Cory Tucholski's original post can be found here:
http://josiahconcept.org/articles/catholic-mass/#comment-4107
Sean Hutton, on November 17th, 2007 at 11:38 pm Said:
I’d like to provide a response to your article here.
However, the apostle Paul seems to have a different slant on it: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1).
You assert that the Apostle Paul is effectively making out our own bodies to be the appropriate sacrifices and that this is a more appropriate fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi than the Mass.
Paul’s words can “fit better” with the language of the prediction and yet still not be intended as a response to that prediction. You may show how it is POSSIBLE for our bodies to be the sacrifices spoken of in Malachi, but I don’t see a definitive case.
What you are doing is assuming that “every place” in Malachi 1:10-11 must be understood in a literal sense, rather than in a hyperbolic sense. The sacred author has already made it clear that he believes that from the rising to the setting of the sun, the name of God will be great among the nations. The point here is that the entire world, where the sun is rising and where it is setting, are being discussed. Therefore, “every place” need not be taken literally in this context - the point being made is that such sacrifice can be made globally, even outside the promised land, and is not limited to that territory where the unacceptable offerings were being made.
Without your strict emphasis on a literal interpretation of “every place”, your main argument in favor of Romans 12:1 describing the fulfillment of Malachi 1:10-11 falls apart. For if “every place” is NOT literal, and is instead hyperbolic, as I have suggested, then it doesn’t matter if we can offer our bodies as living sacrifice in “more” locations than we can offer the Mass in.
Additionally, Paul does not indicate in Romans 12’s context that this is a fulfillment of Malachi 1:10-11 at all. So I’m curious as to why you pursue this line of reasoning other than your point regarding “every place.”
Additionally, Chapter 14 of the Didache shows a first century belief that the Eucharist, as a sacrifice, IS indeed the fulfillment of Malachi 1:10-11:
“But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Apparently one of the earliest examples of extrabiblical Christian thought on this topic in the Ante-Nicene period is in agreement with the Catechism, and not with your position on the application of Romans 12:1.
To be fair, Hebrews 13:15-16 also speaks of sacrifices that “potentially” could be seen as fulfilling the Malachi prophecy:
“Through him (then) let us continually offer God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have; God is pleased by sacrifices of that kind.”
The preceding verses also go with this scriptural idea of US being living sacrifices.
However, this is not conclusive evidence that we, or are sacrifices of praise, are to be seen as the fulfillments of Malachi 1:10-11.
I would have to say that the context of Malachi 1 does not appear to be…”disposed”…towards an interpretation like that which you have given.
Malachi 1 is talking about the altar sacrifices of Israel. While one cannot rule out sacrifices of a non-ministerial nature as being the antitypes, they do not appear to be likely. Are we supposed to believe that the NT antitype of OT sacrifices is going to be Christian self-sacrifice and the praise of confessing lips?
My problem with that is that these same sort of sacrifices are also mentioned in Hebrews 7-9 and the antitype of them is demonstrated to be Christ’s ministerial work as mediator…
Returning to Paul…
In 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, Paul makes an argument to the Corinthians as to why they should not consume the sacrificed meat of the pagans:
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.”
We are told that consuming both forms of the Eucharist is a participation in the body and blood of Christ.
Paul’s argument in this excerpt involves an analogy between the Eucharist and pagan sacrifices. That should already cause us to raise an eyebrow, and at least CONSIDER the possibility that, for Paul, the Eucharist is a sacrifice as well, especially when he says:
“Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?”
Wasn’t Paul just arguing that consuming the Eucharist makes us participants in the body and blood of Christ? This is a rather LARGE implication that the Eucharist is a sacrifice being compared to pagan sacrifices.
In verse 21, Paul makes use of the terms “table of the Lord” and “table of demons.” What is interesting is that we know that the “table of demons” is an Altar for two reasons:
1.) Verse 18 indicates that it is an altar.
2.) Since there are sacrifices made upon it, and since an altar is essentially a table upon which sacrifices are made and placed.
It is therefore a legitimate conclusion to think that the expression “table of demons” is referring to an altar. The question becomes whether the analogy that Paul is drawing also warrants thinking of the “table of the Lord” as an altar.
Paul’s analogy loses much of its force if the table of the Lord ISN’T an altar. We then have an analogy between a regular table upon which bread and wine are placed that involve a participation in Christ’s body and blood, and an altar upon which sacrifices of meat are placed that involve a participation with demons.
The analogy is much stronger, and makes contextual sense, if the table of the Lord is an altar. We then have a rather clear analogy between the table of the Lord and the table of demons - the idea being that if you eat the sacrifices on top of the altar then you participate with either Christ or with demons.
