A reader writes:
My friend’s Mother who has been a Catholic all her life and will stay in the Church, has been having problems believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Any reading you know of she can do?
It’s a little hard to know what to recommend without understanding more precisely what the source of her difficulty is (i.e., which objections to the Real Presence she finds troubling).
In general I would recommend the material in the library and This Rock archive at www.catholic.com that deals with this. It hits about every objection that I’m aware of to the Real Presence.
If the problem is just a general psychological difficulty of accepting something that is contrary to the senses then some of the following points may be helpful for her to contemplate:
- There are many times in life where appearances are misleading and we need to act on what we know to be the case, appearances notwithstanding.
- We have Jesus’ word on this really emphatically in Scripture.
- It’s been the unbroken faith of the Church ever since.
- We can have faith in God to guide his Church into correct beliefs.
- God is omnipotent and even the things that seem unimaginably hard to us are equally easy for him as the smallest acts. It is as easy for God to make Jesus present in the Eucharist as it is for him to create a single atom or pick up a piece of paper or cause a gentle breeze to blow. Being omnipotent, God does not expend resources when he does things and so all things are equally easy to him. He is completely un-strained by everything he does since he has infinite resources to draw upon (that’s what omnipotence does for you). Something may seem hard to us, but that’s because of our limited resources. It’s not hard to God. For him, everything is easy. It’s just a question of what he chooses to do, and he’s told us that he’s chosen to do this.
Perhaps this excerpt from “Teaching Truth by Signs and Ceremonies” might help.
This is nice.
Speaking as someone who’s had doubts impervious to reason — if what you have is the continual feelings of doubt, if you are plagued by logic that you know is invalid — what you are experiencing is temptation.
*Thank*you, Mary!
I meant to make this very point and forgot!
*Feelings* of doubt are a cross, but they are not determinations of the will. As long as you will to accept the Real Presence, you do, even if you *feel* uncomfortable. One thing to do is point this out to oneself and focus on one’s determination of the will, setting aside feelings, which come and go.
Would telling her about EPR ‘resonance’, where particles at great distance appear to share the same identity, changing state to match each other, without any regard to the speed of light, combined with the loaves and fishes, help?
I also know that out there somewhere is a piece that draws parallels between arguments against the Real Presence and Christ being just man and not God.
Think how reassuring it was to the Pharisees when He was flailed and the only thing underneath His flesh was just more flesh, real blood, and real bone.
I mean, wouldn’t you more expect roses to come falling out of the wounds of God …
or galaxies…
or light…
The Eucharist brings you closer to the unbelievable reality of the incarnation. The great thing is you don’t have to get it to receive it.
Beyond our personal faith or doubt, the fact of the matter remains. When the people left saying, this is too hard; who can believe it, Jesus did NOT say, “Hey, I was only kidding.”
Jimmy,
For a detailed analysis of the historic Last Supper, I recommend reading J.D. Crossan’s “The Historic Jesus”.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
John “Jesus’ body was probably eaten by wild dogs” Crossan?
Perhaps you should use the handle “Surrealist.”
Jimmy,
No, not a surrealist just someone who needs to put our religion in proper perspective i.e. remove the embellishments and you still have great tradition and a way of life.
embellishments = the parts you don’t like.
Dear Realist,
I suggest you read more middle of the road scholars like Ray Brown, Joe Fitzmyer, J. P. Meier, and the like. For the last supper try J. Jeremias excellent work on the subject.
On the real presence the concept of transubstantiation depends on a view of accident and substance that is not a part of modern thought. Trent condemned the statement that the Eucharist was a mere symbol. On the other hand the concept of God is one that our minds can only speak of by analogy, etc. I suggest we take the words of the gospel as what they are and not try to analyze them because we can’t.
Dear Host Jimmy,
We have a common hot button, John Dominic Crossen and his account of the burial of Jesus. It is absurd to think that a body would be left unburied with several hundred thousand puis Jews in and around the City of Jerusalem for Passover. Burial was a sacred duty for all Jews. For the non Roman (Local) auxiliary troops, perhaps with Roman officers, to leave a body unburied was to invite its burial by any and all puis Jews. Like Ray Brown I believe Jesus was buried in a tomb for condemned criminals. Nothing in the bible speaks of an “empty tomb.” That is a later interpretation.
Learning about Eucharistic Miracles may be a wonderful help in strengthening doubts of the Real Presense.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
Fr. Raymond Brown, S. J. is one Catholic writer I would avoid.
I meant overcoming doubts about the Real Presense.
Fr. Raymond Brown, S. J. is one Catholic writer I would not avoid. He is (or rather was since he is passed away a few years ago) at the center, or a bit to the right, of the main stream of Roman Catholic Biblical thinking. I believe that puts our friend Defender well to the right.
