2/09/2010 03:33:00 PM
|
By CathApol
Is is "Rhology" or should it be "Rho-ology?"
The term
"logy" means sluggish or slow. Hmmm.
Well,
"-logy" also relates to "logos" or "word."
But more accurately - Alan uses the symbol called "Chi-Rho"
which is the symbol for Jesus Christ, perhaps a better avatar for him would be:
The study of Jesus Christ?
Or a more accurate logo/avatar would be:
Just a flippant thought... Don't take this too seriously! :-)
2/09/2010 12:20:00 PM
|
By CathApol
Hi CathApol,
I know this post isn't on transubstantiation, but I saw your response to Rhoblogy's post on transubstantiation. While I'm not Catholic and don't hold to the doctrine, I'm also not really fundamentally against it. I don't see it in scripture, but I don't know that there's anything terrible about holding to it, since I think the Eucharist, whatever the true nature of it is, is a very intimate and spiritual moment with Christ.
That said, I am interested in the formulation. William Lane Craig, in one of his Defenders podcasts, talked about the issue and mentioned something interesting a Catholic told him about Transubstantiation and how it made sense in the Catholic's mind. Craig asked him how Christ's body had not been exhausted throughout the years. I can't remember the answer. Could you extrapolate on it for me? The answer, as I remember, had something to do with the nature of the substance consumed.
In Christ.
Well, let me begin with moving this post/question to it's own blog entry so as to not be confused with the original post where you asked the question. Feel free to add more to the combox on this entry.
Secondly, I can respect that you do not hold to the doctrine - but don't outright reject it. I grew up a Lutheran, so it wasn't a real huge leap for me to move to the Catholic understanding. I had always understood a "Real Presence" of sorts in the Lutheran Communion, now I have a fuller understanding that it IS His body and IS His blood - not that His body and blood are "with" the bread and wine. The fundamental principle and scriptural support for this lies in the fact that Jesus Himself declared not that the bread would have a Real Presence WITH it, but that the bread now IS His body. St. Augustine said it well:
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
And to bolster those statements from St. Augustine, let us also look to what St. Ignatius of Antioch said (and keep in mind, St. Ignatius was a disciple to St. John the Apostle, so Ignatius received this information first-hand from the Apostle who wrote John 6!).
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
So, you can see this is not some new innovation of Catholics after the time of the Protestant Reformation. Catholics have maintained this belief in the Real Presence since the very words of Christ declared this to be so.
Now, how is the body of Christ not all "used up" by now? I would point you back to John 6, as I did Alan (Rhology) in my original comment. In the first part of John 6 we have the pre-figuring of just how Jesus can be in many places at one time! Jesus took a few fishes and loaves of bread and miraculously fed over 5000 people! How could so few fishes and loaves be passed around to over 5000 people? It is a mystery of faith! We believe not because we can fully understand and explain the miracles of God, no! We believe because we have FAITH. Jesus demonstrated that He is capable of such a miracle - so when He took bread and declared it to BE His body - then it IS His body! How? We can't say - but we accept Jesus at His Word here.
Why do we believe Jesus is speaking literally here and not figuratively? Because, going back to John 6, Jesus COMMANDS us - MULTIPLE TIMES that we MUST eat His body and drink His blood or we have NO LIFE in us! This caused the Jews to grumble - and even many of his disciples, those who had been following Him and learning from Him, to "turn and walk with Him no more." If this were just a figurative parable here, why would Jesus allow His DISCIPLES to walk away with a false understanding of what He meant? But He did let them walk away, why? Because they DID understand Him correctly but did not have the FAITH necessary to BELIEVE HIM.
I hope this helps you to understand this teaching better, and pray that God gives you the faith necessary to believe Him - without question - on this matter. Just as Jesus turned to The Twelve and asked, "Will you also leave?" St. Peter answered Him, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life!"
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
PS- This is also answered by Matthew Bellisario here.
