Separated Brethern Versus Anathematized

Turretinfan wrote:

"Separated brethren" sounds like the people are still going to heaven - "Anathema" has a different sound. The former is the more ecumenical and inclusive post-Vatican-II approach, whereas the latter is the more austere approach the preceded it. Or so it appears.

Is it your position that either Trent didn't mean to condemn folks to hell by using the word "anathema" or that "separated brethren" doesn't mean that we are able to be saved without the removal of that separation?

Well, "sounding like" can sometimes lead one astray. "C0-Mediatrix" sounds like it means Mary is equal to Jesus, whereas the title does not actually have that meaning.

The Council of Trent took place at a time when the Reformation was fresh, and not considered an established fact. The council reformed areas in the Church, agreeing that reform was needed. In other areas, it held the line. The anathemas drew attention to how serious this was, and what was at stake. You were not in communion with the Church, and in danger of hell, if you did not repent. This was a time when going to war to solve a theological issue made perfect sense.

At the time in which Vatican II took place, the Reformation is now an established fact. There are people who left the Catholic Church generations ago, and have no sense of having protested against it. Many of them are in denominations that are off-shoots of off-shoots, for example, the Methodists descend from the Anglicans.

We are no longer living in the time where a king will wait barefoot in the snow for three days in order to have his excommunication lifted. Anathemas, and excommunications of those who are already outside the Church will only push people away, not draw them in. Therefore, the change in vocabulary reflects that.

I do not see that the actual Church doctrine has changed. From the Catechism:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."³²⁰

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"³²¹

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."³²² Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."³²³ With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

Dominus Iesus was written after the compilation of the Catechism, and states this more clearly:

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),⁴⁷ which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).⁴⁸ And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.⁴⁹ This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).⁵⁰

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.⁵¹ Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.⁵²

So, Christ established only one Church. We cannot all be lumped together as a single Christian entity under the heading of a spiritual Church of Christ.

Then, a little further down:

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.⁵⁸ The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.⁵⁹ Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.⁶⁰

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,⁶¹ are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.⁶² Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.⁶³

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.⁶⁴ In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.⁶⁵ “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.⁶⁶

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.⁶⁷

What I understand this to be saying, and again, I want to caution that I am no theologian, this is just my personal understanding, is that you still need to be a part of the Catholic Church in order to attain salvation. Our separated brethren are still joined to the Catholic Church because the efficacy of their baptism is derived from the Catholic Church, in some way.

The anathemas of Trent were warning a group of people who were leaving the Church that they were in danger of hell by separating themselves from the fullness of Truth. The separated brethren of Vatican II is reminding people who see themselves as having never been a part of the Catholic Church, that they are, in a sense, joined in communion with the Church, and hopes that they will draw ever nearer.

I feel that asking "Can you be saved without joining the Catholic Church" is sort like asking "Can you be saved and never read the Bible?" Sure, you can, but you're missing out on a lot.

The Ultimate Anathema Post

Anathemas Part I- What is anathema and is it still around
Anathemas Part II- But this guy says that they really are still around
Anathemas Part III- In which the canons of Trent are actually discussed, instead of the anathemas

Now Paul has directed me to Turretinfan, who says this:

Today I encountered the following comment: "Anathemas were done away with under the most recent Code of Canon Law." It's not the first time I've seen this claim. The problem is this: I have the most recent Code of Canon Law and it doesn't (that I can find) even mention anathemas. I suppose that some folks in Roman Catholicism think this silence means that anathemas have been done away. That seems like as weak an argument as the argument that prayer veils are no longer required because of the silence regarding them. I wonder whether there is anything more to the argument than that. Any ideas anyone?

I'm aware of Mr. Akin's argument as follows:

Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

The problems with that type of argument are:

1) Where was anathema mentioned in the 1917 Code? I've perused that code and couldn't find it. Perhaps I overlooked something?

2) A penalty and a penal law are not the same thing.