Further evidence is found in the very OT book that you were earlier mentioning - Malachi. In Malachi 1, the expression “table of the Lord” is used:
Malachi 1:7, “By offering polluted food on my altar! Then you ask, “How have we polluted it?” By saying the table of the LORD may be slighted!”
It thus appears to be very much the biblical case that the expression “table of the Lord” is a term to be understood in more than just a denotative sense. It is referring to an altar upon which sacrifices are made, therefore when Paul, a Jewish Pharisee, uses that expression, he is bringing up the example of an altar. The fact that he says, “look at ISRAEL according to the flesh” makes one think not just about pagan, Gentile sacrifices but also of those unacceptable Jewish sacrifices.
If the table of the Lord is an altar, then the Eucharist properly belongs on an altar. If that is the case, then is not the Eucharist a sacrifice?
The question is then, if it IS a sacrifice, what sort of sacrifice is it?
I must point out that it is also a sacrifice of spiritual food and spiritual drink, for that forms the basis of Paul’s typological argument in 1 Corinthians 10:3-4.
“All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.”
As for your comments regarding Catholic exegesis of John 6…
You said:
“So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life?”
So is it the case that you are interpreting this as Jesus retreating from the very literal points He was making previously? This is a necessary clarification?
If so, it was an unsuccessful clarification, for Jesus’ audience previously understood Him to be speaking literally. If John 6:63 was meant to be a disclaimer, then John 6:66 WOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED (that is, the disciples leaving because they couldn’t handle Jesus’ teaching).
I’m afraid that you are not reading John 6:63 with proper consideration given to other examples of Jesus using similar terminology.
Jesus is not using the term “flesh” here in the sense you describe. He is using it to refer to that pesky inclination of men to use their own, imperfect human judgment rather than the judgment of God. It refers to our propensity for thinking on a very natural, human level.
It doesn’t mean, “Guys, I was just speaking symbolically.”
It doesn’t mean, “Guys, my literal, physical flesh is of no avail.”
Consider, for example, John 8:15-16:
“You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.”
So Jesus’ point is that it is not by HUMAN REASON that His previous words in John 6 are to be understood and interpreted. That’s why He means by “spirit” in contrast to “flesh.”
If Jesus truly wanted to issue a retraction of His previous, rather literal words, or provide some sort of disclaimer, then He should have done so after the Jews were quarreling in verse 52:
“The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
But instead, Jesus just repeats that they must eat His flesh!
It is not until Jesus’ very own DISCIPLES question Jesus’ teaching in verse 60 that Jesus speaks of the spirit giving life and the flesh being of no avail:
“Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Only after this does Jesus ask if the teaching shocks them and say what He says in verse 63. Why? He’s ANSWERING THEIR QUESTION with regards to “who” can accept it. Only those aided by God can accept the truth that Jesus just revealed to both the Jews and His own inner circle of disciples.
Your assertion that “The language ties in perfectly” with the words of Paul in Romans 12:1 is far-fetched and is based upon your misinterpretation of John 6:63. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that you found any other connection besides the fact that one verse says “spirit” and the other verse says “spiritual.” Your argument, unfortunately, appears to be as desperate pleading, and I would very much like it if you were to clarify further. You can’t just take two verses that both talk about the spiritual and assume that they are somehow talking about the same thing - which is why I assume that there is more to your argument.
“All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob” (24:20-22).”
Curious. I’m afraid that this appears to me as very much a non sequitur.
John 6:49-51 is not about the Torah or the Mosaic system of the law. It’s about the manna. Jesus is teaching that the physical bread, the physical food given, was only enough for temporary physical sustenance, and the bread that He will give is of such a quality that if one “eats” of it, they will not die. The bread Jesus provides is the new mannah, its antitype.
“In the passage from Sirach, it states that those who eat of the Law will “hunger still” and “thirst for more,” the language of which is mirrored by Jesus when He says “He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty” (Jn 6:35, emphasis added).”
This is a reasonable connection for you to make, but the problem is that you have not ruled out the literal, realist interpretation. You interpret this as meaning that the ACT of coming to Jesus is the parallel with eating His flesh, with drinking His blood - and you don’t devote substantial keystrokes to the possibility that one WHO comes to Jesus WILL eat His flesh and drink His blood. That’s another grammatical possibility that you seem to simply dismiss.
So you are saying that “eat the flesh and drink the blood” means to believe?!?
I don’t see any evidence within the chapter that John 6:29 is effectively synonymous with, say, John 6:53.
For these reasons, I do not agree with you in your assessment that the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
Your interpretation does not touch upon the Paschal Lamb typology that is so obviously utilized in this chapter. I’ve noticed that most Protestant apologists tend to shy away from such an understanding, as it brings a greater legitimacy to the Catholic interpretation and sheds light on the extent to which Protestant theology is so remarkably incomplete in its typological understanding of Scripture.