2/08/2010 02:03:00 PM
|
By CathApol
In doing some research for another article I'm working on, I came across the following from James Swan on the aomin.org blog. Note, Swan's objection is to Madrid's mentioning of the Rosary - yet if you listen to the clip, it's mostly about confession and getting out of mortal sin. The Rosary is a tool or weapon against falling into mortal sin - but we ALL make mistakes - we ALL fall and we ALL need to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession or Penance).
Swan writes: This MP3 clip is from a broadcast of Catholic Answers live (December 2008). Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid answered a caller concerned about her mortal sin. After explaining how the Catholic Church instructs such a person to go through confession, absolution, and penance, Madrid says to pray the Rosary because it is the "strongest weapon outside the sacraments that we have to combat mortal sin." The Rosary is not just a repetitious prayer in the Catholic veneration of Mary, but thestrongest weapon to keep one from mortal sin.
Again, whereas the Rosary is mentioned, the main thrust of Madrid's response is to answer this person in regard to mortal sin and that it was important still to go to Mass, but not receive the Eucharist until one has made it to Confession first. That being said, the Rosary is, perhaps, one of the strongest if not the strongest weapons to use to keep one from committing mortal sin. Why is it such a strong weapon? Because the Rosary in not "vain repetition" as our Protestant friends would think (as I used to think too!), no it is sets of meditations primarily upon the life and passion of Jesus Christ! In the standard Rosary of 15 decades (each "decade" being 10 "Hail Mary" prayers), each decade is spent in meditation upon an event - 13 of which primarily deal with the life and passion of Jesus Christ! If we add in the Luminous Mysteries, added by Pope John Paul II, that's 5 more decades devoted to the life of Jesus Christ! So, of the 20 decades - TWO of them have meditations primarily upon Mary (the Assumption and the Coronation).
So, how about all those "Hail Mary" prayers? Aren't we praying TO Mary? Why not pray directly to Jesus? There's NOTHING to stop the Catholic from praying directly to Jesus! However, the "Hail Mary" is moreso a prayer or petition asking Mary to pray for and with us TO JESUS! How often, when we are in need, do we ask our fellow Christians to pray for us and/or with us? That being said, much of the "Hail Mary" comes to us directly from Scripture! Allow me to illuminate:
"Hail Mary, Full of Grace!" The Lord is with thee! (Luke 1:28)
"Blessed art thou, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Jesus)!" (Luke 1:42)
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen." (This second part, as you can see, is not so much a prayer TO Mary, but rather a petition asking Mary to pray for us now, and as we're dying).
So you can see, there's not a whole lot to get excited about here! The first half of the "Hail Mary" comes directly from the greeting of the Angel (Gabriel) to Mary and the greeting her cousin Elizabeth made upon Mary's visit. It seems an appropriate manner to greet her when petitioning her to pray for us. The second part recognizes that Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, and asks her to pray for us both now and at the hour of our death. Keep in mind too, while praying this - we're actually meditating primarily on the life of Christ!
Swan continues: In his book, Where Is That In The Bible?, Madrid mentions the repetitious Rosary helps Catholics "meditate on key episodes of the Gospel narrative, as well as mysteries of the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary" (p. 136). This prayer asks "Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, to intercede on our behalf and use her prayers as a weapon of grace against the evil one, the Red Dragon spoken of in Revelation 12... when we pray the Rosary, we go well-armed into battle against the adversary, who is 'prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour'" (p.137).
True, all Christians are engaged in a real battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. Yet God has not left us to fend against the ravages of sin on our own. But before we consider Madrid's "strongest weapon," why not look into the Scriptures?
There is nothing to stop one from looking to the Scriptures!
Swan continues: Over the years I've heard many sermons on "putting on the full armor of God" as expounded by Paul in Ephesians 6. Paul exhorts us to "put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." He mentions the "belt of truth," "the breastplate of righteousness," "the shield of faith," and "the helmet of salvation." He says to pray in the Spirit on all occasions. In Ephesians Paul doesn't tell Christians to meditate on the "mysteries of the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary."
