Christ Obeys The Priest

Do men, specifically priests, have authority over God Almighty?

“The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. ” - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974

We see this quote thrown at us often, and what did Fr. O'Brien mean by these words?  Quite simply, when the priest consecrates the Eucharist he is obeying the command from Jesus Christ to "Do this..." and when he "does this..." then that which was mere bread, Jesus comes down out of Heaven and changes the substance of the bread into the substance of Himself.  The substance of that which was mere wine becomes the substance of His Most Precious Blood.  The "humble obedience" which Fr. O'Brien refers to is God remaining consistent to His own command.  If God did not "obey" the priest's command then the command of Jesus telling our first priests to "do this..." becomes a lie, because if God does not "obey" then when the priest holds up the Sacred Host and/or Sacred Chalice and declares "this IS My body..." and "this IS My blood..." it would be a lie - and that would make Jesus' command to them meaningless and also a lie.

"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (St. Augustine, Psalms 33:1:10)  This quote and more from St. Augustine found here:  Was St. Augustine Catholic?

Part 2 - St. Augustine on Free Will and Foreknowledge

Mr. Hoffstetter responded to my previous posting in the Catholic Debate Forum (use linked text to see the original).  Since there would be too much for a combox response, I'm posting Barry's reply and then my response to it will follow (Barry's posting is shown with yellow background):

On 5/3/2014 12:52 AM, Scott Windsor, Sr. wrote:     > Dear Barry,     > Thank you so much for recommending St. Augustine on this topic! This is     > really wonderful stuff!     >     > http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2014/05/st-augustine-on-free-will-and.html You citing this as though it in anyway contradicts anything I'm saying simply shows that you do not have a clue as to what Augustine is saying.     > sw: (Yes, I've read it before - just thanking you for bringing it to our     > attention again).   Here is another quote directly from Augustine. Maybe St. Ferde will  break it down for us and show what's wrong with it? The following is taken from Augustine's The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love: Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God's Free Grace.     And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God     cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and     wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He     does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice     that He does it not for "He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and     whom He will He hardens." And when the apostle said this, he was     illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just     spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, "who being not yet born,     neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according     to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was     said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger." And in reference to     this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: "Jacob have I loved,     but Esau have I hated." But perceiving how what he had said might affect     those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this     grace: "What shall we say then?" he says: "Is there unrighteousness with     God? God forbid." For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit     or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate     the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there     were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of     course God foreknew, he would never have said, "not of works," but, "of     future works," and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or     rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is,     however, after answering, "God forbid;" that is, God forbid that there     should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no     unrighteousness in God's doing this, and says: "For He says to Moses, I     will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on     whom I will have compassion." Now, who but a fool would think that God     was unrighteous, either in inflicting penal justice on those who had     earned it, or in extending mercy to the unworthy? Then he draws his     conclusion: "So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs,     but of God that shows mercy." Thus both the twins were born children of     wrath, not on account of any works of their own, but because they were     bound in the fetters of that original condemnation which came through     Adam. But He who said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,"     loved Jacob of His undeserved grace, and hated Esau of His deserved     judgment. And as this judgment was due to both, the former learned from     the case of the latter that the fact of the same punishment not falling     upon himself gave him no room to glory in any merit of his own, but only     in the riches of the divine grace; because "it is not of him that wills,     nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy." And indeed the whole     face, and, if I may use the expression, every lineament of the     countenance of Scripture conveys by a very profound analogy this     wholesome warning to every one who looks carefully into it, that he who     glories should glory in the Lord. -- N.E. Barry Hofstetter Opinions in private email do not reflect those of any institution with which I am affiliated     ****       This message originated in the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups.       All rights reserved on messages posted to this forum, however       permission is granted to copy messages to other forums, providing       this footer remains attached to the message.       To visit this group on the web, go to:         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/

And now my response to Barry:

    On 5/3/2014 12:52 AM, Scott Windsor, Sr. wrote:
    >> Dear Barry,
    >> Thank you so much for recommending St. Augustine on this topic! This is
    >> really wonderful stuff!
    >>
    >> http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2014/05/st-augustine-on-free-will-and.html
    >
    > BH: You citing this as though it in anyway contradicts anything I'm saying
    > simply shows that you do not have a clue as to what Augustine is saying.

sw: You saying that about what I cited shows you either didn't read it, or enjoy reading St. Augustine out of context.  Keep in mind, Barry, which church calls him both Saint and Doctor.

    >> sw: (Yes, I've read it before - just thanking you for bringing it to our
    >> attention again).
    >
    > BH: Here is another quote directly from Augustine. Maybe St. Ferde will
    > break it down for us and show what's wrong with it?

sw: Wow, "St. Ferde!"  Congratulations Ferde!  Of course we all strive for sainthood, it's nice to see Barry has recognized this in you.  :-)

    > BH: The following is taken from Augustine's The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope
    > and Love:
    > Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God's Free Grace.

sw:  I'll not requote the citation again, but would add that it's not really "Chapter 98" but "98" refers to a paragraph numbering and this passage is actually found within Chapter 25 which includes paragraphs 98 and 99 from the overall document.  http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/augustine_enchiridion_02_trans.htm#C25

sw: Now, what we see here is that Barry chooses (again) to make his point out of the context of the whole document.  If we read just a few paragraphs further down we see that what St. Augustine is teaching is that condemnation is "just" for all men due to Adam's fall.  We all have lost the first gift of immortality which was for Adam and Eve to receive, but through Free Will, they lost that gift and lost it for all of us - as we are born into that fallen nature.  God allowed for man's Free Will to go on unchecked until the time of Noah - at which time He "rebooted" mankind.  Still, the promise of the redemption of mankind was made to Adam and Eve.

sw: While mankind was "rebooted" with Noah, man's Free Will was continued to be allowed by God, and is immediately evident in the acts of even Noah's sons.  It would also not be long after Noah's time that man would build the "Tower of Babel" where God again confounds the Free Will of men - dividing them into what would become different nations.  Still, the promise of redemption is with us and going according to God's Will for mankind.  With that in mind, let us read a few paragraphs down from where Barry snipped his quote:

106. Human nature lost the former kind of immortality through the misuse of free will. It is to receive the latter through grace--though it was to have obtained it through merit, if it had not sinned. Not even then, however, could there have been any merit without grace. For although sin had its origin in free will alone, still free will would not have been sufficient to maintain justice, save as divine aid had been afforded man, in the gift of participation in the immutable good. Thus, for example, the power to die when he wills it is in a man's own hands--since there is no one who could not kill himself by not eating (not to mention other means). But the bare will is not sufficient for maintaining life, if the aids of food and other means of preservation are lacking.
Similarly, man in paradise was capable of self-destruction by abandoning justice by an act of will; yet if the life of justice was to be maintained, his will alone would not have sufficed, unless He who made him had given him aid. But, after the Fall, God's mercy was even more abundant, for then the will itself had to be freed from the bondage in which sin and death are the masters.  (Emphasis added)
Source:  Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Charity, Chapter 28, Paragraph 106, St. Augustine.

sw: One can see how, if St. Augustine is taken out of context, a Calvinistic interpretation can be made - which is why I encourage people to READ THE CONTEXT.  In virtually every situation where the Calvinist claims victory, context defeats him, and so is the case again here.

AMDG,
Scott<<<
--
Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.


    ****
      This message originated in the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups.
      All rights reserved on messages posted to this forum, however
      permission is granted to copy messages to other forums, providing
      this footer remains attached to the message.
      To visit this group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/

St. Augustine on Free Will and Foreknowledge

In a discussion on Predestination and Foreknowledge in the Catholic Debate Forum, Barry Hoffstetter, while declining to get further into the discussion asked us to "read (St.) Augustine on the topic."  To which I answer, PLEASE DO!  As much as the Calvinists love to claim St. Augustine - he was not of a Calvinistic (as anachronistic that might be) mindset.  On the contrary, he was quite a Catholic!  Keep in mind, this man was the Catholic Bishop of Hippo.  After his many defenses of the Catholic Church, he was named a DOCTOR of the Catholic Faith!  This simply doesn't happen if one is a denier of the Catholic Faith, like Calvin was.  Now, on to what Barry recommended us to read - and please note how he shatters the argumentation of Cicero...

Chapter 9.—Concerning the Foreknowledge of God and the Free Will of Man, in Opposition to the Definition of Cicero.

The manner in which Cicero addresses himself to the task of refuting the Stoics, shows that he did not think he could effect anything against them in argument unless he had first demolished divination.  And this he attempts to accomplish by denying that there is any knowledge of future things, and maintains with all his might that there is no such knowledge either in God or man, and that there is no prediction of events.  Thus he both denies the foreknowledge of God, and attempts by vain arguments, and by opposing to himself certain oracles very easy to be refuted, to overthrow all prophecy, even such as is clearer than the light (though even these oracles are not refuted by him).

But, in refuting these conjectures of the mathematicians, his argument is triumphant, because truly these are such as destroy and refute themselves.  Nevertheless, they are far more tolerable who assert the fatal influence of the stars than they who deny the foreknowledge of future events.  For, to confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly.  This Cicero himself saw, and therefore attempted to assert the doctrine embodied in the words of Scripture, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”  That, however, he did not do in his own person, for he saw how odious and offensive such an opinion would be; and therefore, in his book on the nature of the gods, he makes Cotta dispute concerning this against the Stoics, and preferred to give his own opinion in favor of Lucilius Balbus, to whom he assigned the defence of the Stoical position, rather than in favor of Cotta, who maintained that no divinity exists.  However, in his book on divination, he in his own person most openly opposes the doctrine of the prescience of future things.  But all this he seems to do in order that he may not grant the doctrine of fate, and by so doing destroy free will.  For he thinks that, the knowledge of future things being once conceded, fate follows as so necessary a consequence that it cannot be denied.

But, let these perplexing debatings and disputations of the philosophers go on as they may, we, in order that we may confess the most high and true God Himself, do confess His will, supreme power, and prescience.  Neither let us be afraid lest, after all, we do not do by will that which we do by will, because He, whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew that we would do it.  It was this which Cicero was afraid of, and therefore opposed foreknowledge.  The Stoics also maintained that all things do not come to pass by necessity, although they contended that all things happen according to destiny.  What is it, then, that Cicero feared in the prescience of future things?  Doubtless it was this,—that if all future things have been foreknown, they will happen in the order in which they have been foreknown; and if they come to pass in this order, there is a certain order of things foreknown by God; and if a certain order of things, then a certain order of causes, for nothing can happen which is not preceded by some efficient cause.  But if there is a certain order of causes according to which everything happens which does happen, then by fate, says he, all things happen which do happen.  But if this be so, then is there nothing in our own power, and there is no such thing as freedom of will; and if we grant that, says he, the whole economy of human life is subverted.  In vain are laws enacted.  In vain are reproaches, praises, chidings, exhortations had recourse to; and there is no justice whatever in the appointment of rewards for the good, and punishments for the wicked.  And that consequences so disgraceful, and absurd, and pernicious to humanity may not follow, Cicero chooses to reject the foreknowledge of future things, and shuts up the religious mind to this alternative, to make choice between two things, either that something is in our own power, or that there is foreknowledge,—both of which cannot be true; but if the one is affirmed, the other is thereby denied.  He therefore, like a truly great and wise man, and one who consulted very much and very skillfully for the good of humanity, of those two chose the freedom of the will, to confirm which he denied the foreknowledge of future things; and thus, wishing to make men free he makes them sacrilegious.  But the religious mind chooses both, confesses both, and maintains both by the faith of piety.  But how so? says Cicero; for the knowledge of future things being granted, there follows a chain of consequences which ends in this, that there can be nothing depending on our own free wills.  And further, if there is anything depending on our wills, we must go backwards by the same steps of reasoning till we arrive at the conclusion that there is no foreknowledge of future things.  For we go backwards through all the steps in the following order:—If there is free will, all things do not happen according to fate; if all things do not happen according to fate, there is not a certain order of causes; and if there is not a certain order of causes, neither is there a certain order of things foreknown by God,—for things cannot come to pass except they are preceded by efficient causes,—but, if there is no fixed and certain order of causes foreknown by God, all things cannot be said to happen according as He foreknew that they would happen.  And further, if it is not true that all things happen just as they have been foreknown by Him, there is not, says he, in God any foreknowledge of future events.

Now, against the sacrilegious and impious darings of reason, we assert both that God knows all things before they come to pass, and that we do by our free will whatsoever we know and feel to be done by us only because we will it.  But that all things come to pass by fate, we do not say; nay we affirm that nothing comes to pass by fate; for we demonstrate that the name of fate, as it is wont to be used by those who speak of fate, meaning thereby the position of the stars at the time of each one’s conception or birth, is an unmeaning word, for astrology itself is a delusion.  But an order of causes in which the highest efficiency is attributed to the will of God, we neither deny nor do we designate it by the name of fate, unless, perhaps, we may understand fate to mean that which is spoken, deriving it from fari, to speak; for we cannot deny that it is written in the sacred Scriptures, “God hath spoken once; these two things have I heard, that power belongeth unto God.  Also unto Thee, O God, belongeth mercy:  for Thou wilt render unto every man according to his works.”  Now the expression, “Once hath He spoken,” is to be understood as meaning “immovably,” that is, unchangeably hath He spoken, inasmuch as He knows unchangeably all things which shall be, and all things which He will do.  We might, then, use the word fate in the sense it bears when derived from fari, to speak, had it not already come to be understood in another sense, into which I am unwilling that the hearts of men should unconsciously slide.  But it does not follow that, though there is for God a certain order of all causes, there must therefore be nothing depending on the free exercise of our own wills, for our wills themselves are included in that order of causes which is certain to God, and is embraced by His foreknowledge, for human wills are also causes of human actions; and He who foreknew all the causes of things would certainly among those causes not have been ignorant of our wills.  For even that very concession which Cicero himself makes is enough to refute him in this argument.  For what does it help him to say that nothing takes place without a cause, but that every cause is not fatal, there being a fortuitous cause, a natural cause, and a voluntary cause?  It is sufficient that he confesses that whatever happens must be preceded by a cause.  For we say that those causes which are called fortuitous are not a mere name for the absence of causes, but are only latent, and we attribute them either to the will of the true God, or to that of spirits of some kind or other.  And as to natural causes, we by no means separate them from the will of Him who is the author and framer of all nature.  But now as to voluntary causes.  They are referable either to God, or to angels, or to men, or to animals of whatever description, if indeed those instinctive movements of animals devoid of reason, by which, in accordance with their own nature, they seek or shun various things, are to be called wills.  And when I speak of the wills of angels, I mean either the wills of good angels, whom we call the angels of God, or of the wicked angels, whom we call the angels of the devil, or demons.  Also by the wills of men I mean the wills either of the good or of the wicked.  And from this we conclude that there are no efficient causes of all things which come to pass unless voluntary causes, that is, such as belong to that nature which is the spirit of life.  For the air or wind is called spirit, but, inasmuch as it is a body, it is not the spirit of life.  The spirit of life, therefore, which quickens all things, and is the creator of every body, and of every created spirit, is God Himself, the uncreated spirit.  In His supreme will resides the power which acts on the wills of all created spirits, helping the good, judging the evil, controlling all, granting power to some, not granting it to others.  For, as He is the creator of all natures, so also is He the bestower of all powers, not of all wills; for wicked wills are not from Him, being contrary to nature, which is from Him.  As to bodies, they are more subject to wills:  some to our wills, by which I mean the wills of all living mortal creatures, but more to the wills of men than of beasts.  But all of them are most of all subject to the will of God, to whom all wills also are subject, since they have no power except what He has bestowed upon them.  The cause of things, therefore, which makes but is not made, is God; but all other causes both make and are made.  Such are all created spirits, and especially the rational.  Material causes, therefore, which may rather be said to be made than to make, are not to be reckoned among efficient causes, because they can only do what the wills of spirits do by them.  How, then, does an order of causes which is certain to the foreknowledge of God necessitate that there should be nothing which is dependent on our wills, when our wills themselves have a very important place in the order of causes?  Cicero, then, contends with those who call this order of causes fatal, or rather designate this order itself by the name of fate; to which we have an abhorrence, especially on account of the word, which men have become accustomed to understand as meaning what is not true.  But, whereas he denies that the order of all causes is most certain, and perfectly clear to the prescience of God, we detest his opinion more than the Stoics do.  For he either denies that God exists,—which, indeed, in an assumed personage, he has labored to do, in his book De Natura Deorum,—or if he confesses that He exists, but denies that He is prescient of future things, what is that but just “the fool saying in his heart there is no God?”  For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God.  Wherefore our wills also have just so much power as God willed and foreknew that they should have; and therefore whatever power they have, they have it within most certain limits; and whatever they are to do, they are most assuredly to do, for He whose foreknowledge is infallible foreknew that they would have the power to do it, and would do it.  Wherefore, if I should choose to apply the name of fate to anything at all, I should rather say that fate belongs to the weaker of two parties, will to the stronger, who has the other in his power, than that the freedom of our will is excluded by that order of causes, which, by an unusual application of the word peculiar to themselves, the Stoics call Fate. 

Source:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.9.html

It is the opinion of this writer that Barry chooses not to engage the discussion because he knows it is a debate he cannot win.

On Praying to the Saints

First off, praying to the Saints is part of the "communion of saints" which most Christians profess in the ancient creeds of Christendom.  We're all part of that communion while we're in the state of grace.  Those who were alive in Christ on Earth still are even after physical death since nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ (Rom 8:38-39).  We see more evidence of this in Scripture in the Book of Revelation (aka The Apocalypse) of St. John 5:8:

And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. (NIV)

And in Hebrews 12:1-3 the "great cloud of witnesses" are those who are watching us and aware of what we are going through - they see us in our sins, so we are to "throw off everything which hinders us..." see verses:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, ² fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame,and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. ³ Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. (NIV)

The Saints are not "dead" - but "alive" in Heaven!  We see evidence of that at the Transfiguration of Jesus where He and the three Apostles (Sts. Peter, James and John) with Him were joined by Moses and Elijah.  Obviously Moses and Elijah are not "dead" when they are present here. Matthew 17:1-9:  

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. ² There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. ³ Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.⁴ Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”⁵ While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”⁶ When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. ⁷ But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” ⁸ When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.⁹ As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyonewhat you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

One more scriptural passage for now too, Matthew 22:32:

‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (NIV)

That pretty much sums up the fact that the Saints in Heaven are not "dead."