Jimmy,
A good list of contemporary biblical scholars (e.g. Meier, Johnson, Crossan, Wright) and their lists of books with commentary can be found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html. Hopefully the Pontifical Biblical Commission will address the conclusions of these scholars in a future review. Their recent publications with unfortunately a lot of “vaticanspeak” can be found at
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURI…IA/ PBCINTER.HTM
Realist,
Are we back with the “Jesus Seminar” junk again?
What proper perspective do you mean?
Dr. Eric,
Not really. I simply added references to a number of biblical scholars to include those at the Vatican in case someone wanted to review information on contemporary views of the Historical Jesus.
Some of the Jesus Seminar results by the way are posted at http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria for those that are interested. I see even the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission take votes on their conclusions and what to publish.
Dear Dr. Eric,
Since you don’t seem to approve of members of the Catholic Biblical Society or the Papel Biblical Commission, who do you think is a valid biblical authority or scholar?
The Pontifical Biblical Commission HAS addressed the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar… by ignoring them.
Yikes! I mistakenly bought a book by Crossan about Jesus thinking it would be orthodox teaching. Then I found out I was wrong. I guess the best place for it is the trash.
I must take exception to Realist’s comment about our faith just being a great tradition and way of life. If that is all it is, why shouldn’t I have any religion (or none at all?) Actually, I think atheists take the easy path in life. That way they can do exactly as they please without having to answer to anyone. And I have to give them that God can really be demanding! But now I know it to be true, I can’t go back into ignorance. Please don’t say that Jesus was just a great man, a superb philosopher and a radical thinker…he was all that and also the Son of God.
As St Paul said, if Christ has not risen from the dead, we are to be most pitied.
With all due respect, the Jesus Seminar is not exactly made up of main stream Catholic scriptue scholars (who a lot of folks at this site don’t seem to like either).
Tricia says “I think atheists take the easy path in life.”
I disagree. I know many atheists who will be greeted warmly with the words “I was hungry, etc.” I wish I was as good a Christian and some atheists.
Patrick-
I think the confusion comes in the terminology. Of course YOU think of Meier, Johnson, Crossan, Wright, et al… as mainstream, because you agree with them.
Their point of view may even be in the majority among “modern scholars”, but it is not the teaching of the church, and in fact, contradicts that teaching.
Anyone who believes that the gospel writers put words in Jesus’ mouth, invented miracles, or added events that did not take place in history are outside the clear magisterial teaching on the matter, which is that the Gospels faithfully record what Jesus actually said and did.
This imagined gulf between the Jesus of the Gospels and the “Jesus of History” is an illusion. It does not exist.
Oh how I miss the Index at times…
“Their point of view may even be in the majority among ‘modern scholars’, but it is not the teaching of the church, and in fact, contradicts that teaching.”
Dear Tim,
If you don’t accept modern Catholic scholarship on the bible, or at least listen to it seriously, you are left with the pathetically erroneous explanations of the “synoptic problem” and the like. It is not the final word but it is the best we have to date and it is “accepted” in Rome.
The reason I reject so much of the biblical scholarship of the last century is that I accept the scholarship of the 19 centuries that preceded it.
I once attended a catechetical workshop where the presenter dogmatically stated that there really WAS no solid, authentic Catholic biblical scholarship before about 20 years ago… maybe 10!
I almost snorted soda out my nose!
Pope Pius XII gave some leeway to those theologians who wanted to write about the historical aspect of the Gospels back in the 1940’s. He soon learned that was a mistake, because some had gone overboard in presenting their new ideas on the Gospels, as being the new updated position of the church.
Attempts at putting the genie back in the bottle were only partially successful.
Some obeyed and some did not not.
Those who proceeeded on their own pathway, ignored the Vatican, and in turn gave life to
a second generatin of theologians around the time of Vatican II who also put forth various works which have created plenty of confusion among the faithful on a wide variety of topics.
Fr. Raymond Brown, S.J. is one well known example.
In reality, we are all Sons and Daughters of God.
Dear Tim,
Obviously the person you were listening to was engaging in hyperboly. I have certainly seen many references in Fitzmyer and Brown to the fathers of the church and scholars who predate them by a lot.
I too went into shock when I read Fitzmyer’s “Christological Catechism” but with reflection and prayer I was able to understand and accept it. It has greatly enriched my faith (trust) as has the many books along the same line I have read since then. I recommend this road to everyone, though a good teacher would be certainly be helpful, as always.
Dear Realist:
The Catholic Church teaches we are ALL creatures of God.
Once Baptized, we become children of God.
————————————————
Dear CatholicDefender,
In reality, “original” sin is an invention of Augustine. We therefore are born pure of heart and mind and Sons and Daughters of God.
I KNEW I was immaculately conceived!
I KNEW I was Immaculately Conceived!
Ya hear that, folks?
