This is indeed a difficult blog to write. Not only because my favorite book on the subject went missing, but I believe, if I write this story just right, millions of souls will convert to Christ ... Posted on 12/12/2009 9:13:32 AM PST by mlizzy
This is indeed a difficult blog to write. Not only because my favorite book on the subject went missing, but I believe, if I write this story just right, millions of souls will convert to Christ ...
"That's fantasy!" you may say, and yet that is EXACTLY what happened when Our Lady of Guadalupe first appeared. It happened in Mexico in December of 1531. Many Catholics have heard the story of how Mary suddenly appeared to the poor peasant Juan Diego on his way to daily Mass. Juan had already converted to Catholicism, and yet Her appearance, Her promise of protection for his people, and Her plea to go to the bishop and ask a Church be built on this spot, certainly seemed utterly fantastic to him. It must have seemed utterly fantastic to Bishop Juan de Zamorraga too, for he asked Diego to go back to Her and ask for a sign.
And what a sign it was! Originally Juan thought that sign was a bouquet of roses (which could not have bloomed in that winter climate) that Our Lady presented Juan with. Yet as beautiful as they were, the roses were a minor miracle compared to what happened next, when Juan opened his cloak (which was protecting the flowers) to the bishop.
For as Juan handed Zamorraga the flowers, the stunned bishop saw that Juan's cloak was now covered with a miraculous image of the Virgin. While St. Thomas Aquinas correctly called the Holy Eucharist "the perfect art, for it is exactly what it represents," this image of the Virgin could be a close second. For this image of Mary (appearing as a pregnant native woman) is far more than meets the eye. It is a miracle ...
(Excerpt) Read more at fightingirishthomas.net ...
Just curious: Do you think the Last Supper was a Passover meal?
xoxox
You have GOT to read Aquinas, specifically the treatise on the sacraments. Not to be persuaded but to get a notion of the weird way we think. (related to previous exchange about philosophy.)
My point is precisely that that's wrong. In fact, there was a "ritual" there already, called the Haggadah. Holy Communion was added to that ritual by Jesus himself at the last supper. Later on, other prayers were added, and the whole thing was adapted to celebrations other than that of Passover.
The whole process was very, very far along by AD 400. If the Mass is a ritual we invented, your NT is a book we invented, because they came into existence in the same period of time.
Breaking the bread and drinking the wine, which represents the spilled blood is the key...Breaking and drinking
The key to what? Why bother to eat a snack to remember Jesus? Jesus wasn't a snack.
If you think what we do is ludicrous, I don't see that what you do is any less ludicrous.
Jesus didn't become the Passover Lamb until He was sacrificed...The communion was not only to be done along with the Haggadah but whenever bread was broken, to remember the sacrifice...
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
The key to what? Why bother to eat a snack to remember Jesus? Jesus wasn't a snack.
The key to the reason for breaking the breaking the bread and drinking from the cup...
The breaking of the bread represents His broken body and the cup represents His shed blood...IF you just stick a cracker in your mouth, and don't bother drinking from the cup, what do you get out of it???
Your interpretation is just that, your interpretation.
You are in error. Not us, and not the Christians who believed in the Eucharistic Presence from Christ onward.
“Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.”
“Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.”
” Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).”
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
This would be a kind of "hidden in plain sight" perception which could not be articulated openly because the person who did so would end up being head of his own sect or order or whatever, in a manner similar to what happened to St. Francis.
So the "fathers" whom we cite just didn't get it. They passed the hidden in plain sight teaching on without understanding it. And in every generation the Spirit informs certain people, illuminating them, giving them knowledge and wisdom about the true faith, which we, sort of like worker bees bringing royal jelly to larvae who will become our queens, service without understanding.
One PROBLEM with this is that, in certain strict versions of this kind of belief, one would have to deny holding it when it was stated all up front and everything as I have done. So I'll never know if I'm right!
“And, it we look at the “this” in As often as ye eat this bread, and take literally the synedoche of “cup” we then have ANY act of eating and drinking as a proper anamnetic event, in which the eating and drinking “represent” all the things which are said about the Eucharist.”
Well, in that case chocolate would be perfectly appropriate, perferably Russell Stover mixed nuts and creams.
I think Heaven would give pause for that, don’t you?