If that's all Mr. Akin has, his argument seems exceptionally weak.

Anathemas are mentioned in canon 2257 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Unfortunately, not available online in English.

Can 2257 §1. Excommunicatio est censura qua quis excluditur a communione fidelium cum effectibus qui in canonibus, qui sequuntur, enumerantur, quique separari nequeunt.
§2. Dicitur quoque anathema, praesertim si cum sollemnitatibus infligatur quae in Pontificali Romano describuntur.


At any rate, you know what? I'm not a canon lawyer. I'm a stay at home, mother of four with an incredible non-sleeping baby. This is my night job. I have no idea if anathemas are still around or not. My question is, does it matter?

First, suppose anathema is still an option. It still needs a formal ceremony and lots of paperwork. When the Catholic Church excommunicates someone, it is a big deal. Usually there are news stories involved such as this or this.

I haven't seen any big anathema stories, so I'm guessing that if it is still an option, it isn't one which is used. The first story I linked to says that excommunication is the severest form of punishment, so I still feel that Jimmy Akin is right, and anathemas are no longer around. Clearly, none of you has been formally anathematized.

Second, suppose that not only are the anathemas still around, but the ones in Trent are in force, and DO apply to any non-Catholic who happens to pick up a copy of the canons of the Council of Trent. What does that mean?

The canons define what the Catholic Church believes. If you do not believe that you are anathema, or excommunicated. It means that you are out of communion, or not a part of the church. You do not agree with our statement of faith, therefore you are not a member. I don't see how that is a problem unless you are wanting to be calling yourself a Catholic while not holding to the tenets of the faith.

Is the offense that excommunication/anathema is intended as a warning that you are in danger of hell? Excommunication is a Biblical form of church discipline practiced by other faiths.

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

1 Cor 16:22 (explicit in KJV) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Yes, we believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth. You, our separated brethren, have some aspects of the Truth, and we respect you for that. But I fail to see why you are so offended that we think you are wrong when you spend such a long time in the comments section trying to prove that . . . we are wrong and in danger of hell.

For an exhaustive look at anathemas, try over at Dave Armstrong's blog.

In a previous thread, Barbara C. let out a rant that expressed what I think many online Catholic moms feel as they experience anti-Catholic bashing on other blogs and forums:

Works, works, works!! I'm so sick of works. First from him now from you; is this all you blighters can do?

You know Catholics, they just sit around all day tallying up how many empty good things they can do everyday to earn our salvation. They're all accountants. It's such hard work, though!!

It would be so much easier just to sit back, knowing they are saved, and they can pretty much do whatever they want and know their salvation is assured. They just have to say the Sinner's Prayer and they're good to go...wait, that's a bit of work. But they don't have to go to church every week. They don't even have to read the Bible. The Bible doesn't say they do. They just have to believe that everything they need to know is in there. Not that it really matters. Once they believe that Jesus saved all the rest is just...well, works. And the last thing they want is to have people catching them performing works; they might think they're Catholic or something.

I have been saved; I'm being saved; and by the Grace of God I will be save

Moonshadow had a good one too:

Look, I'm not in the position to shrug off anyone's love. But there is a double standard towards Catholicism that I cannot understand.

A Christian can claim membership in another other church and get a pass. But not in the Catholic church.

And I can't take the patronizing lip service: "Oh, a Catholic may be saved, we're not saying they can't be, just so long as they don't actually believe what their church teaches."

Such hogwash

A couple of questions have popped into my mind about it.  Do the people like Candy and Jennie who level these types of accusations against Catholics know any Catholics?  And do the Catholics they know keep a tally sheet for the "good works" they perform  I personally have never seen that or know anyone who does.

And why is it that the interpretations of any other denomination is acceptable, as long as it's not Catholic?

Some insights I got from this week's debates.

1. Some Protestants are still hung up on Trent and apparently no amount of encouragement to read the Catechism instead will sway them!