I’m O.K., you’re O.K. – pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…
Honestly, for a Realist you seem to be living in some sort of parallel universe – or a padded room.
“Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved… If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.” – from G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”
Dear Realist,
The concept of original sin as an historic event, the result of which was passed on by sexual activity dates from Augustine. The idea that humans have an evil impulse dates back to the early Hebrew scriptures. Realistically, can you deny humans (other then Billy) have an “evil impulse” ?
Dear Realist: To deny Original sin places one outside the boundaries of Catholicism, the Ark of Salvation.
What is your understanding of Hebrews 9:27.
Dear Patrick:
Original sin was incurred by all men, due to the sin of ADAM.
If Adam had refused to eat of the forbidden tree, there would be no original sin.
While Eve disobeyed, it was Adam’s sin that gave man the stain of Original Sin.
A few drops of Water on the forehead, with some words and it is removed. God provides solutions for each impediment on the path to salvation !
This also shows how God hold’s the head of the household , the father, to a much higher standard than the mother.
For example, if the father does not raise his children to be devout Catholics, with a profound respect and love for Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Mass as well as other Catholic matters, God will hold the father responsible, not the mother.
The father has to answer for why the children of the house were not give the Faith. I am not condemning such fathers and saying they will not be saved because of this fault, I am saying they need to keep it in mind.
But compare the responsibility of one father to that of a parish priest, which as Pope St. Pius X tells us in his writings, is responsible before God for the souls of ALL persons in his diocese.
Dear Patrick:
Original sin was incurred by all men, due to the sin of ADAM.
If Adam had refused to eat of the forbidden tree, there would be no original sin.
While Eve disobeyed, it was Adam’s sin that gave man the stain of Original Sin.
A few drops of Water on the forehead, with some words and it is removed. God provides solutions for each impediment on the path to salvation !
This also shows how God hold’s the head of the household , the father, to a much higher standard than the mother.
For example, if the father does not raise his children to be devout Catholics, with a profound respect and love for Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Mass as well as other Catholic matters, God will hold the father responsible, not the mother.
The father has to answer for why the children of the house were not give the Faith. I am not condemning such fathers and saying they will not be saved because of this fault, I am saying they need to keep it in mind.
But compare the responsibility of one father to that of a parish priest, which as Pope St. Pius X tells us in his writings, is responsible before God for the souls of ALL persons in his diocese.
Dear Defender,
No, I do not believe that Adam was an historic person. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are made up of stories, like that parables, told to make a theological point, i.e., God created the world, etc. Augustine did not know Greek and followed Jerome’s mistranslation (even Homer nods) in asserting that in Adam all sinned. The evil impulse theory is a matter of common observation and, incidentally, Genesis even has God observe that humans have an evil impluse!
Recent genetic science has leaned more toward a common progenitor for the whole human race, presumably somewhere near North Africa.
I won’t quibble about proper names, but the idea of multiple sets of progenitors for homo sapiens is increasingly untenable.
How unlikely is it, that we should inherit our “evil impulse” from our ancestors? And if not, where DID it come from?
All rhetorical questions… I’m done with this thread, which began with the Real Presence, you may remember.
I hold that Genesis is true and there was a real man named Adam.
You may not agree with me, but I assure you every Saint in Heaven, and every Pope is on my side.
Having said that,it is not up to me to prove a negative here. If you are claiming Adam was not a real person, than you must prove it.
Dear Catholic Defender,
In reality, most if not all Catholic and non-Catholic contemporary biblical scholars and theologians have concluded that A&E were myths. Do we come from a single set of parents? Possibly but they fell out of a tree if they did and it is just as possible that a whole tribe fell out of a forest of trees at the same time.
In reality, there was no “original sin”, there are no guardian angels, no limbo, and no evil impulses. Out of control impulses on occasion, of course there are.
The Second Coming? Still waiting on that one!! St. Paul apparently was not a timing genius but it made for good stuff to get the Gentiles to loosen their purse strings. He also was no doubt the first media evangelist. And he wowed them into one great and needed religion. Too bad that his zeal for truth and goodness got lost in the translation.
And returning to the thread of the Eucharist, is the Last Supper historic? Some say no. See Supper and Eucharist: (1a) 1 Cor 10:14-22; (1b) 1 Cor 11:23-25; (2) Mark 14:22-25 = Matt 26:26-29 = Luke 22:15-19a[19b-20]; (3) Did. 9:1-4; (4) John 6:51b-58- not historic but a later addition? see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf and http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf and http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf
Hopefully the Vatican will address these issues in a thorough review for us confused “pew sitters”.
Dear Realist:
I have no confusion whatsoever regarding any doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church.
I have Faith.
Faith is a great grace and a gift. It also requires a response.
All are given the graces to achieve salvation, but the great majority of people reject heavenly graces because they are too attached to earthly idols and sin.