Well, this would be a rather anachronistic argument, now wouldn't it Mr. Swan? The Most Holy Rosary was not given to us for quite a number of centuries, even though the counting on beads, or knots in a rope, actually predate Christendom.
Swan continues: Rather, he asks the Ephesians to pray for him as he proclaims the mystery of the gospel (Eph. 6:19). In fact, the entire epistle to the Ephesians is soaked in devotion to Christ. Christians are instructed to be "imitators of God," while Mary, Madrid's strongest weapon, is conspicuously absent.
And again, there is nothing to stop the Christian from petitioning fellow Christians and other Saints - the benefit of the Holy Rosary is a) in the meditations, putting your heart and mind focused on Christ and b) petitioning Jesus' mom to pray for us to Him as well.
Swan states: Paul doesn't mention the Rosary as a means of fighting sin and standing strong in the faith.
And again with the anachronism! One has to wonder why a Protestant apologist would think such an "out of time" argument would be valid. Perhaps to someone weak in their faith or one who thinks St. Paul carried with him the King James Version of the Bible, maybe someone like that might be fooled by such argumentation but no one who knows even a little bit of history of the Holy Rosary would be fooled by this.
Swan posits: One would think if the Rosary is the "strongest weapon outside the sacraments that we have to combat mortal sin" he would've mentioned it. Perhaps Paul mentioned it elsewhere to the Ephesians, but didn't write it down? Perhaps this is an unwritten Tradition?
And more and more of the anachronistic argument! Perhaps Mr. Swan should consider that the Holy Rosary was first given to St. Dominic by the Blessed Virgin in the late 12th to early 13th century. Yes, that's some 1200 years AFTER St. Paul was martyred in Rome - so it's not very likely that St. Paul would be talking about something which would not exist for another 1200 years!
Swan asks: Perhaps it's been defined as such by an infallible authority?
Actually, no - there is no infallible teaching on the Rosary. It was a private revelation to St. Dominic - and though intended to be shared, it is still a matter of private revelation. No Catholic HAS to participate in Rosary prayers.
Swan continues: Perhaps Madrid is engaging in private judgment as to his positive disposition towards the Rosary?
No again. Patrick Madrid is expounding upon private revelation which has been approved/authenticated by the Church. I reiterate, it has not been elevated to a "de fide" or dogmatic teaching - so no Catholic HAS to participate in the Holy Rosary. If I may share, when I first converted from being a Lutheran, I asked my confessor about this. Since I was a Lutheran previously, I had some reservations about praying the Rosary, the good Monsignor Waterhouse (may he rest in peace) simply said, "then don't do it!" He went on to say, "I can't understand why you wouldn't - but if you're uncomfortable with the Rosary, don't say it." That removed a lot of concern from me, and then when I studied the Rosary itself from a more objective point of view, I came to understand it better and those earlier reservations have gone by the wayside.
Swan concludes: The answers to these questions probably won't be forthcoming any time soon.
Well, "soon" is relative. Mr. Swan posted this over a year ago, so my answers did not come "soon" after he posted this blog, but they came within the same day of me reading the blog - I trust that is "soon enough" for him. I cannot say if Patrick has or has not directly responded to Mr. Swan.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
For more information on the Most Holy Rosary and its history, please look at these links:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/ROSARYHS.HTM
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea4sb1.asp
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm
2/05/2010 02:53:00 PM
|
By CathApol
Recently there has been talks, one may even call them negotiations, between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. Talks about reunification and to try to get back to a united Church as we had for the first millennium of Christianity. However, not all favor these talks, especially in Orthodoxy. Many in Orthodoxy do not trust the West, and have deeply rooted feelings - some harboring such feelings generation after generation for more than a millennia. Most recently, Pope John Paul II tried, but those whom he sent to Russia were seen more as "invaders" and the fact that they were of Polish descent (historic rivals of Russia) did not help matters in the least.