2. Some are even concerned about being "anathematized." I don't think I ever did hear a response to the news from Kelly that Anathemas just ain't what they use to be!

3. Going to church is a work and works are bad, so it's ironic that going to church can be bad for you?  That was certainly a new one on me!!

4. I'm wondering why witnessing on a blog or on the internet isn't consider a work and how come that's not bad for you as well.

5. Some Catholics are just deathly afraid that Catholics are in danger. Some are afraid that with worshiping Christ in the Eucharist we'll start worshipping a cat or the chair or something. Jennie has a lot of fear for all the busy do gooders who go to church and then do good deeds all day although I still don't see how they have much time to get into trouble.

6. Some just want to turn Catholics away from Catholicism because they "love us." Although from being on the receiving end of that I think what they mean is they want to "tough love" us. At least that's how it feels.

7.  Interestingly today is the feast of a lot of Protestant's favorite Catholic and EFC - Augustine!  Coincidence?  Serendipity?  You decide!

A funny thing happened during the debates...

people started being friendly and even (dare I say it)fellowshipping a little bit with each other. Very nice to see and something WE NEVER got to experience with Candy and her crowd - although I always thought that we had enough other stuff in common to get along.

Anyway, it's nice to see and it makes me think that maybe apologetics isn't all so bad after all!

Hebrews, Matthew and John 6

The discussion on the Early Church Fathers started to morph into a discussion of the Eucharist and scripture, particularly with a passage in Matthew 24 and Hebrews 9.


Kelly and I have done John 6 at great length in the past and you can find those here.

Jennie wrote:

It is wonderful that God rained manna on our fathers and they were fed with daily food from heaven. And so it is written: Man ate the bread of angels. Yet those who ate that bread all died in the desert. But the food that you receive, that living bread which came down from heaven, supplies the very substance of eternal life, and whoever will eat it will never die, for it is the body of Christ. Ambrose of Milan, treatise On the Mysteries was originally spoken to newly baptized Christians around the year 370 AD.

This quote is apparently referring to John 6. I would like to give a few scriptures to show why Jesus in John 6 is not referring to Christ literally giving us His body and blood to eat, and that the bread is not literally the 'body, soul, and divinity of Christ' or the whole Christ.

Matthew 24:23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

 
This passage says that if anyone tells you that Christ is here or there on earth DO NOT BELIEVE IT and DO NOT GO OUT to look for Him, because His coming will be 'as the lightning come from the east and flashes to the west'

.
John 19:30 He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Jesus finished His propitiatory work on the cross and for those who believe in Him, their sins are forgiven and there is no more need for an offering for sin.

Hebrews 9:25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

This passage says that He appeared once to put away sin by His sacrifice of Himself, not often, and that He will appear for those who eagerly await Him a SECOND TIME, APART FROM SIN, for salvation. He will appear a second time when He comes back to earth, 'just as He ascended' the first time. He will appear 'apart from sin' that is, not as a sacrifice for sin. He does not come back as a physical perpetual sacrifice. Every word of Hebrews denies this doctrine. He sat down at the right hand of the Father in victory over sin and death and having finished His suffering, He intercedes for us against our accuser the devil.

 

Let's look at Matthew 24 in it's entirety. I will emphasize some parts I want to use to make a point.

 Matthew 24

Signs of the End of the Age

 ¹Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ²"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."  ³As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
 ⁴Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. ⁵For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,^[a]' and will deceive many. ⁶You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. ⁷Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. ⁸All these are the beginning of birth pains.
 ⁹"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. ¹⁰At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, ¹¹and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. ¹²Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, ¹³but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. ¹⁴And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
 ¹⁵"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'^[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— ¹⁶then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. ¹⁷Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. ¹⁸Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. ¹⁹How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! ²⁰Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. ²¹For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. ²²If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. ²³At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. ²⁴For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. ²⁵See, I have told you ahead of time.
 ²⁶"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. ²⁷For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ²⁸Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
 ²⁹"Immediately after the distress of those days
   " 'the sun will be darkened,
      and the moon will not give its light;
   the stars will fall from the sky,
      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'^[c]
 30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. ³¹And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
 ³²"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. ³³Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it^[d]is near, right at the door. ³⁴I tell you the truth, this generation^[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. ³⁵Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Day and Hour Unknown