What we know from the Catholic Church and Her teaching is the more we cooperate with Grace, the More grace we will get.
When we refuse grace, the less we will get.
Sometimes, when we show we have completely rejected His word, God will send to us the operation of error, so we will be in the dark about the truth while on earth, and then it will carry over for eternity in our next, and final stop.
The Catholic Church has always had to contend with those who preach silly ideas. But the heretics and liberals fade away and the Church continues to teach as it has for 2000 years.
I suggest you read a few books on the saints, perhaps St. Vincnet Ferrer or St. Catherine Laboure. Reading the lives of saints is a
good pathway to the truth.
Dear Defender,
Truth as in the geocentric earth, guardian angels, limbo, “saint” Christopher et al, Noah, inquistions, celibate priests and A&E??
Last time I checked, we had a geocentric Earth.
Dear Realist,
J. D. Crossen tends to argue from silence or to assume if he can come up with any other possible explaination for something then that must be it and the gospels are to be presumed wrong.
For example, on the burial or non burial of Jesus Crossen argues from silence.
Crossan starts with Roman expectations, he describes Augustus denying burial to the supporters of Brutus after the bloody battle of Phillippi. Brutus and his fellow conspirators had murdered Julius Ceasar and plotted to kill Augustus himself. Crossan does not draw any conclusion from this incident, merely saying that the denial of burial was final penalty one could suffer. He goes on to describe how those found guilty of treason under Tiberius, in the aftermath of the conspiracy of Sejanus, suffered the death penalty, forfeiture of their estates and denial of burial. Actually this was the standard penalty imposed on Roman citizens for treason, death by strangulation the corpse thrown into the Tiber River.
Then, switching to more violent types of execution, he says “it was precisely that lack of burial that consummated the three supreme penalties of being burned alive, cast to the beasts in the amphitheater, or crucified. They all involved …impossible burial.” However, six pages later Crossan admits that “Burial of crucifieds by their families is certainly possible. In fact, we now have both material as well as textual evidence for this possibility.” With regard to those burned to death, the Roman lawyer Ulpianus wrote “Even the bodies of those who have been sentenced to burn can be claimed, in order that their bones and ashes, after having been collected, may be buried…” Finally Crossan quotes Hengel who says “Crucifixion was further aggravated by the fact that quite often its victims were never buried. It was a stereotyped picture that the crucified victim served as food for the wild beasts and birds of prey. In this his humiliation was made complete.”
Turning to “Jewish Exceptions” he makes five points, or as he says, takes five steps. First, Deuteronomy 21:22-23 specifically refers to a dead body, not a live person, being left “upon the tree.” Second, he quotes Josephus’ description of how the Hasmonean king and High Priest, Alexander Janneus in 88 BCE, crucified eight hundred of his opponents and cut the throats of their wives and children in front of them as they hung on their crosses. Josephus doesn’t say if the crucified were left on their crosses after they died or were denied burial. Crossan says “…one can only wonder if Alexander Janneus worried much about Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and the removal of those crucifieds by evening.” Crossan’s second step, Josephus’ silence, doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.
In his third step, Crossan quotes the Temple Scroll, part of the Dead sea Scrolls, which says that for certain crimes “…you shall hang him in the tree, and he shall die. And their body shall not remain upon the tree all night, but you shall bury them the same day, for those hanged in the tree are accursed to God and men; you shall not defile the land…” Crossan believes that the laws of the Temple Scroll “…tell us more what was not being done than what was being done as the time of their composition.” A few verses after the one quoted by Crossan, the Temple Scroll condemns incest. Would Crossan conclude that incest was a common practice at that time? It doesn’t seem reasonable to conclude one way or the other from the Temple Scroll what happened to the bodies of the crucified at the time of Jesus. Again Crossan is fallaciously arguing from silence to support his conclusion.
For his fourth step Crossan returns to Josephus. At the beginning of the revolt against Rome in 66 CE, Josephus reports that a party of Idumeans stormed into the Temple and slew thousands, including the High Priest, Ananus, and “…proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away the dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.” Crossan, again arguing from silence, then notes that Josephus does not mention the burial of the two thousand crucified by Varus in putting down the revolt in 4 BCE, the burial of the thirty six hundred crucified by the Roman governor of Judea, Florus, in 66 CE, or the burial of the five hundred a day crucified by Titus in 70 CE during the siege of Jerusalem at the end of the Jewish war of 66-70 CE In the case of Varus suppressing the revolt in 4 BC and Titus during the Jewish was in 66-70 CE the crucifixions were an act of war not an act of ordinary capital punishment. The burial or lack of burial under wartime circumstances tells us nothing about normal judicial procedure in Judea. If anything, Josephus’ failure to mention Florus denying burial to the crucified, may indicate that they were buried. Josephus is extremely hostile to Florus, even saying “…it was this Florus who necessitated us to take up arms against the Romans, while we thought it better to be destroyed at once, than by little and little.” It seems unlikely Josephus would omit something negative about Florus. Crossan’s fourth step is again an argument from silence which proves nothing.