Martin Luther wrote in the prologue to his commentary on the Magnifcat on March 10, 1521 (after he split with the Catholic Church in 1517):

May the tender Mother of God herself procure for me the spirit of wisdom, profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers, so that your Grace as well as we all may draw therefrom wholesome knowledge and a praiseworthy life, and thus come to chant and sing this Magnificat eternally in heaven. To this may God help us. Amen. 

One can see here, clearly, that Luther is asking (praying) that the Mother of God procure (intercede, make a request to God) for him wisdom, profitably, etc.  Rejection of praying to Mary and the Saints is something which developed later.

St. Augustine wrote:

"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

"At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).

"Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ" (The City of God 20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).  

How about the verses in the Old Testament which condemn prayers to the dead?  Well as we've already established above - the Saints in Heaven are not "dead," nor is God the God of the dead, but the living.  One common verse put out for discussion is Deuteronomy 18:10-12:

¹⁰ There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, ¹¹ or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. ¹² For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you. (NASB)

This passage speaks specifically toward not seeking a medium, as Saul did when he sought guidance from his, now passed on, spiritual director, the Prophet Samuel through the Medium (or Witch) of Endor (1 Samuel 28).  The point is that none among them (the People of God) should be a witch, sorcerer or medium.  We are not to "call up the dead" as in a seance or the like, but asking one who has gone before us to pray for us is not the same thing, and I reiterate - those who have gone before us to Heaven are not "dead" - but rather, "alive" in Christ!  

I hope this helps, and I look forward to comments or questions you might have.

In Christ,
Scott<<<

St. Augustine on the Sacrament of the Eucharist

Many protestants tell Catholics that the problem with their theology is that they don't believe things as they are plainly written in Scriptures.  However we say we believe exactly what it says in Scripture, including what our Lord Jesus said in John 6; that our Lord meant exactly what He said, as it is said.  I was reminded of this argument after this Sunday's Gospel reading:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."  (John 6:51-58)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXE.HTM

We believe Him and we follow His command to eat His Flesh and drink His blood.  Some protestants also attempt to use out of context quotes from the Church Fathers to try to explain away the Church's 2,000 year old belief in what Jesus actually said.  However, I thought this quote from St. Augustine in the print version of the Compendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church (not in the online version because it is included in commentary to a picture in the print version) makes it quite clear the St. Augustine was in full agreement with the Church believed and still believes on this issue.

"Christ our Lord, who in His suffering offered for us what in His being born He took from us and who has become in eternity the greatest of priests, has commanded that this sacrifice which you see be offered, that is, His Body and Blood.  Indeed, His Body, rent by the lance, poured out water and blood by which He forgave our sins.  Remembering this grace and working out your salvation (which is God then working in you), draw near and become a partaker of this altar with fear and trembling.  See in this bread that very body which hung upon the cross and in this cup that very blood which gushed from His side. 

Even the ancient sacrifices of God's people prefigured in their manifold kinds this unique sacrifice that was to come.  Christ is at the same time the lamb by reason of the innocence of His pure soul and the goat by reason of His flesh which was in the likeness of sinful flesh.  Any other thing which in many and various ways might be prefigured in the sacrifices of the Old Testament points solely to this sacrifice which has been revealed in the New Testament.

      "Take then and eat the Body of Christ since now you have become members of Christ in the body of Christ.  So as not to be cut off, eat that which unites you; so as not to think little of yourself, drink what is the price of your person.  As this food, when you eat and drink of it, is transformed into yourself, so also do you transform yourselves into the body of Christ if you live in obedience and devotion to Him.  He indeed, when His passion was near, celebrated the Passover meal with His disciples.  Taking the bread, He blessed it saying:  This is my body which will be given up for you.  In the same way, after having blessed it, he gave the cup saying:  This is my blood of the new covenant which will be shed for all for the forgiveness of sins.  This you have already read and heard of in the Gospel but you did not know that this Eucharist is the Son Himself.  Now with heart purified in an unstained conscience and with your body bathed in clean water, look to Him and you will be radiant with joy and your faces will not blush with shame."  (Discourse, 228B) --quoted in the Compendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 66

O Ye of Little Faith!

This is in response to Ken’s reply to my article (which is responding to his!).  Since the response(s) are getting too long for the combox, I’m writing a new article to address Ken’s posts.  Ken objects to my use of "O ye of little faith," but I believe the objective reader here can see the point I have been making and how Ken's faith is lacking when it comes to accepting this direct teaching from our Lord and Savior.

Scott,

Your statement "O ye of little faith" makes no sense to me or Protestants like me. Nowhere in John 6 or the Upper Room texts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or I Cor. 11 say what you and the RCC try to make them say.

Well, Ken, it says what it says.  Catholics don’t “make them say” anything, we read the words as they are written.  No, it would appear that those who have to rationalize and impute all sorts of interpretation and explanation to the plain text - it would be those who are trying “to make them say” something they are not.

Jesus did not say "by saying/commanding (?) "this is My body" and "this is My blood", that it will change the bread and wine into His body and blood.

No, He just held it up and declared it so.  No rationalizations here from the Catholic side, we accept Him at His word - it IS His body and blood - period.

Jesus held up the bread and cup, and said to His disciples, "this is My body" and "this is My blood" - He was in His real body at that time in space and time on earth, holding up the bread and cup; so since He could not be incarnated twice ( or more), and His death is "once for all" - He obviously meant "this bread represents or signifies my body, and this cup represents or signifies the blood of the new covenant", etc.

O ye of little faith!  You have said that the Eucharist could not BE His body and blood because “He was in His real body at that time in space and time on earth.”  You limit God’s power and omnipresence - Catholics do not!  If HE says it IS His body and blood - IT IS SO!  Consider that in John 6 the chapter opens with the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand from five loaves of bread and two small fish - yet SOMEHOW there was enough to feed the five thousand AND to have twelve basketfuls of left-overs!  How could five loaves of bread and two fishes be in so many places at once?!  You (I trust) accept the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, but somehow MISS the FACT that this prefigures the Eucharist - and in context is part of a eucharistic treatise!   I pray that God will grant you the FAITH necessary to accept Him and His Word.

Moving along to St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians...

To judge the body rightly or "discern the body rightly" does not mean "judge the bread as the literal body of Jesus that has been changed, but no one can see it, etc."; rather in context in I Cor. 11:17-34 - it means to "discern the body of Christ" rightly - that is, discern right by relationships with "one another" and confess your sins to one another before you partake in the supper - be patient with one another, love one another, don't be selfish (remember that thing called context - the context was that there was gluttony, impatience, selfishness, hoarding, and drunkeness at the Lord's supper and Paul was rebuking them for that.)

St. Paul rebukes them for these things - yes!  But WHY is he rebuking them?  Because they did not rightly discern the body of Christ!  Yes, he speaks of divisions among themselves and some feasting while others go hungry - but THE POINT IS when they do THAT while approaching the Eucharist - they are not rightly discerning the body of Christ!

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.

32 But when we are judged by the Lord,we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat [see back up at verses 17 and 18 - "when you come together as a church"], wait for one another—

34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

"discerning the body" in v. 29

is parallel with

Judging ourselves rightly in v. 31 = "examine yourself before you partake" - confess your sins - Matthew 5 and 18 also talk about this. Make things right with people first, then come and worship.

No matter how you try to spin it - “the judgment” comes upon them for not “discerning the body...”  All the rationalizations you want to throw at this passage doesn’t change the fact that the REASON they would be bringing judgment upon themselves was due to them not discerning His body!  Yes, they did wrong things - but the judgment came upon them for not discerning.

Now, back to St. Augustine...

Augustine got the Hebrew wrong, and from there went too far with the "footstool" and "earth" etc.

He was wrong on the Hebrew and application of the footstool to the Lord's human body and nature, but He was right in that we worship the Lord Jesus Christ as God, and that He has both a Divine and Human nature.

You claim he (St. Augustine) was wrong about the “footstool” and “the earth” - yet it has been demonstrated that God Himself calls the earth His footstool in Isaiah!  (Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:49).  So where, exactly is St. Augustine “wrong” here?

there is a lot more that could be said, especially that Stephen rebukes the Jews in Acts 7 (Quoting Isaiah 66:1-2) for the Jews not seeing the spiritual meaning behind the temple and that they placed too much emphasis on the physical temple, which is what RCC does by trying to take OT physical contexts and put them into the NT ( priests, infant baptism as the same as circumcision, and the cherubim and seraphim as justification for having images of saints and angels to pray to in churches today.

Ken, take a look at verses 52-53!  

52 "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;

53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."

Note, the criticism is due to the fact that they were given the law and did not keep it!  Amen!  You have been given the truth, and you do not believe it - O ye of little faith!  May God grant you the faith necessary to accept His truth.

I should add that the way you use "O Ye of little faith", makes no sense to Protestants because it is applying that Biblical phrase to the Eucharist/Lord's Supper, when Reformed and other Evangelical Protestants fully believe in Christ and His Deity and humanity and the Trinity and in His atonement for the forgiveness of sins, etc. We have faith in Christ.

I will say that you, (“Reformed and other Evangelical Protestants”) DO have faith in Christ, but it is an incomplete faith.  I speak as a former Protestant, I believe I too had faith prior to my conversion to the Catholic Faith, but it was lacking.  The fullness of faith comes in following the Lord through the Church He Himself built, as He promise He would do.  You don’t find this fullness in schisms of men which began some 1500 years after Jesus built His Church.  You will not find the fullness of faith in the rationalizations of men who seek to dilute the very words of our Lord into something LESS than what He said - and that’s EXACTLY what you’re doing here!  You’re watering down the plain reading of our Lord’s words to appease your lack of faith in Him to fulfill in us what He commanded we must do, and that is eat His flesh and drink His blood - or we have NO LIFE in us.  It is also in BELIEVING HIM when He declares, “This IS My body...”  To rationalize and reduce His statements to human/physical understanding is to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and His ability to miraculously BE the Eucharist.  Again I remind you, the opening of John 6 begins with our Lord and God taking five loaves and two fishes and feeding five thousand people, with twelve baskets left over!  Do not doubt your God’s ability to be miraculous!

We we celebrate the Lord's supper,

You (as did I) celebrate a memorial.  You do not believe Jesus can actually BE the Eucharist, even though He declares it IS His body and IS His blood.  No, you have to come up with rationalizations (excuses) for why Jesus could not BE the Eucharist because He is IN His body at the same time He’s declaring “this IS My body” - why?  Because you cannot accept that Jesus could miraculously BE in more than one place at a time, yet (and I repeat) He could make five loaves and two fishes BE in multiple places at the same time!  THIS is why I use the phrase, “O ye of little faith!”  You do not have the faith necessary to accept Jesus at His word without making excuses.

we are careful to look at the texts and follow them - examine yourselves - so, if we are worshiping God in spirit in truth; and Christ has ascended to the Father, then the bread and wine are symbols of the once for all death of Christ - "as often as you do this, you proclaim the Lord's death" ( I Cor. 11) - "Do this in remembrance of Me" - it is a memorial of looking back on His once for all atonement for sins.

Just because something is done in remembrance does not mean what is done is not REAL!  The Eucharist is not a mere memorial, as Protestants (most of them anyway) believe it is.  Remember again, from the context of 1 Corinthians 11 (you’re citing that chapter!) that those who fell into the judgment did so because they failed to discern His body!  How can one be guilty of His body if the Eucharist is merely a symbolic memorial?  

So, we have faith, and that phrase is never used in regard to the Eucharist or Lord's Supper.

Again, I agree you have faith - incomplete faith.  Whether or not Scripture uses that phrase in regard to the Eucharist is irrelevant to the FACT that you’re displaying a lack of faith in Him.

And a true believer in Christ, experiences a deep communion with Christ, by faith, spiritually, after examining oneself and confessing sin and making things right with others and worship and prayer. Yes, the spiritual presence of Christ is real by faith in the true believer with the Lord.

Ask yourself, and I ask the objective reader here to ask themselves as well, does Jesus say He is spiritually present in the bread and wine or “this IS My body” and “this IS My blood?”  Does He say “this bread represents My body” or that it IS His body?  Without coming up with all sorts of excuses and rationalizations - what does He plainly state?

The way you use the phrase, is more in line with Ignatius Loyola's statement, over 1500 years after Christ, "Whatever we say is white, is white, even if to your eyes it appears black." ( I am paraphrasing it) ( In his "Rules for Thinking with the Church") This is proof that the Roman Catholic Church is just authoritarian in an un-thinnking and dictator like style, and that is one of the key reasons why good Christians have objected to its self proclaimed authority and false doctrines. (Hus, Wycliff, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli and onward to today).

The way I use the phrase is the way JESUS uses the phrase!  I do not ADD to it so that it makes sense to the carnal mind.  I believe Jesus and don’t make rationalizations and non-spiritual explanations.

I also made one comment on your previous post critiquing my article on RC Wrong Use of Augustine.

Here is that other comment:

(Quoting Scott) Actually, it says: "Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, for it is holy."

No, it says, "Exalt the Lord our God and worship at His footstool, for He is Holy."

You appear to have used the New American Standard Bible, I used the Douay-Rheims Bible.  The DRB is based upon the Latin Vulgate, which is what St. Augustine used.  You’re using a modern version which inserts “at” - which from what I gather from the Hebrew, does not exist in the Hebrew.  I stand by what I said - especially in light of the fact that we’re discussing what St. Augustine was commenting on and the version available to him.  (I also fixed your typo, so did not include your correction).

We know this when we study the entire Psalm 99 in its context, and the context of the temple, and the arc of the covenant.

2 The LORD is great in Zion;

he is exalted over all the peoples.

3 Let them praise your great and awesome name!

Holy is he!

The object of worship in verse 2 and 3 is the Lord Himself, not the furniture in the temple, nor the temple itself, even though the place for worship of Yahweh was at and in the temple.

I agree that the object is the Lord Himself in these verses.  There is no mention of temple furniture nor the temple.  You might say that the worship of the Lord is unlimited because He is holy!

5 Exalt the LORD our God;

worship at his footstool!

Holy is he!

Again, the word “at” is not in the Douay-Rheims, which is based upon the Latin Vulgate and the Latin Vulgate is the version St. Augustine would have been using.  Note as well the difference in the numbering; St. Augustine refers to this as Psalm 98, as does the Vulgate and the DRB, but in Protestant versions it is Psalm 99.  In looking at the Hebrew, we don’t find the word “at” in there either.  That word is assumed by modern translators.  Also, the DRB says at the end of this verse, “for it is holy” and the NASB says “Holy is he!”  Let us look at the text, I have provided the English (NASB) and the Hebrew below.  The blue words in English are the only ones which appear in the Hebrew:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=psalms%2099&t=nas

So, in the Hebrew all we have is: “Exalt Lord God worship footstool holy.”  So the DRB says: “Exalt (ye the) Lord (our) God, (and) adore (his) footstool, (for it is) holy,” is just as valid as the NASB.  I am not calling the NASB “wrong” - as Ken has so labeled St. Augustine’s use of the Catholic translation he had in the 4th century, I’m just saying St. Augustine isn’t “wrong,” nor would St. Jerome have been in the Vulgate.

Verse 9

Exalt the LORD our God,

and worship at his holy mountain;

for the LORD our God is holy!

verses 3, 5, and 9 are parallel, and verse 9 helps us interpret verses 3 and 5 rightly, if one tries to interpret 3 and 5 as meaning "it is holy" (the footstool)

So, Augustine was wrong to read the Eucharist back into Psalm 99. My case still stands.

Again, let us look at the English translation of the version St. Augustine was reading from, and not a modern translation which adds at least one word to this context:

Psalm 98 (DRB)

1 A psalm for David himself. The Lord hath reigned, let the people be angry: he that sitteth on the cherubims: let the earth be moved.

     2 The Lord is great in Sion, and high above all people.

     3 Let them give praise to thy great name: for it is terrible and holy:

4 and the king's honour loveth judgment. Thou hast prepared directions: thou hast done judgment and justice in Jacob.

     5 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, for it is holy.

6 Moses and Aaron among his priests: and Samuel among them that call upon his name. They called upon the Lord, and he heard them:

7 he spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud. They kept his testimonies, and the commandment which he gave them.

8 Thou didst hear them, O Lord our God: thou wast a merciful God to them, and taking vengeance on all their inventions.

     9 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore at his holy mountain: for the Lord our God is holy.

If we look at the Eucharist in the terms of “coming from the earth” - then no, St. Augustine was not “wrong” here - he just took the interpretation down a different path than Ken has (and/or whomever Ken is getting his information from).

The Lord did not like it when the Israelites used the holy things wrongly (the bronze serpent, the arc, the temple) - That is why He had the bronze serpent destroyed later; and let the Philistines take the arc; and let the Babylonians (586 BC) and Romans (70 AD) destroy the temple.

Ken has gone off on a tangent here in his closing statement.  It sounds almost as if he’s “preaching” at us here - yet he has established none of these closing statements nor tied them to the entire thesis of this current discussion!  Even if we accept what he closes with here, that the Lord did not like it when the Israelites used these things wrongly (which he doesn’t delineate how they were used wrongly, but then again that would be MORE of a red herring to THIS discussion) - that has NOTHING to do with St. Augustine’s treatise on Psalm 98 and worshipping God’s Real Presence in the Eucharist.  I repeat, this is nothing more than a red herring to the rest of the discussion we’re having.  These might be interesting topics to discuss, but are nothing but distractions from the topic at hand.

I reiterate, I pray that the Holy Ghost comes upon Ken, and all who believe as he does, and is given the faith to see Almighty God in His Eucharist.

In the spirit of the Holy Family (JMJ),

Scott<<<