Earlier in the Chapter we are given part of the setting; we are told in verse 4 that, “The Jewish feast of Passover was near.”
We all know what happens at the time of Passover. The Passover lambs would be slaughtered and sacrificed up to God.
That’s why Jesus utilizes this language of eating His flesh in the latter portion of chapter 6. He moves from the typology of the mannah to the typology of the Paschal Lamb.
What did one do to “participate” in the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb? One had to EAT the Lamb.
You couldn’t eat symbolic representations of the Lamb. You had to eat the Lamb. If it was the initial Passover, and you didn’t eat the Lamb, your firstborn would be dead come morning.
All the more reason for Jesus to insist that they NEEDED to eat the Lamb. Such an understanding is expressing in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8:
“Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
Our Lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed…so let’s celebrate the Feast, aka EAT THE LAMB.
Does Paul need to be more clear than this? He even does a little pun here with leaven and unleavened bread. He’s talking about the celebration of the Eucharist necessarily following the death of the Paschal Lamb. And in the Eucharist, what do we do in order for this feast to fulfill its typological requirements?
We EAT THE LAMB.
So, we definitely have the typological element at work here. I’m sure you are very familiar with the extent to which John’s Gospel treats Jesus as the Passover Lamb, a theme that is repeated in the Book of Revelation.
For Protestants to think that it is typologically required for the Lamb to be killed, yet not eaten, strikes me as extremely incomplete typology. What it suggests to me is that Protestants of the more Reformed or Zwinglian traditions rejected the Real Presence for other reasons while failing to consider the typological implications beforehand.
Returning more specifically to the text of John 6, there are a few factors that I’d like to focus upon.
1.) In verse 54, Jesus (or perhaps the Gospel author) changes the word being used from “phago” to “trogo.” Phago is the more typical, classical word in Koine Greek for eating. It literally means to devour, to consume, and it indeed has figurative application. However, “trogo” literally means to chew, to crunch, to munch and is typically used of animal eating. It is a word that literally scream “literal!” and I am not aware of any figurative applications of it. The fact that Jesus speaks with MORE, not less, literal language in John 6 makes it highly unlikely that He wished to be understood figuratively. This also goes against your point about verse 63, for it is even LESS believable to think that Jesus first was talking fairly figuratively, started stalking MORE literally, and then, after confusing His audience because of the literal angle of the conversation, finally ended with a disclaimer that He was being figurative the whole time, a disclaimer that apparently went right over their heads!!!
2.) You appear to be asserting, as I said before, that “eat the flesh and drink the blood” should be understood figuratively. There is a problem with this. That expression already had a fixed, figurative meaning among the Jews - it was as much a set idiom as when Jews said things like “X is tall among men” for lack of superlatives. It’s similar to our modern expression, “It’s raining cats and dogs” (which ironically is based upon historical reality) - the statement, when understood figuratively, carries a SPECIFIC meaning, in the case of that expression, the meaning that it is raining very hard.
So what WAS the meaning of “eat the flesh and drink the blood” among the Jews? I submit for evidence two biblical examples, one from the OT and one from the NT:
Micah 3:3, “They eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from them, and break their bones. They chop them in pieces like flesh in a kettle, and like meat in a caldron.”
Galatians 5:15, “But if you go on biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another.”
I assure you most wholeheartedly that neither Micah nor Paul was referring to cannibalism. They are using the cultural expression I spoke of, and it effectively means “to slander, to persecute.”
Therefore, if Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6, He would have been saying, “Persecute me.” Very, very improbably, nay, ridiculous.
As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215).
3.) You also appear to be under the impression - correct me if I am wrong - that “spiritual” means FIGURATIVE. Where does Scripture teach this? The word “spirit” is never used in the Bible in this manner, to the effect that “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” means “I am speaking figuratively, not literally.”
This is just a classic symptom of Protestant thinking in which symbols are separated from reality because the Protestant discovers that symbols are at work.
No Catholic, ever, would deny that the Eucharist is a symbol. It does NOT logically follow that the Eucharist cannot be literal as well. Both Tertullian and Augustine saw the Eucharist as a symbol, yet both of them believed in the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence.
Jesus’ words were “spirit” because they could only be understood spiritually, not carnally. Jesus wasn’t saying that His entire previous discourse was nothing more than a figurative tract, similar to one of His parables. You ARE aware that John’s Gospel stands out in that it doesn’t contain ANY of Jesus’ parables?
Furthermore, there is a great danger in thinking that spiritual means figurative. Paul may have said on numerous occassions that Jesus had a spiritual body, but in no way did Paul think that this meant that Jesus did not have a literal, physical, REAL body. Paul was very clear on this in his credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15. Ignatius of Antioch was similarly clear in his criciticm of the Gnostic Docetists…who rejected the Real Presence because they denied that Jesus had a real, physical body. And while Jesus has a spiritual body in the Gospel of John, it is still a real body.