In introducing his fifth and final step, Crossan makes a passing reference to “…a governor like Pilate, insensitive to Jewish religious concerns, and a high priest like Caiaphas, sensitive to Roman political concerns…” This implies that Pilate and Caiaphas would be indifferent to a blatant, very public violation of the commandment of Deuteronomy, causing a curse on the land, at a time when hundreds of thousands of religious Jews were assembled in Jerusalem for the Passover, a time with a rich history of large riots in which thousands died. Crossan would have us believe that Roman policy was more concerned with leaving a body exposed on a cross than avoiding the possibility of a major riot and thousands of deaths. Given Pilate’s and Caiaphas’s long terms of office during which there are no reports of major riots, Crossan’s implication does not seem probable.
Crossan’s fifth step is to consider the possibility that Pilate would have granted the body to the family or relatives of the crucified as an act of mercy. He admits that this is a possibility and describes the discovery of the bones of the crucified man at Giv’at ha-Mivtar as an example of the body of a crucified being buried in a family tomb. He argues that since only one body of a crucified has been found, from the reported thousands who were crucified, that this is the exception that proves the general rule, that is the crucified were not buried in Judea. While Crossan describes much of the discovery at Giv’at ha-Mivtar, he fails to mention that Tzaferis, who discovered the crucified man, said “…when I excavated the bones of the crucified man, I did not know how he died.” Even that might not have been determined but for the seven inch nail in the heel bone of the crucified man which was left there because it was bent and caught in a piece of wood. Crossan is arguing from what hasn’t been found. While Crossan agues that the bones found at Giv’ar ha-Mivtar are the exception that proves the rule, he has not presented any written or other evidence of the rule he says is a commonplace in Judea.
Given the distinctions and fallacies noted above, Crossan does not provide a reasonable basis for his proposition that the account of the burial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark is based on hope not history. As has been demonstrated in this thesis, the burial of Jesus was consistent with what we would expect, given Roman and Hebrew/Jewish customs and expectations with respect to the burial of the condemned.
Dear Realist,
I believe all that the Church teaches. I would assume that you would consider me a child-like sheep, may God also consider me the same.
You have asked very serious questions, as we all should. We should be on a quest for the Truth. In fact 15 years ago I had all the same questions as you and my “brilliant” answers for each one.
Then after being tired of being my own all-knowing god. I started praying the Holy Rosary because my grandmother had a statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I gave them a chance to prove that they existed and loved me. As undeserving as I am they did just that and continue to do so.
I can no longer offer you my “brilliant” answers and my prayers may not be worth much to you but they are yours. I have asked my guardian angel to pray for you also.
Whatever your response I am glad you read this blog and comment because you have made my faith stronger and I thank you.
Take care and God bless!
J+M+J
Patrick,
It is good that you have reviewed Crossan’s books and possible outcomes to Jesus’ body. Not all do before they take bits and pieces from some net site.
My conclusion: Nobody really knows what happened to Jesus’ body. Since it is the soul that is resurrected (Heaven is a spirit state), resurrected/ascended/assumed bodies with or without glorification, are theologically and biologically impossible therefore His burial place is of no real importance.
Dear Realist,
For no particular reason you seem to assume the gospels are not true. Why?
Well, if Jesus’ Body didn’t resurrect, then the Apostles and other early Christians must have made up the story. Let’s see what this lie of theirs got them: loss of livelihood, exile, imprisonment, torture, death. Peter, Andrew, and Philip were crucified. James, the son of Zebedee was beheaded. James the Less, Jude, and Matthew were beaten to death. Thomas was stabbed. Bartholomew was skinned. Paul was beheaded. Mark was dragged to his death. All for a “lie” of their own making.
Jesus’s body is in Heaven. He went there on the feast we celebrate called Ascension Thursday.
Realist: The evidence for guardian angels is in many books and the saints tell us numerous stories about them. Unless you read, you will never know this.
The truth is there for those who seek it.
The New testament mentions Hell 73 times.
John Bosco visited it, as did St. Teresa of avila.
If you read their works , you can get a good idea of what it is like.
Care to explain the 60 plus prophecies in the Old Testament that tell of the time, place and manner of the Messiah. That tell us the manner of His death. That tell us how he will be betrayed, and who is to reject him.
You pontificate as a enlightened expert, and yet the exacting prophecies of the Bible you ignore. The Scriptures refute all of your errors.
Amen, Bill912!
Realist, please allow me to remind you that placing “in reality” at the beginning of a statement does not make it so.