I think every meal is an opportunity to remember the Eucharistic mystery, even the paschal mystery. When I lived on the streets in the late 60's I was very much struck with the mystery of the sacrifice of those from whom I begged my food and with the notion that every meal, even if vegetarian, was tied up with life and death.
But still, I aver there is one uniquely sacred meal which represents, contains, and conveys the mystery.
It's clear Aquinas had way, way, way too much time on his hands...
Objection 1:
It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Aquinas starts out wrong here with baptism...We are not born again of water and the Spirit...We are already born of water, now we need to be born of the Spirit...
Objection 2:
Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Here, Aquinas claims that if you are not baptized physically, you can still go to heaven if you were killed for your Christianity, as long as you did good works...
Kind of impossible to square that with scripture...
Objection 3:
Further, as stated above (A[1]; Q[65], A[4]), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
Augustine is on the right track but he eventually jumps the track...
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Aquinas is right on the edge, but he never gets it...
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
It's the blind leading the blind, one after another like dominos
Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (1 Kings 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Aquinas has got it here but he don't know what he's got...
Reply to Objection 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom:
Aquinas blew it here...He's just as blind as a bat coming in backwards...
for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.
And of course, Aquinas mis-quotes the verse to justify his theology...The fire didn't burn the Christian, it burned his bad works...
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
There it is in a nutshell...But it flew right past Aquinas...It was too high over his head to reach it...
The real Baptism of Desire in the scriptures results in a Spiritual Baptism...No water involved...Aquinas talks about it but he doesn't get it...
If one comes to Jesus and says, 'Lord, I'm coming to you the only way I know how, please take me, it's a done deal...That initiates the baptism of desire...No water...
Jesus performs an operation...A spiritual operation...A circumcision...A circumcision of the heart...
Your new man is killed, buried and resurrected...Your old man (your flesh) is still there...But it's not connected...
Here's Aquinas again:
a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Born again of water is not scriptural...Aquinas added that to make baptism mean water baptism...If he would have left out the water, Aquinas would have gotten the baptism of the Holy Ghost, but he missed it...
Try as you might, you can not get this sentence to mean you are supposed to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus...Participate in the body and blood???
“To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious?
Because it's a heart condition...
” Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
I wish you guy would quit bringing up Ignatius...Half of the writings attributed to him were proven to be forgeries and the other half are suspected to be forgeries as well...You using Ignatius as an authority is meaningless to me and many, many others...
which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him,
Now this is just being downright dishonest...Jesus did NOT set down any Eucharist prayer for you to turn bread and wine into flesh and blood...
Reading him to find out how very wrong he is will obstruct a lot of understanding. Reading the questions just to find the answers is the wrong way to go about getting anything out of it.
That wasn't me...
So the "fathers" whom we cite just didn't get it. They passed the hidden in plain sight teaching on without understanding it. And in every generation the Spirit informs certain people, illuminating them, giving them knowledge and wisdom about the true faith, which we, sort of like worker bees bringing royal jelly to larvae who will become our queens, service without understanding.
That pretty much sums it up except that the Holy Spirit gives every Christian knowledge in every generation but far too many people are too intellectual to accept it as it is...
Referring to your great teacher Aquinas again; he adds words to scripture, he leaves out scripture to give you his version of what the scriptures mean...Does anyone correct him for doing this??? No, just continue to follow his teaching...
No, just continue to follow his teaching...
Personally, I'm far more likely to be attracted to the teaching of someone who takes the trouble to understand my thought than somebody who is too busy stating how wrong I am to know what I think and why I think it. The reason I was so tart with nmh, who seems to think I am rude, is that he at once exhibited a misunderstanding of Catholic thought and piety together with a certainty that it supported Satan somehow. I am especially impatient with the "often wrong, never in doubt" crowd.
The folks I hang with don't "follow" Aquinas's teaching. They try to understand it and, sometimes, to criticize it.
And yes, I think it's been established that we approach Scripture differently.
Let’s just leave it there then.
The Eucharist is bound within faith and the very words of Christ, and you do not have that faith. There is no possible way I can put it having given you what is True and if you refuse, my duty is finished.
Peace to you. Have a joyous Christmas.
“I was very much struck with the mystery of the sacrifice of those from whom I begged my food and with the notion that every meal, even if vegetarian, was tied up with life and death.”
We need food desperately to live, just small amounts can keep us alive, but we must eat.
How profound, our Lord knowing this makes the Paschal meal the means to provide eternal life to the soul.
“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.