 ³⁶"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,^[f] but only the Father. ³⁷As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

Jennie is trying to say that we can't refer to the Eucharist Jesus Christ because of this passage.  I say she has totally misinterpreted it.  What Jesus clearly referring to in this passage is to be aware of false prophets who are claiming to be him. Clearly the Eucharist does not proclaim itself verbally, "I am the Christ."  Christ's verbal silence in the Eucharist is part of His power - the power of just being, of being "I Am."  So Matthew 24:4 does not refer to the Eucharist in any way shape or form and it's a mighty stretch to try to connect it.   Also Matthew 24:26 again refers to a false Christ claiming to be in the desert, or the upper room, or could be the street corner or the stadium or stage.  But the Eucharist is present  only in a very specific holy place- in the tabernacle of a Catholic church being distributed by the church or in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons etc. by specially trained ministers of the Eucharist.  Matthew 24 doesn't cut it for disproving the Eucharist either.

And I can't resist just saying Christ does say we do not know the hour or the day.  I feel sorry for Christians who spend so much time and energy worrying about it. Be like the birds of the field or like a little child and don't worry about things that you can't control anyway.

Now let's look at Jennie's other passage in context.

Hebrews 9

The Blood of Christ

 ¹¹When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,^[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. ¹²He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. ¹³The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. ¹⁴How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,^[c] so that we may serve the living God!  ¹⁵For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
 ¹⁶In the case of a will,^[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, ¹⁷because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. ¹⁸This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. ¹⁹When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. ²⁰He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."^{[e] 21}In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. ²²In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
 ²³It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. ²⁴For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. ²⁵Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. ²⁶Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. ²⁷Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, ²⁸so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

This passage explains why it was necessary for Christ to become the new sacrifice and why we refer to Him as the Lamb of God. And with Christ's sacrifice comes the new covenant. Catholics know this and we do not re-sacrifice Christ over and over again. Instead we take part of the ever-living sacrifice that is once and for all and not bound by time and space.

Incidentally this is what St. Paul also taught:

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.

I think it is pretty clear that Matthew 24 has been totally misinterpreted as well as Hebrews. Bible believing Christians really need to quit looking for ways to avoid it and consider that when Christ says, "This is my body," he actually meant it!


Update: Jennie blogged on this too.

Early Church Fathers and the Catholic Church

Paul, (whatsup with not having a basic profile Paul? )  whom Moonshadow and I met over on Jennie's blog wants to talk about the Early Church Fathers, specifically Augustine and Justin Martyr, although I'm pretty sure he thinks none of the early church fathers were Catholic. So I've invited him to make his case here. He apparently is use to commenting on Catholic forums. This will be a home game, but I know everyone will play nice.

The throw down- Paul said: Elena, let's continue this interaction regarding the ECF's view of The Eucharist and see who is "falling far short of the actual historical truth". I can let the ECF's be the ECF's. I am not obligated to hold to a distorted view of history such as was declared at Trent and Vatican I. The truth is, there were various understandings of the "real presence" in the early church. Sadly, Rome has painted herself into a corner by making solemn declarations on claims that history cannot support.

While there may have been various understandings there was not outright denial and certainly nothing that looks like the kind of understanding that Paul et al have towards the Lord's supper. I'll start things off with:

Ignatius of Antioch

They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 110)

Justin Martyr

And this food is called among us Εuχαριστiα [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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 by the Word of God, had both 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. (First Apology, chapter 66; ANF, Vol. I)


HT Dave Armstrong ebook- Church Fathers.