My question to you is: Why do you put so much more weight on your relatively tiny number of “comtemporary” scholars rather than those of the past (or, indeed the present like Dr Hahn, Mr Armstrong, & our host Mr Akin) who have produced volumes of great theological thought & all agree in their approach? Seems to me that it’s the scholars you hold to who are the aberrants. Perhaps they support your personal view of Scripture & what you’d like to find there, but . . . that’s not reality.
“Nobody really knows what happened to Jesus’ body. Since it is the soul that is resurrected (Heaven is a spirit state), resurrected/ascended/assumed bodies with or without glorification, are theologically and biologically impossible therefore His burial place is of no real importance.”
God is God. He may do what He wills. If He desires to assume bodies into Heaven, the so be it. His wisdom transends our finite human brains. “Even the wisest cannot see all ends.” God is inscrutable. You, Realist, are trying to fit him into a box the size of your body. There is no wrong in seeking to understand such great mysteries – the Trinity has been contemplated for nearly 2000 years now! But to say that the Ascension or Assumption is “impossible” is, frankly, silly. With God, all things are possible.
Including the Eucharist (getting back to the reason for the thread). Christ left us His Body in the Eucharist (which Crossen probably does not believe is anything more than a symbol) & this was understood from the earliest time of the Church (which, I’m sure, Crossen doesn’t believe, either, despite the witness of the Early Church Fathers). In fact, there are many today who deny the Real Presence from with the Catholic Church – sadly, some of these people are priests. Look at the model of the 12 apostles; Judas was there, just as his *heirs* are here in the Church today. But Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church; try as he might to infest the Church, ultimately Satan has lost. The work of the “contemporary” scholars you refer to, Realist, is overwhelmed by that of those in the historical Church. In light of that, whom would you say is guiding folks like Crossen & the Jesus Seminar? Yes, the Church does right to dismiss the work of many of today’s scholars. There’s something there, but it’s not of God.
Finally, it can be easily demonstrated that the books of the Bible are, of all books in antiquity, the most reliable. The copies we have are, in some cases, only 80 years removed from the originals. Many others are only 150 years removed. Compare that to copies we have of the works of ancient Roman or Greek writers which are, at best, 400 – 1000 years removed & one can begin to get a grasp on the reliability & accuracy of Scripture. Unless one makes the choice not to see. Which, since we have been given free will, in God’s eyes is a valid choice. But no one who makes that choice can say they were not warned!
Dear Defender,
Some added points:
1. God does not know the future. Future is a gift that comes with free will. If God does not know the future, OT prophets surely did not. The NT scribes picked OT “prophecies” that fit NT “events”.
As per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, a famous contemporary theologian, “Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history” . “Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.” Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, p.91,1993 (softcover). ”
2. As per the theological teachings in major Catholic universities:
“a. Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in
> love, without earthly — earth bound distractions.
>
> 2. Yes, Christ ‘s and Mary’s bodies are not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed
> into a “spiritual body.” No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.
> Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives
> death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an
> embodied person.
>
> 3. Yes, The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning
> to life), Ascension (of Jesus’ crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary’s
> corpse) into heaven did not take place (based on #1). The Ascension
> symbolizes the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the beginning of the
> Church. Only Luke’s Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus’ mission to
> Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus’ followers The Assumption has
> multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary’s special role as
> “Christ bearer” (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of
> Jesus’ Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
> be devoured by worms upon her death. Mary’s assumption also shows God’s
> positive regard, not only for Christ’s male body, but also for female
> bodies.”
1. God does not know the future. Future is a gift that comes with free will. If God does not know the future, OT prophets surely did not. The NT scribes picked OT “prophecies” that fit NT “events”.
Presumes:
a) God does not know the future.
b) His knowledge of the future has an impact on our free will.
c) That choices are necessarily decided by intellect, and not by instinct or emotion.
d) That people do not deliberately make bad choices.
e) That Schillebeeckx knew what he was talking about.
“Famous” Catholic theologian, “major” Catholic universities…what about the Church? Or is she not well known enough?
There is an interesting tendancy in American culture to care about an opinion based on who said it, almost an obsession with authority. Perhaps a hangover from our Puritan roots?
Don’t just give authorities for a superficial answer, get to the heart of the matter in your arguments. WHY is it that Fr. Schillebeeckx’s opinion is correct, other than affirming your current beliefs? WHY do you hold the opinion that God must be ignorant for us to be free? While I disagree wholeheartedly with what you state, I would at least prefer that you have a knowledge of “the whys and wherefores” to your opinions. Otherwise, your opinions are simply empty air.
The same goes for Church teaching. It should always be accepted, of course, as she teaches with Divine authority, as opposed to human authority in the case of the persons you cite, but we should constantly strive to understand the reasons for what she teaches. Such is the goal of theology, and philosophy, it’s handmaiden.
