tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post7827233825223746061..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: The Dog That Didn't Bark: Eucharistic Theology in the Early ChurchJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-1644761846261855362013-09-15T11:51:23.535-05:002013-09-15T11:51:23.535-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-60902565968694108112013-09-14T21:03:07.349-05:002013-09-14T21:03:07.349-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-54313701700737130352013-09-14T17:27:48.361-05:002013-09-14T17:27:48.361-05:00Robert,
I'm still baffled at what you find un...Robert,<br /><br />I'm still baffled at what you find uncivil about me trying to determine your religious affiliation, but I'll take a slightly different tack. Understand that I'm trying to find some sort of common ground upon which to reason and dialogue with you. In that vein:<br /><br />1) Do you believe that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church? <br />2) Do you believe that He chose Twelve Apostles, entrusting a ministerial office to them? <br />3) Do you believe that He established His Church upon Peter? <br />4) Do you trust the Bible? Do you believe it to be inspired?<br /><br />I can show you how Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium all point to the intercessory priesthood. But I'm not sure what status you give to Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-66385694080359843182013-09-14T13:48:45.558-05:002013-09-14T13:48:45.558-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-87958570845110321872013-09-14T08:45:53.397-05:002013-09-14T08:45:53.397-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-86378864963251512092013-09-13T12:05:16.957-05:002013-09-13T12:05:16.957-05:00By the way, what religion do you practice, if any?...By the way, what religion do you practice, if any?Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-6448885218757269032013-09-13T12:04:29.702-05:002013-09-13T12:04:29.702-05:00Robert,
You’ve brought up several topics, so if I...Robert,<br /><br />You’ve brought up several topics, so if I miss some of them, feel free to remind me:<br /><br /><b>1) The Eucharist.</b> You said that “Ambrose was speaking of a spiritual reality which is Eucharistic reality,” a reality that can’t be reduced “to the merely physical using Greek metaphysics.” If you read the full context of what Ambrose says, he describes the Eucharist as physical and spiritual. And if you read what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, and has always taught about the Eucharist, it’s that the Eucharist is physical and spiritual. <br /><br />If you think that the Catholic doctrines regarding the Eucharist are that it’s only the Flesh and Blood (and not the Soul and Divinity) of Christ, then I’d be interested in your basis for this, because <br /><br /><a href="http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/resources-for-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm" rel="nofollow">the Church teaches the opposite quite clearly</a>:<br /><br />“The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist. This presence of Christ in the Eucharist is called "real" not to exclude other types of his presence as if they could not be understood as real (cf. Catechism, no. 1374). The risen Christ is present to his Church in many ways, but most especially through the sacrament of his Body and Blood.”<br /><br />Of course, understood correctly, there’s no way to defend the idea that a spiritual-only Presence is “more real than” the Real Presence in the Eucharist, as Christianity has always understood that doctrine.<br /><br /><b>2) The Development of Doctrine.</b> Here’s <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/10/su-doku-and-development-of-doctrine.html" rel="nofollow">a post that I wrote explaining development of doctrine</a>. Certainly, the Church grows and changes: She doesn’t look the same now as She did even twenty centuries ago, or twenty years, or even twenty minutes ago. But having said that, the truth doesn’t, and can’t, change. <br /><br />A belief in an immediate purgatorial process in the afterlife is found within pre-Christian Judaism, and dates back to the earliest days of the Church. That doctrine is more clearly articulated now (mostly, by affirming what we <i>don’t</i> believe), but it’s not a new teaching. Indulgences are merely the application of the binding and loosening power found explicitly in Scripture. <br /><br /><b>3) The Priesthood.</b> I appreciate that you’ve prayed on this. I have, too, and have come to opposite conclusions. Fortunately, Christianity isn’t based on our subjective prayer experiences, or no two Christians would believe the same thing. More fortunately still, we have thousands of years of unbroken Judeo-Christian teachings about the nature of the priesthood. The Old Testament priesthood was always mediatory. The New Testament priesthood is modeled off of it, and all Christians are called to mediation. The notion that the priesthood <i>isn’t</i> mediatory is indefensible, as a matter of history and theology. <br /><br /><b>4) The unity of the Church.</b> I agree. Jesus Christ founded a Church, and it’s a scandal that so many Christians reject that Church, or ignore Her God-given Maternal authority. (In fairness, many do so ignorantly). Would that we were all joined under the aegis of our <i>Mater et Magistra</i>.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />Joe<br />Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-30450756409736048852013-09-13T11:02:24.831-05:002013-09-13T11:02:24.831-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-87830944087489330852013-09-13T10:46:31.198-05:002013-09-13T10:46:31.198-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-13462980713209914142013-09-13T10:37:07.495-05:002013-09-13T10:37:07.495-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-79069286033852975912013-09-13T10:33:45.814-05:002013-09-13T10:33:45.814-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-51415235644347622122013-09-12T19:36:48.118-05:002013-09-12T19:36:48.118-05:00Robert,
I’m glad that you find the Ambrose refere...Robert,<br /><br />I’m glad that you find the Ambrose reference illuminating. Can you tell me more? <br /><br />And what does your defending the indefensible point relate to?<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />Joe<br /><br />Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-9846242079974363752013-09-12T18:04:18.129-05:002013-09-12T18:04:18.129-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-15764442310944723992013-09-12T18:00:06.682-05:002013-09-12T18:00:06.682-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466552819119744652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-12348234696635343112012-12-06T11:27:39.407-06:002012-12-06T11:27:39.407-06:00I know that this thread is over a year old, but go...I know that this thread is over a year old, but got around to investigating the history of the Bloodless Body theory that H.R. Diaz articulates above, and <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-glorified-body-of-christ-have-blood.html" rel="nofollow">wrote a post responding to it</a>. <br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />Joe<br /><br />P.S. Michael, thanks for the Ambrose link -- I used it in the comments.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-66622145226841164052011-10-08T23:54:13.874-05:002011-10-08T23:54:13.874-05:00Joe and Hiram,
Seems Ambrose himself uses Hiram&#...Joe and Hiram, <br />Seems Ambrose himself uses Hiram's chp and verse in Luke as a defense for the Catholic position.<br /><br />Found it interesting was researching for my own coming post on this topic. <br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34044.htm<br /><br />He starts the relevant part in Chap. 4 vs 123. In 125 he mentions specifically Luke 24:39 as precisely the reason for believing in the Real Presence. <br /><br />:-D<br /><br />Just thought it was interesting.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02010718258539748519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-76140126801500098542011-10-08T22:09:53.821-05:002011-10-08T22:09:53.821-05:00@Joe: 'Misguided and baseless'. Hmm..., I&...@Joe: 'Misguided and baseless'. Hmm..., I'm sorry using the Word is misguided and baseless to you. Well, get back to me if you need me to draw things out to you, paint a picture, explain in eighty sentences what can be explained in two, or whatever needs to be done to reach your hardened-heart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-10521216236466436472011-10-06T17:13:16.115-05:002011-10-06T17:13:16.115-05:00Just to spit on the fire here, but when Adam refer...Just to spit on the fire here, but when Adam refers to Eve as "Flesh of my flesh..." She is in fact in possession of a "glorified" body as she was immaculately created and this was before the fall...just sayin....<br /><br />Also Joe if I didn't mention it before I loved this post...Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02010718258539748519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-41726156358323587802011-10-06T16:19:03.854-05:002011-10-06T16:19:03.854-05:00Dude. I just lost everything I typed out in respon...Dude. I just lost everything I typed out in response to your last response. argh. I'll try to rewrite it and post it on my blog if you want to check it out -<br /><br />involutedgenealogies(dot)wordpress(dot)com<br /><br />Not trying to spam or anything; I'm just pressed for time. Writing for my own blog, I can stay within my schedule.<br /><br />So a detailed response should follow...<br /><br />but for now:<br /><br />1. There is no mention made of unwritten commands that are not contained in the books of Moses. <br /><br />2. The Law refers to more than just the books of Moses, for the canon is developing. Moses adds the words of Deut 12 to the Law in deut 31. <br /><br />3. Joshua, therefore, refers to everything from genesis - deut.