http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:59:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3409 Nathan Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3409 They do NOT speak for all Catholic liberals. I firmly believe in transubstantiation. http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3410 dlw Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3410 um, if transubstantiation were truly a key doctrine then I'd be a little concerned too. I think they must have bitten off more than they could chew when they started advocating for actually changing the communion rites. Why on earth do we need to do church the same way for us to be able to break bread together as brethren and sistren?<br /><br />It's not the replication of miracles that ultimately matter nor whether a miracle occured at the first communion, but rather the need for us to remember that our atonement required the death of Jesus at the Cross. <br /><br />This is just like papal infallibility or the perpetual virginity of Mary, if the value of Roman Catholicism were based on them then I would be worried. Yet, I don't believe Roman Catholicism's traditions' value are based on the literal truthfulness of these sorts of things and so I can keep on admiring its traditions and plan to enjoy fully when my main man Brennan Manning comes to MN this Friday. <br /><br />dlw
It's not the replication of miracles that ultimately matter nor whether a miracle occured at the first communion, but rather the need for us to remember that our atonement required the death of Jesus at the Cross.

This is just like papal infallibility or the perpetual virginity of Mary, if the value of Roman Catholicism were based on them then I would be worried. Yet, I don't believe Roman Catholicism's traditions' value are based on the literal truthfulness of these sorts of things and so I can keep on admiring its traditions and plan to enjoy fully when my main man Brennan Manning comes to MN this Friday.

dlw]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3411 edey Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3411 dlw: we don't need to "do church the same way" to be in communion. there are 22 (i think) rites of the Catholic church. the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (used on most feasts in the Byzantine rites) is definately different than the Mass of the west (1962 or 1970 missal). we are still in communion with each other, though. we are still all Catholics. however, we all believe in transubstantiation. difference in ritual does not mean deviation from othodoxy, and orthodoxy doesn't have to mean the same ritual. in john 6:54, Jesus said "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.". He didn't say if you eat a representation of my flesh...or something that could be my flesh. the dogma of transubstantiation is non-negotiable. <br /><br />from the article: "We Are Church argued that the dogma of the transubstantiation-- the teaching that the bread and wine at Mass are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ-- is unacceptable to Protestants, and thus impedes ecumenical unity." uh...yeah, the Truth should just change to fit the ideas of protestants. right. great idea. protestants failure to embrace the fullness of the Truth impedes ecumenical unity. the Truth doesn't change and nor should it change to conform to *anyone's* idea of "acceptability". just because people don't like the Truth doesn't make it any less true.
from the article: "We Are Church argued that the dogma of the transubstantiation– the teaching that the bread and wine at Mass are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ– is unacceptable to Protestants, and thus impedes ecumenical unity." uh…yeah, the Truth should just change to fit the ideas of protestants. right. great idea. protestants failure to embrace the fullness of the Truth impedes ecumenical unity. the Truth doesn't change and nor should it change to conform to *anyone's* idea of "acceptability". just because people don't like the Truth doesn't make it any less true.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3412 Steve Nicoloso Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3412 Umm, if everyone were free to decide for themselves what qualifies as a "key doctrine", then <i>I'd</i> be worried. If Catholicism was to be actually judged by its perceived "value", then I'd be worried too. I am certain, dlw, that Catholics with their provincial superstitions, are very pleased to provide a source of entertainment for you. I'd be worried. If Catholicism was to be actually judged by its perceived "value", then I'd be worried too. I am certain, dlw, that Catholics with their provincial superstitions, are very pleased to provide a source of entertainment for you.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3413 howard Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3413 wait, before this discussion gets too serious, I was just wondering if I'm supposed to read the title of this post with the "We Are Family" tune wandering through my head. 'Cause that's what I'm hearing inside right now... http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3414 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3414 "we are heresy/I got all my sisters with me"<br /><br />Considering all the dissident nuns in this country, you just have to replace family with heresy, and there you have it for the first two lines!
Considering all the dissident nuns in this country, you just have to replace family with heresy, and there you have it for the first two lines!]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3415 Funky Dung Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3415 Glad to hear it. :) ]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3416 dlw Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3416 Do you really think there is no ambiguity as to whether Jesus was being literal in the line, "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." I believe he also made claims of being a vine and a door on occasion and that the astonishment of the apostles is explainable by the fact that drinking a person's blood and eating their flesh were extremely taboo in Jewish culture. <br /><br />It's not a matter of every person having a say, but rather what the precedent for the belief of the early church. We know from the rest of the scripture that only by accepting Jesus's sacrifice on our behalf are we saved. And the cotext(surrounding passages) in John supports Jesus's remarks as preparing his apostles for his death, not setting the precedent for how good Catholics sins should be forgiven from there on in....<br /><br />dlw
It's not a matter of every person having a say, but rather what the precedent for the belief of the early church. We know from the rest of the scripture that only by accepting Jesus's sacrifice on our behalf are we saved. And the cotext(surrounding passages) in John supports Jesus's remarks as preparing his apostles for his death, not setting the precedent for how good Catholics sins should be forgiven from there on in….