“The Bible calls us to worship God in spirit and truth (Jn 14:17).”
Does this mean that we are to worship God figuratively? Of course not.
Additionally, I’d like to address another point about the proper interpretation of John 6…
In John 6, Jesus treats Himself - His flesh and Blood - as the antitype of the Manna in the desert. So, whatever you may think the flesh and blood respresent in John 6…they are an antitype.
Let’s return again to 1 Corinthians 10. Verses 3 and 4 speak of the antitypes of the mannah and the water from the rock as “spiritual food and drink.” And what is this spiritual food, and spiritual drink, for Paul?
Look no further than 1 Corinthians 10:16.
So we have from the teaching of Paul, the idea that the Eucharist is the antitype of the mannah…
…and we have from the teaching of John in his 6th chapter that Jesus’ flesh and blood is the antitype of the mannah…
Well, well, well.
What this means is that you are necessarily forced to see John 6’s references to Jesus telling us to, effectively, partake of the Eucharist, whether you believe that the Eucharist is just a symbol or not. It means that “eat the flesh = believe” must be thrown out the window.
Also, an interesting comment with regards to your useage of Romans 12:1, and factoring in my useage of Hebrews 13.
Why are we supposed to offer ourselves as living sacrifices?
Because Jesus did…and still does. Jesus offered Himself to God in a bloody manner upon the cross at Cavalry, and now offers Himself in a continual and unbloody manner, in a perpetual manner, for all eternity.
This is ESPECIALLY supported by Hebrews, contrary to the opinions of most Protestant apologists who, in my estimation, spend a lot of time saying that Hebrews goes against the Catholic understanding of the Mass, but precious little time PROVING that.
Hebrews 8 and 9 speaks of Jesus, the High Priest and Mediator of the New Covenant. And 8:3 says that He MUST have something to offer.
If His sacrifice is over in the “terminated” sense of Protestant theology, then what is there to offer?
Therefore, that understanding of termination is at odds with Hebrews, for Christ IS still offering something. Himself, as a holy and living sacrifice, providing the basis for us doing the same thing. Your bringing up of Romans 12:1 therefore helps Catholic Eucharistic theology more than you knew.
Chapters 8 and 9 make the typological parallel between Jesus the High Priest and Mediator and Moses the High Priest and Mediator. I assume you would agree with this.
However, at WHAT point does it draw the parallel?
Chapter 9 rather explicitly makes the parallel with regards to the offering of ALREADY SLAUGHTERED animals inside the respective sanctuary.
In the case of Moses, He sprinkled the blood of calves and goats upon the altar - a necessary action for the Mediator to make AFTER the death of the sacrificed animals. So what of Jesus?
Hebrews 9:11-12, “But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.”
Hebrews 9 is depicting Christ’s activity as mediator NOT on earth, but in Heaven, in the heavenly sanctuary that the earthy sanctuary could not compare to. Christ is mediator in that He is currently offering His sacrificed Body and Blood to the Father in Heaven. That is what the following verse continues to stress:
v. 15, “For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.”
He IS mediator of a new covenant, because He is eternally carrying out the heavenly equivalent of those actions performed by Moses in verses 19 through 22.
This understanding is completed in verses 23-24.
“Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf.”
When did Christ perform this purification? Not BEFORE Cavalry…but after. The “heavenly” things are purified by better sacrifices than those which occurred under the Old Covenant.
Notice also the plural - sacrifices. Christ’s sacrifice is described in the singular in verse 26. The presence of both singular and plural may very well indicate a single sacrifice that has many manifestations, that can be understood in such a manner - which would be quite in keeping with the Catholic understanding of the Mass, in which an “anamnesis” occurs by which Jesus’ sacrifice is “re-presented” across the globe.
Note that verse 24 says that Christ “now” appears before God on our behalf. His work as mediator of the New Covenant is ongoing, and continual.
We participate in this ongoing sacrifice in the very manner suggested by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16 - by eating the “bread” and drinking the “wine.” This is a true participation in Christ’s eternal, heavenly sacrifice because we are not eating bread or drinking wine, but actually partaking of the true sacrifice of Christ, His Body and Blood which suffered on Cavalry and which are offered to the Father in Heaven forever. The Passover has occurred, and we are called to partake in the feast, and eat the Lamb.
All this considered - and I offer my apologies if you deem this response too lengthy, but I had to be thorough given the subject matter and attention to detail required - I think it is very much the case that the Catholic position on the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist is QUITE biblical, and should be recognized as such.
Please, if you have the time provide me with a response, as I’m curious as to what your objections might be and I am anxious for your input.
Thank you for your time, and God bless.
- Sean
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment