Interesting News article

Hi Keith,

You wrote, "While I admire your piety, it still does not excuse your misuse of the Sacrament. Where in Scripture does it ever say we should adore/worship the sacrament?

Simply because we do not find an account of Eucharist Adoration in Scripture does not automatically result in the conclusion that adoring Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is a "misuse".

St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians was meant as an exhortation and instruction for the Christian Community in Corinth, not as Sacred Scripture. Are you therefore misusing 1 Corinthians by reverencing it as the Word of God? I would hope not.

If I am not mistaken, Eucharistic Adoration seems like a fairly logical development of the reality of the Real Presence that not only benefits the Christian in living out his/her vocation but is intrinsically justified.

If the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, then worship of the Eucharist is not only appropriate, but an act of justice towards our God. It is giving our Lord what is his due.

I would suggest rephrasing "Where in Scripture does it ever say we should adore/worship the sacrament?" in this way:

"Where in Scripture does it ever say that we should adore/worship Jesus Christ?"

If the Sacrament is Jesus Christ, then my reformulation of your question above should clearly express the inadequacy of your argument.

Also, the Liturgy includes worship of the Eucharistic species precisely at the Great Amen. This act of worship is not separated from the divine liturgy but integral to its celebration.

your faithful brother in Christ,

Carson

[ October 24, 2002, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

You say that there is power in prayer...but not because you receive grace [in prayer]. That presupposes that grace is received through prayer.

God bless,

Grant

 

You seek grace in prayer....

but grace is delivered only through the Word, Baptism, Communion and Absolution?

Why pray for grace then? Simply read the Word, get yourself Baptized, go to Communion, or ask Absolution.

Again, why seek grace through prayer if that is not is a means of obtaining grace?

Your words say one thing about grace, but your actions say another.

Actions speak louder than words.

Ron

 

Ok, maybe I'm going too fast.

1. There is such a thing as figure's of speech, metaphors, symbalism, imagery, etc etc.

We use these things every day in our lives. I noted several valid usages above (yes, they are valid and no the objection is unwarranted. If you don't think so, go and pick up 'Catcher in the Rye' or any other book you should have read in High School. It is chock full of all of these great things).

The only, and I stress only, argument that catholics can give that would make their possition viable is the "because we are told by the church" position. If you can't offer this, then your position is untenable. Do not try and show how it is the only logical explanation, it is not. There are easier, better and more reliable explanations of the passage. In particular, the idea that Jesus was using imagry and symbolism (again...as he frequently did) is much more likely given His penchant for such.

2. I gave other (valid) examples of how imagry, symbolism and methaphors could not look like something but still be equated with it. (IE. mangeled sticks = my body because of how I feel right now. etc etc).

This is exactly what was being said (This is my body, this is my blood).

3. Carson, I completely understand your argument. I am simply showing you where it falls short and why it really is quite lacking. I hope and pray that you will come this understanding as well.

jason

 

Hi Jason,

You wrote, "There is such a thing as figure's of speech, metaphors, symbalism, imagery, etc etc."

Of course there are, and I duly recognize this. I hope that you above all, Jason, would have recognized by now that I have the basics of the English language down. It seems fairly uncharitable for you to address me as if I do not. It is a way of talking down to your brother in Christ.

The only, and I stress only, argument that catholics can give that would make their possition viable is the "because we are told by the church" position.

Catholics have good reason for believing in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist other than ecclesial authority. These include Scripture and Tradition.

For a more in depth analysis of the Scriptural arguments, consult:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

For a look at the doctrine in the early Church, visit:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

For a survey of testimonies among a quick hagiography throughout the centuries, see:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/tes/a7.html

If you can't offer this, then your position is untenable. Do not try and show how it is the only logical explanation, it is not. There are easier, better and more reliable explanations of the passage.

I am not denying that there are other logical explanations for the passage. I am showing that the other explanations are false.

I gave other (valid) examples of how imagry, symbolism and methaphors could not look like something but still be equated with it. (IE. mangeled sticks = my body because of how I feel right now. etc etc).

Are you saying that Jesus felt like a piece of bread? Pray tell, how does this relate to Jesus and bread?

Carson, I completely understand your argument. I am simply showing you where it falls short and why it really is quite lacking. I hope and pray that you will come this understanding as well.

I understand that you feel my counter-argument falls short, but you have not demonstrated sufficiently the case.

God bless you,

Carson

 

No offense Carson, but that is shifting the blame. I showed how it can be taken non-literally and you implied that literally was the only way to take it. This showed that you either didn't understand or didn't recognize the use of symbolism in this case.

The only, and I stress only, argument that catholics can give that would make their possition viable is the "because we are told by the church" position.

Yes, as I said. The only viable position is "because the church says so" approach. The biblical evidence link is laughable. There is no connection between the verses quoted and a real presense. Each verse quoted was used to justify a preconceived notion (and used poorly I might add). You, of all people, should recognize this and dismiss it as poor study.

Carson, you didn't 'show' anything, you simply dis missed. There is a difference. If you can 'show' me why it has to be a real presense and how what Jesus says cannot be taken symbolically, then we can talk about you 'showing' something.

I, on the other hand, offered opposing viewpoints which are equally valid. I know you see the validity in the argument, even if you don't like the conclusion.

*COUGH* Straw man.

You can do better.

The fact remains, you simply do not have a counter argument. Your 'counter' argument is essentially : It has to be literal, why can't you see this? Sorry Carson, that simply isn't good enough. Until you can show why symbolism falls short, you don't have a counter argument. Simply dismissing it is not a counter argument.

Secondly, I have not said the literal can not be the right interpretation, I simply offered an alternative (a more plausible one at that). I could probably throw in another 'straw man', but I won't. I'll simply say this: I have given ways to take what Jesus says as figurative, which is a completely valid interpretation. You have not demonstrated why this interpretation is not valid. Burden? You.

jason

 

What I find interesting about this whole thread is that Grant set up a straw man in post #4 of this thread. Chemnitz couldn't help himself from attacking that strawman in post #7 because he feels he needs to defend Lutheran beliefs against the Catholics. In post #9, Carson set the strawman back up for Chemnitz to make another pass at it and in post #20 he does so. In post # 22, 23, & 24 the subject of Christ's relationship to James has been abandoned to rehash the old argument of the eucharist!

Chemnitz, I normally find you to be a fine debator but the Catholics deliberately pulled you off the track and they were very effective at it. The fact that orthodox Lutherans maintain a belief in the real presence that opposes Catholic dogma gave them a chink into which they could slip a wedge.

So now instead of debating the completely unsupportable notion of Mary's lifelong virginity, they have you arguing a somewhat debatable point of sacramental beliefs. Mary's enduring virginity is protected by the Catholics once again, not by debate, but rather by misdirection.

This thread is a classic example of the effectiveness of strawman argumentation. Even if the members of this forum have not learned any Scriptural doctrine, at least they have learned how to avoid a debate with the use of smoke, mirrors, invisible wire and, when neccessary, a little duct tape.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StrawMan

 

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "the completely unsupportable notion of Mary's lifelong virginity"

I have presented several posts above, which support the dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity, and I invite you to read them with a clear mind and a good will.

Blessings,

Carson

 

"The argument from authority is the weakest form of argument, according to Boethius." -- St. Thomas Aquinas

Carson - since the only authority we all hold in common in this forum is Christ and the Scriptures, your arguments are another form of fallacious argumentation.

[ October 25, 2002, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Thank you, Clint.

 

Clint, the problem with your statement is that the Scriptures that you hold as your only authority must come to you either through the Catholic Church or by some other tradition.

Unless you can show me the inspired table of contents in your Bible.

BTW - please note that Clint said "only authority" when referring to Scripture.

Not final authority.
Not the norm that norms all other norms.

Ron

 

No need for my post since Clint made his own response.

[ October 25, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Dualhunter ]

 

Clint, the problem with your statement is that the Scriptures that you hold as your only authority must come to you either through the Catholic Church or by some other tradition.

Unless you can show me the inspired table of contents in your Bible.

BTW - please note that Clint said "only authority" when referring to Scripture.

Not final authority.
Not the norm that norms all other norms.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Quickly, because I have to run out for lunch.

Strawman. Clint said 'only authority ....in this forum...Christ and the scriptures'. See the difference? See what Clint was implying?

jason

EDITED: Just saw that Clint posted. Keep 'em honest Clint.

[ October 25, 2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

Actually, Dualhunter and Jason, I believe more specifically it would be a "Disagreement by addition" or perhaps "distortion."

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DisagreeByAdding

I had quoted you at the moment of you deletion of your post, Dualhunter.

[ October 25, 2002, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Sorry people. My post was neither a stawman nor a red herring.

I was responding to Clint's rejection of Carson's arguements, which were on topic but did not meet Clint's definition of authority. That being Scripture not tradition.

I merely pointed out to Clint that his "authority" did not meet his own definition of authority so on the same basis his arguement should be rerjected.

Scripture comes to us through tradition if there is no inspired table of contents.

As to "Christ" and Scripture being the only authority, there are many doctrines held by Baptists that were not enunciated by Jesus. You may find them in other parts of Scripture, but then you have that pesty "inspired table of contents" problem again.

So, no strawman and no red herring, but you guys can keep trying if you want... that would be your red herring.

Ron

[ October 25, 2002, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Ah, but Ron, lok at your statement

I have no need to deny this. Since the RCC claims to hold to the same Scriptures in this case and on this issue, the burden still lies on the Catholics to show us WHERE the "perpetual virginity of Mary" is found.

It doesn't matter in this debate WHERE the Scriptures originated, what matters is the content of said Scriptures.

Classic Red Herring!

"Because the Nazis invented the Volkswagon, you are a Nazi for driving one."

 

You misunderstand, Clint. You rejected Carson's arguements because they come from tradition while setting up Scripture as the sole authority.

If you wish to reject a tradition because it is not included in Scripture then first you must demonstrate that Scripture is the only authority.

If Scripture is the only authority, and not tradition too, then you must prove Scripture's authority from Scripture only. Without an inspired table of contents, you can't do it.

So, no red herring on my part.

Just a lack of order to your line of arguement.

Ron

[ October 25, 2002, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

No, I reject carson's arguments because he uses the fallacious argumnetative technique of "Ad Verecundiam" or "Argument from Authority." P is true because person/entity X has said so.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ArgumentFromAuthority

No I don't. We all agree that the Scriptures have authority. We do NOT agree that because Pope So-and-so XII and the Holy Council at Mudwater wrote the Such-and-such canon, then it becomes authoratative.

As long as Catholics are going to agree that the Scriptures hold authority, they must be willing to acknowledge that authority.

Even if you reject the notion that the Scriptures are the sole authority on matters of faith, the burden is yours to prove your point from the Scriptures to those who DO hold it as their authority. Since the Scriptures say that all Scripture is God-breathed and this concept is accepted by both groups then there is no need to prove anything beyond that concerning Scripture. The fact that the Scriptures are authoratative is already estblished. That is unless you reject the notion that the Scriptures hold authority. Is this the case?

Paul did it this way. When he spoke to believers he spoke of the Ressurected Christ. When he spoke to Jews, he used the Old Testament writings to prove the Ressurection. When he spoke to the atheist in Athens, he used the altar to the unknown God. He built his arguments upon facts agreed upon by both him and his audience.

No Red Herring there. It is simply a statement that his arguments are not valid except to those who follow the reasoning of whatever Catholic apologist he is using.

See, that's kind of the point. Until the Catholic proselytizing on this site is successful (don't hold your breath) the writings of Catholic apologists, Church fathers, and Catholic tradition are useless here.

I see these fallacious arguments all over the board every day. I usually just ignore them but this thread SCREAMED for commentary on it.

Your argument concerning the use of Scriptures is not correct. Suppose a Mormon defended an argument against you citing the Book of Mormon. Would you accept his arguments at face value? To those of us here who are non-Catholic, citing Catholic sources to us has the same effect.

We all agree that Mary existed. We all agree that the knowledge that we have of her is from a Scriptural source. Therefore, the burden is REALLY to prove that the Catholic tradition has any authority outside of the canonization of what we accept as the Bible.

 

BTW, your last couple post are using the technique of the "Package Deal," another fallacious debating technique.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PackageDeal

As I said before, this is becoming quite educational to the membership, I'm sure. Thank you for your contributions.

Maybe this forum will tighten up a little bit from this discourse.

[ October 25, 2002, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]