The irrepressible Pastor Mike continues his swats at Roman Catholicism:
Rome claims that in her masses she can repeat the sacrifice of the cross and change the wafer and wine into the very body and very blood of Christ. She claims that she perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross
Christ cried on the cross, "It is finished" John 19:30.
Yes, well, first of all it isn’t plural “masses” but one Mass. Which is the RE-ENACTMENT of the sacrifice on Calvary- but also the Last Supper wherein Christ said “Do this in remembrance of me”.
Thus, the Mass follows from those words, not the ones Mike cites from John. It is astounding to me that a dozen or so years of Catholic education failed to drill one major true fact into Mike’s head about the Church and the centerpiece of its worship ritual.
It also helps to refresh Mike’s memory (which seems to escape him when most convenient – i.e. in the midst of blustering) that Christ also said at the Last Supper, “This is my Body and this is my Blood”.
The consecration part of the Mass is what features transubstantiation or the conversion of the communion wafer (and –or wine) into the body and blood of Jesus. There are TWO aspects to transubstantiation, the ‘substance’ and the ‘accidents’. In the latter, for example, one would only detect the normal appearances at the superficial physical level.
Thus, going by the accidents only, no change would be forthcoming. However, as Aquinas showed and illustrated – it is the Substance wherein the actual body and blood of Christ is manifest. When a person receives the Eucharist, he or she is therefore receiving the SUBSTANCE that has been transformed by the consecration.
Pastor Mike continues in his criticism:
Rome has elevated Mary to the place of mediation. John Paul II states that "in Mary is effected the reconciliation of God with humanity" On Reconciliation and Penance. St. Paul Editions, p. 139).
Well, this again betrays my brother’s gross ignorance. He seems not to be aware of the document ‘Lumen Gentium’ comprising one major chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Church. ‘Lumen’ specifically endorsed for the bishops that although Mary retained “unique prerogatives” she was still to be regarded as a “fellow member of the Church” and not as a “semi-divine being” exalted above the Church. All impressions to the contrary caused by misguided piety nothwithstanding.. (Cf. ‘A Concise History of the Catholic Church’, p. 443, by Rev. Thos. Bokenkotter)
The reference Pastor Mike makes to John Paul II’s statement does not implicitly diverge from the doctrinal basis of ‘Lumen’. That Mary can “effect reconciliation” is not the same as asserting that Mary is the sole cause of it. Merely that appeals to her may change the heart of the supplicant more toward the Divine Will and Being. In this regard, what John Paul was really referencing is another of Mary’s “unique prerogatives”.
Even more irrational is the next claim:
No Christian can accept "The Cult of the Blessed Virgin" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, VIII para. 66). It is idolatrous and an insult to our Lord Jesus Christ.THE INTER-MEDIATION OF CHRIST IS USURPED BY ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Here, he somehow manages to cite Lumen Gentium but not the KEY part I already referenced, to do with Mary being another member of the Church. What is it about Mike, that he can neither read properly or think?
What is it about him that he has to lie and misrepresent? He references the “cult of the Blessed Virgin” but simply extracts the words minus the context. That is, that any “cult” is to be avoided as well as the misguided piety that engenders it.
Again, the role of intermediary is not “usurped” by Mary, rather the intermediary role of Jesus is reinforced by Mary.
It is sad that, in the fervor of my brother’s conversion, he must resort to such disrespect of the religion that nurtured him in his early years., Yes, one can break away from the Church – but it is not necessary to go on a hate rampage, and sow lies, disinformation and hatred as he does on his web page dedicated to attacking Catholicism.
Mike relentlessly pursues his target:
Rome is far from being a believer in the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice.Her rejection of the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice has been brought about by the many additions she has made to Holy Scripture.
Now, this is interesting because in fact Protestants have made far more additions, changes to the Bible than the Catholic Church. Look no further than the King James version, created at the behest of Henry VIII.
Catholics, actually had possession of the original mss. including the “Q” text and would have the least reason to alter it. What the Church was more concerned about was that people be able to correctly interpret it. As it is, most Protestants especially of the evangelical cults, have been the most culpable in grossly misreading it, and this has largely been because they have avoided proper exegesis and textual analysis.
It may amaze those like Pastor Mike who simply assume their good book can be read cover to cover with no allowance for the word forms, the period they were written, or the multifold translations subjected to. But this naivete is at the heart of the belief in biblical inerrancy.
To the Catholics’ credit, they have been attentive to the nuances of translation, while those of Pastor Mike’s ilk have not. Let me give an example.
In Romans 12:11, Paul urges the reader to “serve the Lord”. However, as bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman nots (‘Misquoting Jesus”, p. 91): “The word Lord, KURIW, was typically abbreviated in manuscripts as KW with a line over the top, which some misread as an abbreviation for KAIRW, which means time. And so in those manuscripts Paul exhorts his followers to “serve the time””
From this it is easy to see how and why Protestant biblical inerrancy factions might get carried away by thinking the Roman Church CHANGED the word “Lord” when in fact they merely abbreviated it. But, if the latter day translator isn’t aware of the mode of abbreviation he will regard it as an incorrect change, or deliberate one.
Additions, are another matter, and it is no secret the early scribes of the Church made those -but again, the reason is no mystery (Bokenkotter, op. cit. p. 17):
“The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus, they were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah or God”
Bokenkotter goes on to note
“The authors did not deliberately invent of falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy……Words were put in the mouth of Jesus, for example, and stories told about him, which – though not historical in the strict sense- nevertheless fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have to make a distinction between te Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history”
To those like Pastor Mike, this is bare shenanigans. But they forget or are oblivious to the fact that all that one had to work with for over 40 years after Jesus’ death was an incomplete and inaccurate oral tradition. Just think of relating some fact or event to Joe Schmoe, who tells it to Betty Bopp, who relates it to her grandkids, and they to their grandkids for 40 years. What level of accuracy does anyone with half a brain think will be left after that time? Not a whole lot. Hence, the written mode described by Bokenkotter.
What we do know about the historical Jesus is known by research both from the bible and from many ancillary materials. One of the best books is John Dominic Crossan’s “The Historical Jesus: The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant”. We see from this that although Jesus was an unusual man, he was a man nonetheless, not a god-man or Savior.
It is a tragedy that latter day Evangelicals and others have collapsed the difference between the Jesus of history and faith, but that doesn’t improve their case at all. It onluy makes them look blinkered, naïve and gullible.
Most of the rest of Mike’s rants against the Church are either taken out of context, or simply recycle the misinformation and misrepresentation by Catholic hating fundie sects. They are really not much different in substance from the content I have already lacerated in the course of this article.
What they do show is that my brother is mostly a semi-literate “boob” when it comes to parsing the theological basis of the religion he left. If he wishes credibility he’d have done much better to back to his own catechetical instruction and use that – or re-research it – as opposed to lifting the words and screeds from Catholic hate mongers.
No comments:
Post a Comment