Dave,
The problem is that our Church, i.e. Vatican experts, do not challenge the conclusions of Schillebeeckx and those of the professors at many Catholic universities. My Catholicism does not need resurrected bodies. Where do they go if they do resurrect? Even the Vatican has ruled that Heaven is a spirit state.
My Catholicism does need constant reviewing of biblical documents which the likes of Schillebeeckx, Crossan, and Brown have done. Ditto for many of the professors at many Catholic universities.
From: THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
“The study of the Bible is, as it were, the soul of theology, as the Second Vatican Council says, borrowing a phrase from Pope Leo XIII (Dei Verbum, 24). This study is never finished; each age must in its own way newly seek to understand the sacred books.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1993”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
What is sorely needed is a Vatican internet site where answers in laymen’s language with specific references are given to our questions. Patrick et al give it a good try but they are not Vatican theologians.
By the way is Schillebeeckx still alive?
Realist,
It is apparent that you are the pope and final word of YOUR catholicism. You need to realize that you personally (no matter how smart you believe yourself to be) cannot speak for the Church. You can decide to ignore the Catholic Church founded by Our Blessed Lord at your own peril.
Dear Realist:
It is obvious you are playing with people here.
but let me resppond to those who might really think as you wrote.
God knows the future. and he knows the future of those who deny Him. I can state infallibly, that if you are in that denial camp, your fate is no secret, since you are sealing it yourself.
“God does not know the future.” This presupposes that God is limited, that he exists in time. In actuality, time is God’s creation. God has no past, no future. He has an eternal present. Since He is outside of time, all times are present to Him. He does not “foresee” the future; he sees the future in His eternal now. He does not “remember” the past; He sees the past in His eternal now. His Name is not “I Was”, or “I Will Be”; His Name is “I Am”.
Dear Patrick,
As far as I know, Father Schillebeeckx is still alive. See http://www.ru.nl/schillebeeckx/
Dear Defender,
I am not “playing with people”. I reference what I believe are important theological problems and conclusions. They are not my conclusions but those of theologians and professors who have studied in detail the Scriptures and related writings. See AN INVENTORY OF THE JESUS TRADITION BY CHRONOLOGICAL STRATIFICATION used by JD Crossan (http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf) to write his many books on the historical Jesus to see the thoroughness of contemporary biblical scholars.
Crossan again. See Jimmy’s 11/26/05 comment above.
Anybody else think that Realist’s beliefs have already earned him a latent sentence of excommunication? I can’t fathom why heretics insist on continuing to call themselves Catholic. It’s obvious they hold contempt for what the Church believes and teaches. Surely there must be Protestant groups that would welcome such cacodox folks with open arms. Why they remain is beyond me. Perhaps they’re the tares among the wheat that Christ spoke of. I don’t know what else they might be.
Dear FunkyDung,
Please note that I am only repeating what highly educated Catholic contemporary biblical scholars in good standing with the Church have concluded. When you get time, you might want to read some of the books referenced at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
G.I.G.O.
Please note that I am only repeating what highly educated Catholic contemporary biblical scholars in good standing with the Church have concluded.
A classic example of “The Micheal Corleone Defense”: Why, the Church hasn’t condemned them- the must be in good standing.
Sorry, “Realist”, but we’ve all seen The Godfather, Part III.
Dear Realist:
There are also “smart” people who jump off high bridges or buildings.
So being smart is no assurance these folks can’t be stupid in other areas, such as their own salvation.
You are a catholic in name only.
You forfeit the right to call yourself a Catholic when you deny the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you don’t believe me, ask Jesus. Believe it or NOT, everyone gets a judgment day.
Dear Defender,
I see you are now Judge, Jury and Executioner. Hmmm, me thinks the Inquisition has returned.
Have an embellished Merry X-mas!!!
Laws serve the good of society by eliminating the bad from the good. Different times used different methods tp punish. They are also to protect the True Faith from being corrupted.
You, (not I), are your own judge, as Jesus tells us, and there is no need of a Jury since you have already judged yourself, by your words.
Only you can confess your sins and errors.
I will correct your comments which contradict Cathlic teaching only because you call yourself Catholic. Ultimately you alone are responsible to God for what you say, not I.
Dear Defender,
B16 to the rescue!!!
“Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI. ” http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80888
Ahh, Peace to the World!!!
Realist,
Too bad you aren’t a jew in the time of the Babylonian exile, then this “might” apply to you.
And strange how often you reject the authority of the Pope and then seek to twist him to your misunderstanding.
Yes, convenient how that is, readin.
Dear realist:
Let me quote to you a infallible council, just so you can’t plead no one ever told you the truth.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, July 6, 1439.
ex-cathedra
( Listen Carefully now realist ! )
” We define also that …the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straighaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds”
Dear Defender,
The threat of Hell!! Hmmm, did you know that Schillebeeckx, that famous contemporary Dominican theologian, doubts that there is a Hell. Those dying in grave sin simply no longer exist according to him. But it also takes care of the Satan problem. No Hell, no Satan.