Jennie says:

Evelyn, I believe that you were already a believer before you entered the RCC. I also believe that you have been deceived into accepting the teachings of the RCC by another spirit that is not of Him, which puts you in dange

r.

This is the kind of rhetoric that just makes me want to quit apologetics altogether. Oh the arrogance. And as someone who just watched her Catholic-convert of a mother suffer and die, I find it highly insulting.

I am no longer interested in ecumenism. Catholicism is the truth. It is what it is. and my current feeling is take it or leave it - we'll miss you.

Pilgrims' Daughter: Tony Bartolucci; Drowning in the Tiber: Parts 10 and 11 are now up!

A heated debate here. Pastor Bartolucci is even participating.







Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!

Feast of the Assumption

Repost from last year.

Today is the feast day of the Assumption of Mary. This is the doctrine that, at the end of her life, Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven. The Catholic Church has not defined whether or not she actually died, but it is traditional to believe that she was assumed after her death. She did not ascend to Heaven by her own power, as Jesus did, but was assumed in another way.

I've often thought this should be one of the easier Catholic Marian doctrines. I've often heard "But it isn't in the Bible!" There are lots of things not recorded in the Bible that still happened. For example, tradition says that St. Thomas carried the Gospel to India, and there is evidence that it happened. The knowledge of what happened to Mary after her death is not necessary for salvation.

Also, there is biblical precedent for humans being assumed into heaven. Ever hear of Enoch and Elijah?

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

We have written several times about the parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. If the Ark, which contained God, was hidden until the end of the time, then why should Mary's body, which also contained God, be left on Earth to decay?

2 Mac 2:5-7

When Jeremiah arrived there, he found a room in a cave in which he put the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense; then he blocked up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up intending to mark the path, but they could not find it.

When Jeremiah heard of this, he reproved them: "The place is to remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows them mercy.

You can read a short history of the celebration of this feast.

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the "Tomb of Mary," close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.

On the hill itself was the "Place of Dormition," the spot of Mary's "falling asleep," where she had died. The "Tomb of Mary" was where she was buried.

At this time, the "Memory of Mary" was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption. . .

Soon the name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.

That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

This website contains the text of early Christian documents relating to the death and assumption of Mary.

Scripture Catholic has quotations from the early Church regarding this doctrine.

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..." Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

"As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him." Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

"It was fitting ...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God." Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

You can view photos of Mary's tomb and the church built over it at this website.

Once more with the Whore of Babylon

Today we find that believing that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon is an essential part of who Candy is.

I firmly believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, spoken of in Revelation 17. I believe all religions, with the exception of Biblical Christianity, have a part in the Whore.

That's a bit sad, but not really surprising. Just a reminder that we have all the "Catholic Church is NOT the Whore of Babylon" posts that anyone could ever want.

Secular clothing

I was sorry to hear that Candy was sick today. It's a shame to miss out on nice summer weather because you're sick.

Candy wrote: I am not dressed lady-like today. My legs are cold, so I'm wearing pants and a t-shirt. This is as secular looking as I get.

We have written here before about how the meaning of words change over time, and that it is especially important to define your terms when relating to Catholicism, because of a vocabulary which has been set for centuries.

I thought Candy's use of "secular" here was a bit humorous, given the root of the word.

I assume that Candy meant " not overtly or specifically religious."

I thought that her dresses were chosen mostly for modesty, but she has mentioned previously that she likes being immediately identifiable as a Christian. Which always makes me wonder why Christian men are allowed to go incognito. Couldn't they wear robes?

Anyway, the Catholic meaning of secular is not bound by monastic vows or rules ; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation.

In the Middle Ages, churches were part of monasteries. However, at a certain point, priests began leaving the monasteries to tend to the "secular" people outside the monasteries. Today, there are priests who are part of a religious order, and secular priests, who are diocean priests.

Just a bit of trivia, for those interested.