At talks which were held in Ravenna in 2007 had some detractors:
The monks of Mount Athos and some conservative sectors of the Orthodox world accuse the Ecumenical Patriarchate of yielding to Rome on the question of Petrine primacy. Called upon to answer this question, Zizoulas says, "to the monks, whom I consider no less infallible than my own modest self, I would like to reply that the question of primacy is an ecclesiological one. And ecclesiology as we know, is part of dogma, part of faith. When we dialogue on this issue, we look at our own dogmatic divergence. There is no intention of neglecting other matters of dogma ... Quite simply, our experience has shown us that we must first agree on basic issues of' ecclesiology, because the question of primacy has been fatal and tragic in relations between the Catholic and Orthodox world. " http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=16625&geo=7&theme=8&size=
T
he Metropolitan of Pergamon says the following of the monks of Mount Athos:
Regarding the positions of the monks of Mount Athos – staunchly opposed to dialogue - the Metropolitan of Pergamon is explicit: "I respect their opinion and their feelings on matters of faith. But why should they have the monopoly of truth on matters of faith? Are the other leaders of the churches perhaps lacking this sensitivity? All the faithful of the Church have the right to express their thoughts. But all opinions should be subject to scrutiny of the synods. If the great Father of the Church St. Basil put his opinion to the judgement of synods, we can do no less!". http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=16625&geo=7&theme=8&size=
Now that sure sounds like a call for a council! October 16 through the 23rd of 2009 saw a meeting held in Paphos (Cyprus) at which "Orthodox monks and Orthodox priests from Larnaca interrupted the meeting of the Joint Commission, asking Archbishop Chrisostomos to stop it. They believe that dialogue between the two Churches is designed to "subjugate the Orthodox to the pope in Rome" (ibid). So even as talks continue, there is resistance and distrust - especially among the Orthodox.
Another sign of Pope Benedict XVI's desire for reunification will be seen in his visit to Cyprus in June of 2010 and in September of 2010 more talks are to take place in Vienna, Austria. Talking is GOOD! And as Patriarch Bartholomew I said, "engaging in dialogue is our duty and obligation. Dialogue is a road of no return" (qtd. on ibid).
Now while all these talks are encouraging, it must be noted that nothing is going to just "happen" all of a sudden. There may indeed be a call for an ecumenical council - a truly ecumenical one to include all of the East along with the West. Before that can happen, Orthodoxy will need to meet in an official synod and agree as a synod to accept or even make the invitation for an ecumenical council. At such a council the final disputes can and should be worked out and as the Metropolitan of Pergamon said, "all opinions should be subject to scrutiny of the synods. If the great Father of the Church St. Basil put his opinion to the judgement of synods, we can do no less!"
Let us pray for TRUE ecumenism and a true spirit of harmony and unity can come to East and West and restore the communion the Church saw in the first millennium at this dawning of the third millennium. Pope Benedict concluded his sermon Feast of the Conversion of St Paul Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls Monday, January 25, 2010:
The commitment to unity among Christians is not the work of a few only, nor is it an incidental undertaking for the life of the Church. Each one of us is called to make his or her contribution towards the completion of those steps that lead to full communion among the disciples of Christ, without ever forgetting that this unity is above all a gift from God to be constantly invoked. In fact, the force that supports both unity and the mission flows from the fruitful encounter with the Risen One, just as was the case for St Paul on the road to Damascus, and for the Eleven and the other disciples gathered at Jerusalem. May the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, grant that her Son's desire may be fulfilled as soon as possible: "That they may all be one... so that the world may believe" (Jn 17: 21). (source)
Let us join in that prayer, that we may all be one so that the world may believe!
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
2/04/2010 11:42:00 AM
|
By CathApol
Patrick Madrid will be speaking at this conference for Catholic men, sponsored by the Archdiocese of St. Louis, this weekend, Saturday, February 6th. Please join him if you can, and please share this info on your FaceBook pages, blogs, and other new media outlets! Patrick is hoping to see you and a bunch of your guy friends there. It's going to be good.
.jpg)
Posts