<br /><br />4. Joshua adds his own words to the Law in Josh 24.<br /><br />5. The commands of David are recognized as legally binding, just as much as Moses' are, in Ezra and Nehemiah.<br /><br />6. The Lord Jesus refers to the Psalms as "the Law" in John 10 & John 15.<br /><br />7. The Lord Jesus shows that "the Law" "the Word of God" and "The Scripture" the Scripture are synonymous terms in John 10:34-35.<br /><br />8. Paul follows suit and identifies the psalms, proverbs, Isaiah, and, indeed, the entire OT canon as the oracles of God, which he says are "the Law" (cf. Ro 2:1-3:20).<br /><br />9. Christ's entire ministry is contained in the Law, i.e. the Old Testament (cf. Psalm 40:6-8, John 5:39-40, & Luke 24:27 & 44-45.<br /><br />10. Christ's doctrine was not His own but His who sent Him. Therefore, it is all contained in the OT as well.<br /><br />Soli Deo Gloria.<br />-h.Hiram R. Diaz IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327740348297174256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-45954731174936303002011-10-06T13:33:14.518-05:002011-10-06T13:33:14.518-05:00Diaz,
You say:
Contextually, then, Christ is uti...Diaz,<br /><br />You say:<br /><br /><i>Contextually, then, Christ is utilizing the Scriptures in obedience to command of the Scriptures to live by the Scriptures alone.</i><br /><br />The <b>alone</b> is what I'm still missing. Both Joshua 1:8 and Deuteronomy 29:29 refer to the Law specifically, not to Scripture in toto. And neither say to do <i>only </i> the written portions of the Law. <br /><br />The Law, as you may be aware, included both those parts written in Scripture and additional rabbinical traditions, some of which were considered binding. For example, Deuteronomy 12:21 refers to oral commands of the LORD ("as I have commanded you") which aren't found in the written Torah.<br /><br />And to point out the obvious, Jesus' public ministry wasn't part of the written Law. Nor was it (at the time) part of any written Scripture. If someone refused to accept any doctrines not found in the written Law, wouldn't they have to reject Jesus Christ?<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-26537631512039879132011-10-06T13:23:02.202-05:002011-10-06T13:23:02.202-05:00hahaha sorry. I just woke up :/
Deuteronomy is it...hahaha sorry. I just woke up :/<br /><br />Deuteronomy is itself referring to the written Word of God (cf. Josh 1:8). What God spoke to Israel was to be written down. <br /><br />Moreover, what is written is what has been revealed by God for their rule of faith and practice. Contextually, then, Christ is utilizing the Scriptures in obedience to command of the Scriptures to live by the Scriptures alone.<br /><br />Also, in the context of Deuteronomy, God says that what He wants His people to live by is that which has been revealed, and that which has been revealed is all that is contained in the book (cf. Deut 29:29).<br /><br />-h.Hiram R. Diaz IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327740348297174256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-44466309743324625682011-10-06T13:13:04.440-05:002011-10-06T13:13:04.440-05:00Let me add an important qualification to 2.
One m...Let me add an important qualification to 2.<br /><br />One may possess a copy of the Scriptures that has corrupted books in it, e.g. a Bible containing the Apocrypha, and not believe those books, see and understand them to be teaching error, but never vouch to remove them from the Scriptures for other reasons.<br /><br />This is a difference, in other words, between possessing the correct canon and believing it.<br /><br />-h.Hiram R. Diaz IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327740348297174256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-84529351504240978152011-10-06T13:01:02.158-05:002011-10-06T13:01:02.158-05:00Diaz,
I asked "How" in (1).
JoeDiaz,<br /><br />I asked "How" in (1).<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-26960834853387250412011-10-06T12:59:55.842-05:002011-10-06T12:59:55.842-05:001. Yes.
2.Yes: The elect of God will recognize Hi...1. Yes.<br /><br />2.Yes: The elect of God will recognize His voice, or else Christ's Word is false.<br /><br />-h.Hiram R. Diaz IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327740348297174256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-54976939413502878902011-10-06T08:58:10.115-05:002011-10-06T08:58:10.115-05:00Diaz,
(1) How does Matthew 4:4 show that "ev...Diaz,<br /><br />(1) How does Matthew 4:4 show that "every word that comes from the Mouth of the Father" is limited to written Scripture?<br /><br />(2) So is it your interpretation that anyone who doesn't have the proper canon of Scripture isn't elect?Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.com