one. In my own family, there are often squabbles and disagreements about what was said, what was meant, and whose authority trumps whose in such matters. I frequently avoid family get-togethers for that very reason. More feathers and strut, and no prize in sight.
Wayne, you live in a binary world, it seems. Black or white. No grey. Left or right. No center.
ReplyDeleteIf your devil goes to church, what does that say about him (it's a him, right?). And what does it say about the rest of the churchgoers?
And who decides?
Lady Janus:
ReplyDeleteI take your comments seriously, and thank you for them. Some times I need to rein myself in.
My own blog is a Catholic blog, because I have chosen for it to be so. As such, I write about things Catholic, as a general rule. Father Tim's blog is also a Catholic blog, and so the things written here are by and large Catholic or the Catholic perspective on them.
Normally you would expect a Catholic priest's blog and a lay Catholic's blog to attempt to be consistent with the Catholic faith, and therefor not necessarily consistent with the Wiccan or even the Christian Reformed faith.
So, yes here and at my own blog, I tend to defend the Catholic faith. I tend to present Catholic teachings that I have learned and absorbed into my own personal faith on my own blog.
You did however raise what I think is the most important point, and the one that we should have known and observed.
We here on the planet are all brothers and sisters, and as such we owe each other the responsibility to love one another, which to me means treating one another's beliefs with respect, even if we do not concur with them.
In defending the Catholic faith against Wayne's attacks, I have stepped over the line on more than one occasion, and it is not something I feel comfortable with doing. But, I did it anyway.
Thank you for your comment.
As to what all Catholics believe or don't from the bible, that, of course if it is what I said above, would be erroneous. What I should have said is that the Church teaches something about the words of Jesus, which is a different kettle of fish.
Though Catholics are supposed to believe the things of the faith we profess, we are unique in Christianity. Where our Protestant brethen move along to a different or new denomination when they disagree with something, Catholics tend to button it up, which means that they quietly don't believe something, or they suck it up and don't make waves, meaning that they passively agressively behave in their unbelief. Failing either of these approaches, they move along to a Protestant denomination that mirrors what they think they believe.
For Catholics our unbelief about Church teaching is largely due to ignorance on our parts of the depth of the teaching at issue.
Michael
Oh, dear! I seem to have given the impression that I was finding fault with you, Michael, and I do apologize. That's not what I was trying to do, believe me. I was merely making what I thought were some interesting observations on how people interact with one another when it comes to their religions. Such behavior is pretty much unknown among Pagans of any kind (we have the occasional one, but anyone engaging in such will find himself isolated and shunned if he keeps it up, so it happens rarely, and is not sustained behavior).
ReplyDeleteWhat you said about "sucking it up" and being passive-aggressive -- I've noticed that; people who get "caught" doing it tend to deny it vigorously, and then make all attempts to deflect the conversation to another topic, but I have noticed it. Public disagreement with "one's own group" is unacceptable behavior...?
Lady Janus:
ReplyDeleteI did not for a moment think you were finding fault, but were making an observation, and that observation connected with some of my own thoughts and feelings.
So, I appreciated it.
There is a serious problem in Christianity that was exacerbated by the Reformation, but which existed in the church prior to that time, and sadly will continue throughout the whole of the church.
Jesus called us to BE ONE, like He and the Father are one. Seems to me squabbling over scripture is not a good example of being one.
Being one does not require us to think alike, even though some would try to use a form of power to make us. But, it does require us to accept each other as equals in God's love because we exist, not because of what we think, say or do.
There are objective truths, and those were what I was attempting to present as truth to our brother Wayne. Objectively, the Church believed that the Eucharist was the Real Presence of Jesus Christ from the beginning, with some heretical offshoots until the dawn of the Reformation, from whence many variations of the theme of what the Last Supper was all about have arisen. This is documented.
Objectively, there have been instances of what can be termed miraculous occurrences where a particular consecrated communion host has remained incorruptible for hundreds of years, and has either bled, or taken on the attributes of flesh or some other thing. These too have been documented.
Those things are true. But, whether the communion host and the wine becomes the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is a matter of faith, and hence the Catholic Church does not allow non believers in this dogma to receive the Eucharist, as that would be a profanation of it.
It is very appropriate for Wayne to say he does not believe in it, which is his objective truth. It gets murkier when he moves past his own interpretation of scripture to claiming that the devil is in the details as he recently did.
To judge another for what they believe is forbidden by scripture, but makes good common sense, if we are to co-exist in this world.
Lady Janus:
ReplyDeleteI did not for a moment think you were finding fault, but were making an observation, and that observation connected with some of my own thoughts and feelings.
So, I appreciated it.
There is a serious problem in Christianity that was exacerbated by the Reformation, but which existed in the church prior to that time, and sadly will continue throughout the whole of the church.
Jesus called us to BE ONE, like He and the Father are one. Seems to me squabbling over scripture is not a good example of being one.
Being one does not require us to think alike, even though some would try to use a form of power to make us. But, it does require us to accept each other as equals in God's love because we exist, not because of what we think, say or do.
There are objective truths, and those were what I was attempting to present as truth to our brother Wayne. Objectively, the Church believed that the Eucharist was the Real Presence of Jesus Christ from the beginning, with some heretical offshoots until the dawn of the Reformation, from whence many variations of the theme of what the Last Supper was all about have arisen. This is documented.
Objectively, there have been instances of what can be termed miraculous occurrences where a particular consecrated communion host has remained incorruptible for hundreds of years, and has either bled, or taken on the attributes of flesh or some other thing. These too have been documented.
Those things are true. But, whether the communion host and the wine becomes the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is a matter of faith, and hence the Catholic Church does not allow non believers in this dogma to receive the Eucharist, as that would be a profanation of it.
It is very appropriate for Wayne to say he does not believe in it, which is his objective truth. It gets murkier when he moves past his own interpretation of scripture to claiming that the devil is in the details as he recently did.
To judge another for what they believe is forbidden by scripture, but makes good common sense, if we are to co-exist in this world.