dlw]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3417 Tom Smith Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3417 "It's not a matter of every person having a say, but rather what the precedent for the belief of the early church."<br /><br />But can you find an interpretation from the early Church of a purely and exclusively symbolic understanding of the Eucharist? It's possible that I simply haven't read that Fathers wherein the Eucharist is explained as purely symbolic, but I don't think so.
But can you find an interpretation from the early Church of a purely and exclusively symbolic understanding of the Eucharist? It's possible that I simply haven't read that Fathers wherein the Eucharist is explained as purely symbolic, but I don't think so.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2008#comment-3418 edey Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/2017#comment-3418 dlw<br /><br />this is why i think there is no ambiguity...by what follows His statement. let us start at v 61 (still in John 6) <br /><br />Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.<br /><br />And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. <br /><br />so when the disciples murmured, when they said that the saying was hard, did He say "no, you misunderstand Me. i meant it as a symbol. just like the vine and branches."? no. He did not. He said "The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life." after many disciples walked back (ie turned away from following Him), did He say "come on guys. really, i think this is all a misunderstanding."? no. He asked those who stayed with Him if they would also go away (ie if they could handle what He was holding to). Peter said " Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."<br /><br />i think if the Lord meant it in any other way, He would have clarified. He didn't "clarify" at any of the opportunities because the reality, the fact that His Flesh is real food and His Blood real drink was not up to negotiation. <br /><br />the precedent of the early Church...let's look at the Fathers:<br /><br />"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."<br />Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185<br /><br />"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies."<br />Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119<br /><br />"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine." "<br />Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:152<br /><br />as far as i can tell, the early Church believed that the Eucharist is Christ's Flesh and Blood. these are just representative of many quotations that i have seen, and they aren't the only Fathers who spoke this way. others include Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, etc. i have yet to see a citation from the early Church that says anything contrary to a literal interpretation of John 6. however, maybe you have seen sources that i have not. i would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
this is why i think there is no ambiguity…by what follows His statement. let us start at v 61 (still in John 6)

Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

so when the disciples murmured, when they said that the saying was hard, did He say "no, you misunderstand Me. i meant it as a symbol. just like the vine and branches."? no. He did not. He said "The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life." after many disciples walked back (ie turned away from following Him), did He say "come on guys. really, i think this is all a misunderstanding."? no. He asked those who stayed with Him if they would also go away (ie if they could handle what He was holding to). Peter said " Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

i think if the Lord meant it in any other way, He would have clarified. He didn't "clarify" at any of the opportunities because the reality, the fact that His Flesh is real food and His Blood real drink was not up to negotiation.

the precedent of the early Church…let's look at the Fathers:

"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(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119

"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine." "
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:152

as far as i can tell, the early Church believed that the Eucharist is Christ's Flesh and Blood. these are just representative of many quotations that i have seen, and they aren't the only Fathers who spoke this way. others include Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, etc. i have yet to see a citation from the early Church that says anything contrary to a literal interpretation of John 6. however, maybe you have seen sources that i have not. i would be interested in hearing what you have to say.]]>