Added note: We all live in the New Babylon if I read B16’s commentary correctly.
Hey, everybody!
We don’t need to worry about Hell and Satan anymore!
Schillebeeckx said it, so you know it must be true.
Olly, olly, in free-e-e-e!!!!
Personally, I’m beginning to doubt the existence of
Schillebeeckx…
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Timothy 4:3
I know that today, many seminaries are being taught the Fundamental Option as the correct way to understand salvation. Such priests then preach that stuff .
In short, you get to decide AFTER you die if you want to go to Heaven. It claims you will meet Jesus, see how nice it is in Heaven and decide to go there.
This explains why more and more think that hell might be real, but few go there.
Little Seer Jacinta saw souls falling into hell, she knows that most, if not the great majority go there.
Tim J,
Quoting from Timothy might not be wise since many Catholic biblical scholars believe that the letters are not from Paul to Timothy but are later additions to the Pauline epistles. Tis like Falwell supporting Swaggart??
Also, going non-existent when you die in sin is worse than going to Hell, IMHO!!!
Many Catholic biblical scholars are wrong.
Let me try a little higher ctiticism on the critics:
Why is it that the parts of the Bible that liberal scholars say are “later additions” are always parts they don’t like, while what they accept as “authentic” is always something that makes them feel good?
Sorry, I’ll take Paul’s letters to Timothy any day over any of these yahoos.
I’ll argue on your principals this time, realist.
It is helpful to bear in mind that most mainstream Catholic biblical exegetes, such as Daniel Harrington, S.J., and Raymond Brown (“S.S.”, by the way, not “S.J.”) whether or not they hold the author of the epistles to Timothy to be written by Paul, they do adhere to the Church’s decree that they are inspired, and hence can serve as a basis for doctrine.
David,
Realist doesn’t believe in principles or having them because a “highly educated in good standing modern theologian” (that just happens to say what he wants to hear 2 Timothy 4:3)said they doesn’t exist!
Et Al,
I assume we will have to wait for the Vatican experts to settle our differences.
With respect to divine inspiration, why did it end so early? And why so many inspired versions or lack of versions in some cases?
As per St. Paul, I am still waiting for the divinely inspired Second Coming!!! Tis a bit late. I believe the original timing was in the first century CE/AD. Let us rapture on though to “Raptureville”, wherever that might be. Heaven being a spirit state, it won’t be there.
Make sure you plug in your surge protectors before you continue your search for the truth by reading the works of Schillebeeckx and Crossan.
And from the recent headlines from a Zinet news release:
“Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope
Refers to St. Augustine’s Commentary on Psalm 136(137)
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.
The Pope made this affirmation today at the general audience, commenting on a meditation written by St. Augustine (354-430).”
Peace and Goodness to you and God bless us all!!!
Dear Realist,
Please inform us what Vatican experts you will accept.
Those who tell him what he wants to hear.
As per St. Paul, I am still waiting for the divinely inspired Second Coming!!!
Aren’t we all?
Tis a bit late.
I thought that “No man knows the hour…” St. Paul certainly never set a date.
So do you not believe in the Second Coming at all?
Pope B16 is right… non-believers can be saved. But not if they discover the truth and deny it. Don’t read more into his statement than is there.
St. Paul sure had the Gentiles believing the Second Coming was coming very soon if you believe the literal readings of his epistles. Was this not one of the reasons for his success at converting so many Gentiles?
See a review at http://www.religioustolerance.org/rapture.htm
“The study of the Bible is, as it were, the soul of theology, as the Second Vatican Council says, borrowing a phrase from Pope Leo XIII (Dei Verbum, 24). This study is never finished; each age must in its own way newly seek to understand the sacred books”( as per Schillebeeckx and Crossan?). (from B16 while he was Cardinal)From the Preface of THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH by the
Pontifical Biblical Commission, an acceptable group but I see they don’t agree on all their conclusions either as demonstrated by their voting on what to include and not to include in their publications. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2
2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 refutes Realist’s above claim.
Dearist Realist,
A few thoughts from our Holy Father.
Pope Urges Theologians to Revive Natural-Law Teaching
Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:00:00 AM GMT
The work of Catholic theologians “must be carried out in communion with, and under the authority of, the living magisterium of the Church,” Pope Benedict XVI said at a December 1 meeting with the members of the International Theological Commission.
“To consider theology as a private concern,” the Pope said, “is to misunderstand its very nature.”
Benedict XVI, himself among the world’s most accomplished theologians, explained that the study requires “the spirit of faith and humility,” which fosters the understanding that the full revelation of God’s truth comes through the Catholic Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The more comments I read, the more I think Realist is Dan Brown. 😉